Institution
Medical Research Council
Government•London, United Kingdom•
About: Medical Research Council is a government organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Malaria. The organization has 16430 authors who have published 19150 publications receiving 1475494 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.
5,792 citations
••
TL;DR: How and why various modern computing concepts, such as object-orientation and run-time linking, feature in the software's design are discussed and how the framework may be extended.
Abstract: WinBUGS is a fully extensible modular framework for constructing and analysing Bayesian full probability models. Models may be specified either textually via the BUGS language or pictorially using a graphical interface called DoodleBUGS. WinBUGS processes the model specification and constructs an object-oriented representation of the model. The software offers a user-interface, based on dialogue boxes and menu commands, through which the model may then be analysed using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. In this paper we discuss how and why various modern computing concepts, such as object-orientation and run-time linking, feature in the software's design. We also discuss how the framework may be extended. It is possible to write specific applications that form an apparently seamless interface with WinBUGS for users with specialized requirements. It is also possible to interface with WinBUGS at a lower level by incorporating new object types that may be used by WinBUGS without knowledge of the modules in which they are implemented. Neither of these types of extension require access to, or even recompilation of, the WinBUGS source-code.
5,620 citations
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: The concept of mechanisms that protect people against the psychological risks associated with adversity is discussed in relation to four main processes: reduction of risk impact, reduction of negative chain reactions, establishment and maintenance of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and opening up of opportunities.
Abstract: The concept of mechanisms that protect people against the psychological risks associated with adversity is discussed in relation to four main processes: reduction of risk impact, reduction of negative chain reactions, establishment and maintenance of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and opening up of opportunities. The mechanisms operating at key turning points in people's lives must be given special attention.
5,519 citations
•
01 Jan 1958TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe a transition between behaviourist learning theory and the modern information processing or cognitive approach to perception and communication skills, and provide a principal starting point for theoretical and experimental work on selective attention.
Abstract: First published in 1958, this book has become recognized as a classic in its field. It marked a transition between behaviourist learning theory and the modern 'information processing' or 'cognitive' approach to perception and communication skills. It continues to provide a principal starting point for theoretical and experimental work on selective attention. As Professor Posner writes in his Foreword to the reissue: 'it remains of great interest to view the work in its original form and to ponder those creative moments when the mind first grasps a new insight and then struggles to work out its consequences.
5,325 citations
••
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
Authors
Showing all 16441 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Shizuo Akira | 261 | 1308 | 320561 |
Trevor W. Robbins | 231 | 1137 | 164437 |
Richard A. Flavell | 231 | 1328 | 205119 |
George Davey Smith | 224 | 2540 | 248373 |
Nicholas J. Wareham | 212 | 1657 | 204896 |
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Martin White | 196 | 2038 | 232387 |
Frank E. Speizer | 193 | 636 | 135891 |
Michael Rutter | 188 | 676 | 151592 |
Richard Peto | 183 | 683 | 231434 |
Terrie E. Moffitt | 182 | 594 | 150609 |
Kay-Tee Khaw | 174 | 1389 | 138782 |
Chris D. Frith | 173 | 524 | 130472 |
Phillip A. Sharp | 172 | 614 | 117126 |
Avshalom Caspi | 170 | 524 | 113583 |