scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Mannheim University of Applied Sciences

EducationMannheim, Germany
About: Mannheim University of Applied Sciences is a education organization based out in Mannheim, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Mass spectrometry imaging & MALDI imaging. The organization has 593 authors who have published 779 publications receiving 19248 citations. The organization is also known as: FH Mannheim & Mannheim College.


Papers
More filters
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
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

1,129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: How far state-of-the-art deep learning methods can go at assessing CMRI, i.e., segmenting the myocardium and the two ventricles as well as classifying pathologies is measured, to open the door to highly accurate and fully automatic analysis of cardiac CMRI.
Abstract: Delineation of the left ventricular cavity, myocardium, and right ventricle from cardiac magnetic resonance images (multi-slice 2-D cine MRI) is a common clinical task to establish diagnosis. The automation of the corresponding tasks has thus been the subject of intense research over the past decades. In this paper, we introduce the “Automatic Cardiac Diagnosis Challenge” dataset (ACDC), the largest publicly available and fully annotated dataset for the purpose of cardiac MRI (CMR) assessment. The dataset contains data from 150 multi-equipments CMRI recordings with reference measurements and classification from two medical experts. The overarching objective of this paper is to measure how far state-of-the-art deep learning methods can go at assessing CMRI, i.e., segmenting the myocardium and the two ventricles as well as classifying pathologies. In the wake of the 2017 MICCAI-ACDC challenge, we report results from deep learning methods provided by nine research groups for the segmentation task and four groups for the classification task. Results show that the best methods faithfully reproduce the expert analysis, leading to a mean value of 0.97 correlation score for the automatic extraction of clinical indices and an accuracy of 0.96 for automatic diagnosis. These results clearly open the door to highly accurate and fully automatic analysis of cardiac CMRI. We also identify scenarios for which deep learning methods are still failing. Both the dataset and detailed results are publicly available online, while the platform will remain open for new submissions.

1,056 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Glycerol bioconversion in valuable chemicals, such as 1,3-propanediol, dihydroxyacetone, ethanol, succinate etc. is discussed in this review article.

1,031 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
11 Jun 1999-Science
TL;DR: In cultured cortical neurons, suppressing the expression of the N MDAR scaffolding protein PSD-95 selectively attenuated excitotoxicity triggered via NMDARs, but not by other glutamate or calcium ion (Ca2+) channels.
Abstract: The efficiency with whichN-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) trigger intracellular signaling pathways governs neuronal plasticity, development, senescence, and disease. In cultured cortical neurons, suppressing the expression of the NMDAR scaffolding protein PSD-95 (postsynaptic density–95) selectively attenuated excitotoxicity triggered via NMDARs, but not by other glutamate or calcium ion (Ca2+) channels. NMDAR function was unaffected, because receptor expression, NMDA currents, and 45Ca2+loading were unchanged. Suppressing PSD-95 blocked Ca2+-activated nitric oxide production by NMDARs selectively, without affecting neuronal nitric oxide synthase expression or function. Thus, PSD-95 is required for efficient coupling of NMDAR activity to nitric oxide toxicity, and imparts specificity to excitotoxic Ca2+ signaling.

836 citations


Authors

Showing all 597 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Ronald R. Breaker9825734496
Norbert Gretz6034311308
Michael Christ502278653
Martin Wehling502659771
Carsten Sticht401666030
Carsten Hopf351237121
Dirk Breitkreutz35717334
Roger Sandhoff32763603
Ivo Wolf301554636
Mathias Hafner29933273
Petra Kioschis28545447
Tobias Werner27661941
Ralf Lösel26383220
Rüdiger Rudolf25722914
Martin Feuring25775042
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Technische Universität München
123.4K papers, 4M citations

87% related

University of Freiburg
77.2K papers, 2.8M citations

86% related

University of Tübingen
84.1K papers, 3M citations

84% related

University of Hamburg
89.2K papers, 2.8M citations

83% related

Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
161.5K papers, 5.7M citations

83% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20232
20228
202187
202074
201986
201873