scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Medical Research Council

GovernmentLondon, 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
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, 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 selfefficacy, 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.

5,077 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Endothelial dysfunction is present in children and adults with risk factors for atherosclerosis, such as smoking and hypercholesterolaemia, before anatomical evidence of plaque formation in the arteries studied, suggesting this may be an important early event in atherogenesis.

4,662 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe physical activity levels worldwide with data for adults (15 years or older) from 122 countries and for adolescents (13-15-years-old) from 105 countries.

4,373 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

Journal ArticleDOI
11 May 2007-Science
TL;DR: A genome-wide search for type 2 diabetes–susceptibility genes identified a common variant in the FTO (fat mass and obesity associated) gene that predisposes to diabetes through an effect on body mass index (BMI).
Abstract: Obesity is a serious international health problem that increases the risk of several common diseases. The genetic factors predisposing to obesity are poorly understood. A genome-wide search for type 2 diabetes-susceptibility genes identified a common variant in the FTO (fat mass and obesity associated) gene that predisposes to diabetes through an effect on body mass index (BMI). An additive association of the variant with BMI was replicated in 13 cohorts with 38,759 participants. The 16% of adults who are homozygous for the risk allele weighed about 3 kilograms more and had 1.67-fold increased odds of obesity when compared with those not inheriting a risk allele. This association was observed from age 7 years upward and reflects a specific increase in fat mass.

4,184 citations


Authors

Showing all 16441 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Shizuo Akira2611308320561
Trevor W. Robbins2311137164437
Richard A. Flavell2311328205119
George Davey Smith2242540248373
Nicholas J. Wareham2121657204896
Cyrus Cooper2041869206782
Martin White1962038232387
Frank E. Speizer193636135891
Michael Rutter188676151592
Richard Peto183683231434
Terrie E. Moffitt182594150609
Kay-Tee Khaw1741389138782
Chris D. Frith173524130472
Phillip A. Sharp172614117126
Avshalom Caspi170524113583
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

94% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

92% related

Karolinska Institutet
121.1K papers, 6M citations

92% related

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

92% related

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

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20236
20229
2021262
2020243
2019231
2018309