Institution
Nagasaki University
Education•Nagasaki, Japan•
About: Nagasaki University is a education organization based out in Nagasaki, Japan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 17402 authors who have published 32465 publications receiving 660498 citations. The organization is also known as: Nagasaki daigaku.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Cancer, Antigen, Cell culture
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Baylor College of Medicine1, Chinese Academy of Sciences2, Chinese National Human Genome Center3, University of Hong Kong4, The Chinese University of Hong Kong5, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology6, Illumina7, McGill University8, Washington University in St. Louis9, University of California, San Francisco10, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute11, Beijing Normal University12, Health Sciences University of Hokkaido13, Shinshu University14, University of Tsukuba15, Howard University16, University of Ibadan17, Case Western Reserve University18, University of Utah19, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory20, Johns Hopkins University21, University of Oxford22, North Carolina State University23, National Institutes of Health24, Massachusetts Institute of Technology25, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences26, Kyoto University27, Nagasaki University28, Wellcome Trust29, Genome Canada30, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health31, University of Maryland, Baltimore32, Vanderbilt University33, Stanford University34, University of California, Berkeley35, New York University36, University of Oklahoma37, University of New Mexico38, Université de Montréal39, University of California, Los Angeles40, University of Michigan41, University of Wisconsin-Madison42, London School of Economics and Political Science43, Genetic Alliance44, GlaxoSmithKline45, University of Washington46, Harvard University47, University of Chicago48, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center49, University of Tokyo50
TL;DR: The HapMap will allow the discovery of sequence variants that affect common disease, will facilitate development of diagnostic tools, and will enhance the ability to choose targets for therapeutic intervention.
Abstract: The goal of the International HapMap Project is to determine the common patterns of DNA sequence variation in the human genome and to make this information freely available in the public domain. An international consortium is developing a map of these patterns across the genome by determining the genotypes of one million or more sequence variants, their frequencies and the degree of association between them, in DNA samples from populations with ancestry from parts of Africa, Asia and Europe. The HapMap will allow the discovery of sequence variants that affect common disease, will facilitate development of diagnostic tools, and will enhance our ability to choose targets for therapeutic intervention.
5,926 citations
27 Oct 2005
TL;DR: A public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted.
Abstract: Inherited genetic variation has a critical but as yet largely uncharacterized role in human disease. Here we report a public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted. These data document the generality of recombination hotspots, a block-like structure of linkage disequilibrium and low haplotype diversity, leading to substantial correlations of SNPs with many of their neighbours. We show how the HapMap resource can guide the design and analysis of genetic association studies, shed light on structural variation and recombination, and identify loci that may have been subject to natural selection during human evolution.
5,479 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
TL;DR: The Phase II HapMap is described, which characterizes over 3.1 million human single nucleotide polymorphisms genotyped in 270 individuals from four geographically diverse populations and includes 25–35% of common SNP variation in the populations surveyed, and increased differentiation at non-synonymous, compared to synonymous, SNPs is demonstrated.
Abstract: We describe the Phase II HapMap, which characterizes over 3.1 million human single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 270 individuals from four geographically diverse populations and includes 25-35% of common SNP variation in the populations surveyed. The map is estimated to capture untyped common variation with an average maximum r2 of between 0.9 and 0.96 depending on population. We demonstrate that the current generation of commercial genome-wide genotyping products captures common Phase II SNPs with an average maximum r2 of up to 0.8 in African and up to 0.95 in non-African populations, and that potential gains in power in association studies can be obtained through imputation. These data also reveal novel aspects of the structure of linkage disequilibrium. We show that 10-30% of pairs of individuals within a population share at least one region of extended genetic identity arising from recent ancestry and that up to 1% of all common variants are untaggable, primarily because they lie within recombination hotspots. We show that recombination rates vary systematically around genes and between genes of different function. Finally, we demonstrate increased differentiation at non-synonymous, compared to synonymous, SNPs, resulting from systematic differences in the strength or efficacy of natural selection between populations.
4,565 citations
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
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 17453 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Hui-Ming Cheng | 147 | 880 | 111921 |
James F. Gusella | 126 | 614 | 74289 |
Akihiko Yoshimura | 117 | 514 | 50270 |
Olivier Hermine | 111 | 1026 | 43779 |
Seiji Shinkai | 103 | 1158 | 48059 |
Naoyuki Taniguchi | 96 | 848 | 37506 |
Yasuni Nakanuma | 94 | 828 | 41738 |
H. Phillip Koeffler | 92 | 479 | 29428 |
Chao-Jun Li | 92 | 731 | 38074 |
Kozo Nakamura | 90 | 704 | 32811 |
Ben Armstrong | 89 | 331 | 27055 |
Mark H. Pollack | 89 | 464 | 26511 |
Yoshiharu Matsuura | 88 | 418 | 33138 |
Robert M. Malina | 88 | 691 | 38277 |
Yasuhiko Tabata | 85 | 442 | 25211 |