Institution
North Shore-LIJ Health System
Healthcare•New Hyde Park, New York, United States•
About: North Shore-LIJ Health System is a healthcare organization based out in New Hyde Park, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Schizophrenia. The organization has 3554 authors who have published 3791 publications receiving 271034 citations.
Topics: Population, Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, Cancer, Psychosis
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Associations at DRD2 and several genes involved in glutamatergic neurotransmission highlight molecules of known and potential therapeutic relevance to schizophrenia, and are consistent with leading pathophysiological hypotheses.
Abstract: Schizophrenia is a highly heritable disorder. Genetic risk is conferred by a large number of alleles, including common alleles of small effect that might be detected by genome-wide association studies. Here we report a multi-stage schizophrenia genome-wide association study of up to 36,989 cases and 113,075 controls. We identify 128 independent associations spanning 108 conservatively defined loci that meet genome-wide significance, 83 of which have not been previously reported. Associations were enriched among genes expressed in brain, providing biological plausibility for the findings. Many findings have the potential to provide entirely new insights into aetiology, but associations at DRD2 and several genes involved in glutamatergic neurotransmission highlight molecules of known and potential therapeutic relevance to schizophrenia, and are consistent with leading pathophysiological hypotheses. Independent of genes expressed in brain, associations were enriched among genes expressed in tissues that have important roles in immunity, providing support for the speculated link between the immune system and schizophrenia.
6,809 citations
••
University of Miami1, New York University2, Stanford University3, University of Michigan4, George Washington University5, Indiana University6, University of Pittsburgh7, Queen's University8, North Shore-LIJ Health System9, Johns Hopkins University10, SUNY Downstate Medical Center11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University of Florida13, Harvard University14, Boston University15, Case Western Reserve University16, Washington University in St. Louis17, Menorah Medical Center18, Stony Brook University19, University of Kansas20
TL;DR: Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes and these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.
Abstract: For the purposes of classification, it should be specified whether osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is of unknown origin (idiopathic, primary) or is related to a known medical condition or event (secondary). Clinical criteria for the classification of idiopathic OA of the knee were developed through a multicenter study group. Comparison diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and other painful conditions of the knee, exclusive of referred or para-articular pain. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes. In contrast to prior criteria, these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.
6,160 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: Detailed deletion and expression analysis shows that miR15 and miR16 are located within a 30-kb region of loss in CLL, and that both genes are deleted or down-regulated in the majority (≈68%) of CLL cases.
Abstract: Micro-RNAs (miR genes) are a large family of highly conserved noncoding genes thought to be involved in temporal and tissue-specific gene regulation MiRs are transcribed as short hairpin precursors (≈70 nt) and are processed into active 21- to 22-nt RNAs by Dicer, a ribonuclease that recognizes target mRNAs via base-pairing interactions Here we show that miR15 and miR16 are located at chromosome 13q14, a region deleted in more than half of B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemias (B-CLL) Detailed deletion and expression analysis shows that miR15 and miR16 are located within a 30-kb region of loss in CLL, and that both genes are deleted or down-regulated in the majority (≈68%) of CLL cases
5,113 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 3601 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Howard I. Scher | 151 | 944 | 101737 |
Robert C. Gallo | 145 | 825 | 68212 |
Ralph L. Sacco | 138 | 829 | 131687 |
Kevin J. Tracey | 138 | 561 | 82791 |
John M. Kane | 125 | 752 | 60886 |
Peter K. Gregersen | 124 | 451 | 60278 |
David I. Bernstein | 108 | 716 | 48290 |
Robert H. Young | 107 | 617 | 37994 |
Peter Davies | 107 | 722 | 56141 |
Mark S. George | 106 | 592 | 39480 |
Randi J Hagerman | 106 | 592 | 37643 |
Michael J. Birrer | 102 | 554 | 54218 |
Lewis J. Rubin | 101 | 370 | 57044 |
Christoph U. Correll | 100 | 755 | 37523 |
Robert G. Maki | 100 | 416 | 39234 |