Institution
Medical University of Graz
Education•Graz, Steiermark, Austria•
About: Medical University of Graz is a education organization based out in Graz, Steiermark, Austria. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 5684 authors who have published 12349 publications receiving 417282 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Theo Vos1, Amanuel Alemu Abajobir, Kalkidan Hassen Abate2, Cristiana Abbafati3 +775 more•Institutions (305)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) provides a comprehensive assessment of prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 328 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016.
10,401 citations
••
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4 +1025 more•Institutions (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
••
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
••
Imperial College London1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Alberta3, Boston Children's Hospital4, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital5, University of Sydney6, University of Giessen7, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre8, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign9, Medical University of Graz10, Vanderbilt University Medical Center11, University of São Paulo12
TL;DR: In this paper, a clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension (PH) was established, categorizing PH into groups which share similar pathological and hemodynamic characteristics and therapeutic approaches, and the main change was to withdraw persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) from Group 1 because this entity carries more differences than similarities with other PAH subgroups.
4,135 citations
••
University College London1, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia2, VU University Medical Center3, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital4, National Multiple Sclerosis Society5, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University6, Medical University of Graz7, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute8, Fukushima Medical University9, New York University10, University of Düsseldorf11, University of Basel12, Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis13, University of Manitoba14, St. Michael's Hospital15, Hebron University16, Johns Hopkins University17, University of Copenhagen18, University of British Columbia19, University of Bari20, French Institute of Health and Medical Research21, Claude Bernard University Lyon 122, University of California, San Francisco23, Mayo Clinic24, Salisbury University25, Cleveland Clinic26
TL;DR: The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation.
Abstract: The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.
3,945 citations
Authors
Showing all 5763 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
James F. Wilson | 146 | 677 | 101883 |
Nancy L. Pedersen | 145 | 890 | 94696 |
William Wijns | 127 | 752 | 95517 |
Andrew Simmons | 102 | 460 | 36608 |
Franz Fazekas | 101 | 629 | 49775 |
Hans-Peter Hartung | 100 | 810 | 49792 |
Michael Trauner | 98 | 667 | 35543 |
Dietmar Fuchs | 97 | 1119 | 39758 |
Funda Meric-Bernstam | 96 | 753 | 36803 |
Ulf Landmesser | 94 | 564 | 46096 |
Aysegul A. Sahin | 93 | 322 | 30038 |
Frank Madeo | 92 | 269 | 45942 |
Takayoshi Ohkubo | 91 | 631 | 69634 |
Jürgen C. Becker | 90 | 637 | 28741 |