scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Karolinska Institutet

EducationStockholm, Sweden
About: Karolinska Institutet is a education organization based out in Stockholm, Sweden. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 46212 authors who have published 121142 publications receiving 6008130 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
28 Aug 2015-Science
TL;DR: A large-scale assessment suggests that experimental reproducibility in psychology leaves a lot to be desired, and correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
Abstract: Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

5,532 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4  +1025 moreInstitutions (333)
TL;DR: Non-communicable diseases comprised the greatest fraction of deaths, contributing to 73·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 72·5–74·1) of total deaths in 2017, while communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes accounted for 18·6% (17·9–19·6), and injuries 8·0% (7·7–8·2).

5,211 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
25 Sep 2003-Nature
TL;DR: The two RNase III proteins, Drosha and Dicer, may collaborate in the stepwise processing of miRNAs, and have key roles in miRNA-mediated gene regulation in processes such as development and differentiation.
Abstract: Hundreds of small RNAs of approximately 22 nucleotides, collectively named microRNAs (miRNAs), have been discovered recently in animals and plants. Although their functions are being unravelled, their mechanism of biogenesis remains poorly understood. miRNAs are transcribed as long primary transcripts (pri-miRNAs) whose maturation occurs through sequential processing events: the nuclear processing of the pri-miRNAs into stem-loop precursors of approximately 70 nucleotides (pre-miRNAs), and the cytoplasmic processing of pre-miRNAs into mature miRNAs. Dicer, a member of the RNase III superfamily of bidentate nucleases, mediates the latter step, whereas the processing enzyme for the former step is unknown. Here we identify another RNase III, human Drosha, as the core nuclease that executes the initiation step of miRNA processing in the nucleus. Immunopurified Drosha cleaved pri-miRNA to release pre-miRNA in vitro. Furthermore, RNA interference of Drosha resulted in the strong accumulation of pri-miRNA and the reduction of pre-miRNA and mature miRNA in vivo. Thus, the two RNase III proteins, Drosha and Dicer, may collaborate in the stepwise processing of miRNAs, and have key roles in miRNA-mediated gene regulation in processes such as development and differentiation.

5,191 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos1, Christine Allen1, Megha Arora1, Ryan M Barber1  +696 moreInstitutions (260)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015) as discussed by the authors was used to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015.

5,050 citations


Authors

Showing all 46522 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Guido Kroemer2361404246571
Eric B. Rimm196988147119
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Jing Wang1844046202769
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
John Hardy1771178171694
Marc G. Caron17367499802
Ramachandran S. Vasan1721100138108
Adrian L. Harris1701084120365
Douglas F. Easton165844113809
Zulfiqar A Bhutta1651231169329
Judah Folkman165499148611
Ralph A. DeFronzo160759132993
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

94% related

French Institute of Health and Medical Research
174.2K papers, 8.3M citations

94% related

Lund University
124.6K papers, 5M citations

93% related

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
79.2K papers, 4.7M citations

93% related

University of Copenhagen
149.7K papers, 5.9M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023101
2022500
20217,763
20206,922
20196,057
20185,548