National Research Council

About: National Research Council is a government organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Laser. The organization has 36517 authors who have published 76001 publications receiving 2437211 citations. The organization is also known as: the National Academies & National Research Council.

Genome-Wide Insertional Mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana

Abstract: Over 225,000 independent Agrobacterium transferred DNA (T-DNA) insertion events in the genome of the reference plant Arabidopsis thaliana have been created that represent near saturation of the gene space. The precise locations were determined for more than 88,000 T-DNA insertions, which resulted in the identification of mutations in more than 21,700 of the approximately 29,454 predicted Arabidopsis genes. Genome-wide analysis of the distribution of integration events revealed the existence of a large integration site bias at both the chromosome and gene levels. Insertion mutations were identified in genes that are regulated in response to the plant hormone ethylene.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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.

First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results

Abstract: We present full sky microwave maps in five frequency bands (23 to 94 GHz) from the WMAP first year sky survey. Calibration errors are less than 0.5% and the low systematic error level is well specified. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is separated from the foregrounds using multifrequency data. The sky maps are consistent with the 7 in. full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) maps. We report more precise, but consistent, dipole and quadrupole values. The CMB anisotropy obeys Gaussian statistics with -58 less than f(sub NL) less than 134 (95% CL). The 2 less than or = l less than or = 900 anisotropy power spectrum is cosmic variance limited for l less than 354 with a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 1 per mode to l = 658. The temperature-polarization cross-power spectrum reveals both acoustic features and a large angle correlation from reionization. The optical depth of reionization is tau = 0.17 +/- 0.04, which implies a reionization epoch of t(sub r) = 180(sup +220, sub -80) Myr (95% CL) after the Big Bang at a redshift of z(sub r) = 20(sup +10, sub -9) (95% CL) for a range of ionization scenarios. This early reionization is incompatible with the presence of a significant warm dark matter density. A best-fit cosmological model to the CMB and other measures of large scale structure works remarkably well with only a few parameters. The age of the best-fit universe is t(sub 0) = 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr old. Decoupling was t(sub dec) = 379(sup +8, sub -7)kyr after the Big Bang at a redshift of z(sub dec) = 1089 +/- 1. The thickness of the decoupling surface was Delta(sub z(sub dec)) = 195 +/- 2. The matter density of the universe is Omega(sub m)h(sup 2) = 0.135(sup +0.008, sub -0.009) the baryon density is Omega(sub b)h(sup 2) = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009, and the total mass-energy of the universe is Omega(sub tot) = 1.02 +/- 0.02. There is progressively less fluctuation power on smaller scales, from WMAP to fine scale CMB measurements to galaxies and finally to the Ly-alpha forest. This is accounted for with a running spectral index, significant at the approx. 2(sigma) level. The spectral index of scalar fluctuations is fit as n(sub s) = 0.93 +/-0.03 at wavenumber k(sub o) = 0.05/Mpc ((sub eff) approx. = 700), with a slope of dn(sub s)/d I(sub nk) = -0.031(sup + 0.016, sub -0.018) in the best-fit model.

Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews

Abstract: This paper presents a simple unsupervised learning algorithm for classifying reviews as recommended (thumbs up) or not recommended (thumbs down). The classification of a review is predicted by the average semantic orientation of the phrases in the review that contain adjectives or adverbs. A phrase has a positive semantic orientation when it has good associations (e.g., "subtle nuances") and a negative semantic orientation when it has bad associations (e.g., "very cavalier"). In this paper, the semantic orientation of a phrase is calculated as the mutual information between the given phrase and the word "excellent" minus the mutual information between the given phrase and the word "poor". A review is classified as recommended if the average semantic orientation of its phrases is positive. The algorithm achieves an average accuracy of 74% when evaluated on 410 reviews from Epinions, sampled from four different domains (reviews of automobiles, banks, movies, and travel destinations). The accuracy ranges from 84% for automobile reviews to 66% for movie reviews.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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.