scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine

FacilityBerlin, Germany
About: Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine is a facility organization based out in Berlin, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Gene & Receptor. The organization has 4537 authors who have published 7265 publications receiving 553753 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Eric S. Lander1, Lauren Linton1, Bruce W. Birren1, Chad Nusbaum1  +245 moreInstitutions (29)
15 Feb 2001-Nature
TL;DR: The results of an international collaboration to produce and make freely available a draft sequence of the human genome are reported and an initial analysis is presented, describing some of the insights that can be gleaned from the sequence.
Abstract: The human genome holds an extraordinary trove of information about human development, physiology, medicine and evolution. Here we report the results of an international collaboration to produce and make freely available a draft sequence of the human genome. We also present an initial analysis of the data, describing some of the insights that can be gleaned from the sequence.

22,269 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Mar 2013-Nature
TL;DR: It is found that a human circRNA, antisense to the cerebellar degeneration-related protein 1 transcript (CDR1as), is densely bound by microRNA (miRNA) effector complexes and harbours 63 conserved binding sites for the ancient miRNA miR-7.
Abstract: Circular RNAs (circRNAs) in animals are an enigmatic class of RNA with unknown function. To explore circRNAs systematically, we sequenced and computationally analysed human, mouse and nematode RNA. We detected thousands of well-expressed, stable circRNAs, often showing tissue/developmental-stage-specific expression. Sequence analysis indicated important regulatory functions for circRNAs. We found that a human circRNA, antisense to the cerebellar degeneration-related protein 1 transcript (CDR1as), is densely bound by microRNA (miRNA) effector complexes and harbours 63 conserved binding sites for the ancient miRNA miR-7. Further analyses indicated that CDR1as functions to bind miR-7 in neuronal tissues. Human CDR1as expression in zebrafish impaired midbrain development, similar to knocking down miR-7, suggesting that CDR1as is a miRNA antagonist with a miRNA-binding capacity ten times higher than any other known transcript. Together, our data provide evidence that circRNAs form a large class of post-transcriptional regulators. Numerous circRNAs form by head-to-tail splicing of exons, suggesting previously unrecognized regulatory potential of coding sequences.

5,922 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
19 May 2011-Nature
TL;DR: Using a quantitative model, the first genome-scale prediction of synthesis rates of mRNAs and proteins is obtained and it is found that the cellular abundance of proteins is predominantly controlled at the level of translation.
Abstract: Gene expression is a multistep process that involves the transcription, translation and turnover of messenger RNAs and proteins. Although it is one of the most fundamental processes of life, the entire cascade has never been quantified on a genome-wide scale. Here we simultaneously measured absolute mRNA and protein abundance and turnover by parallel metabolic pulse labelling for more than 5,000 genes in mammalian cells. Whereas mRNA and protein levels correlated better than previously thought, corresponding half-lives showed no correlation. Using a quantitative model we have obtained the first genome-scale prediction of synthesis rates of mRNAs and proteins. We find that the cellular abundance of proteins is predominantly controlled at the level of translation. Genes with similar combinations of mRNA and protein stability shared functional properties, indicating that half-lives evolved under energetic and dynamic constraints. Quantitative information about all stages of gene expression provides a rich resource and helps to provide a greater understanding of the underlying design principles.

5,635 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
14 Oct 1999-Nature
TL;DR: It is shown that expression of CCR7, a chemokine receptor that controls homing to secondary lymphoid organs, divides human memory T cells into two functionally distinct subsets, which are named central memory (TCM) and effector memory (TEM).
Abstract: Naive T lymphocytes travel to T-cell areas of secondary lymphoid organs in search of antigen presented by dendritic cells. Once activated, they proliferate vigorously, generating effector cells that can migrate to B-cell areas or to inflamed tissues. A fraction of primed T lymphocytes persists as circulating memory cells that can confer protection and give, upon secondary challenge, a qualitatively different and quantitatively enhanced response. The nature of the cells that mediate the different facets of immunological memory remains unresolved. Here we show that expression of CCR7, a chemokine receptor that controls homing to secondary lymphoid organs, divides human memory T cells into two functionally distinct subsets. CCR7- memory cells express receptors for migration to inflamed tissues and display immediate effector function. In contrast, CCR7+ memory cells express lymph-node homing receptors and lack immediate effector function, but efficiently stimulate dendritic cells and differentiate into CCR7- effector cells upon secondary stimulation. The CCR7+ and CCR7- T cells, which we have named central memory (TCM) and effector memory (TEM), differentiate in a step-wise fashion from naive T cells, persist for years after immunization and allow a division of labour in the memory response.

5,537 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

4,316 citations


Authors

Showing all 4565 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Peer Bork206697245427
Gregg L. Semenza168502130316
Klaus Rajewsky15450488793
Paul Tempst14830989225
Kjell Fuxe142147989846
Wei Chen122194689460
Sarah Spiegel12040548937
Stefan D. Anker117415104945
Friedrich C. Luft113109547619
Arne Holmgren11340744645
Tom A. Rapoport11227941685
Peter Nürnberg11266343838
Peter Valent111102851923
Hans J. Vogel111126062846
Christian Büchel11047646481
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

95% related

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
34.6K papers, 5.2M citations

95% related

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
75.2K papers, 4.4M citations

94% related

Scripps Research Institute
32.8K papers, 2.9M citations

94% related

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

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20236
202243
2021561
2020468
2019368
2018380