scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Northwestern University

EducationEvanston, Illinois, United States
About: Northwestern University is a education organization based out in Evanston, Illinois, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 75430 authors who have published 188857 publications receiving 9463252 citations. The organization is also known as: Northwestern & NU.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN as mentioned in this paper was designed to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1)
Abstract: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector is described. The detector operates at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. It was conceived to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1) (10(27)cm(-2)s(-1)). At the core of the CMS detector sits a high-magnetic-field and large-bore superconducting solenoid surrounding an all-silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead-tungstate scintillating-crystals electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass-scintillator sampling hadron calorimeter. The iron yoke of the flux-return is instrumented with four stations of muon detectors covering most of the 4 pi solid angle. Forward sampling calorimeters extend the pseudo-rapidity coverage to high values (vertical bar eta vertical bar <= 5) assuring very good hermeticity. The overall dimensions of the CMS detector are a length of 21.6 m, a diameter of 14.6 m and a total weight of 12500 t.

5,193 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
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

Journal ArticleDOI
K. Hagiwara, Ken Ichi Hikasa1, Koji Nakamura, Masaharu Tanabashi1, M. Aguilar-Benitez, Claude Amsler2, R. M. Barnett3, Patricia R. Burchat4, C. D. Carone5, C. Caso, G. Conforto6, Olav Dahl3, Michael Doser7, Semen Eidelman8, Jonathan L. Feng9, L. K. Gibbons10, Maury Goodman11, Christoph Grab12, D. E. Groom3, Atul Gurtu13, Atul Gurtu7, K. G. Hayes14, J. J. Herna`ndez-Rey15, K. Honscheid16, Christopher Kolda17, Michelangelo L. Mangano7, David Manley18, Aneesh V. Manohar19, John March-Russell7, Alberto Masoni, Ramon Miquel3, Klaus Mönig, Hitoshi Murayama3, Hitoshi Murayama20, S. Sánchez Navas12, Keith A. Olive21, Luc Pape7, C. Patrignani, A. Piepke22, Matts Roos23, John Terning24, Nils A. Tornqvist23, T. G. Trippe3, Petr Vogel25, C. G. Wohl3, Ron L. Workman26, W-M. Yao3, B. Armstrong3, P. S. Gee3, K. S. Lugovsky, S. B. Lugovsky, V. S. Lugovsky, Marina Artuso27, D. Asner28, K. S. Babu29, E. L. Barberio7, Marco Battaglia7, H. Bichsel30, O. Biebel31, Philippe Bloch7, Robert N. Cahn3, Ariella Cattai7, R. S. Chivukula32, R. Cousins33, G. A. Cowan34, Thibault Damour35, K. Desler, R. J. Donahue3, D. A. Edwards, Victor Daniel Elvira, Jens Erler36, V. V. Ezhela, A Fassò7, W. Fetscher12, Brian D. Fields37, B. Foster38, Daniel Froidevaux7, Masataka Fukugita39, Thomas K. Gaisser40, L. Garren, H.-J. Gerber12, Frederick J. Gilman41, Howard E. Haber42, C. A. Hagmann28, J.L. Hewett4, Ian Hinchliffe3, Craig J. Hogan30, G. Höhler43, P. Igo-Kemenes44, John David Jackson3, Kurtis F Johnson45, D. Karlen, B. Kayser, S. R. Klein3, Konrad Kleinknecht46, I.G. Knowles47, P. Kreitz4, Yu V. Kuyanov, R. Landua7, Paul Langacker36, L. S. Littenberg48, Alan D. Martin49, Tatsuya Nakada7, Tatsuya Nakada50, Meenakshi Narain32, Paolo Nason, John A. Peacock47, Helen R. Quinn4, Stuart Raby16, Georg G. Raffelt31, E. A. Razuvaev, B. Renk46, L. Rolandi7, Michael T Ronan3, L.J. Rosenberg51, Christopher T. Sachrajda52, A. I. Sanda53, Subir Sarkar54, Michael Schmitt55, O. Schneider50, Douglas Scott56, W. G. Seligman57, Michael H. Shaevitz57, Torbjörn Sjöstrand58, George F. Smoot3, Stefan M Spanier4, H. Spieler3, N. J. C. Spooner59, Mark Srednicki60, A. Stahl, Todor Stanev40, M. Suzuki3, N. P. Tkachenko, German Valencia61, K. van Bibber28, Manuella Vincter62, D. R. Ward63, Bryan R. Webber63, M R Whalley49, Lincoln Wolfenstein41, J. Womersley, C. L. Woody48, O. V. Zenin 
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Urbino6, CERN7, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics8, University of California, Irvine9, Cornell University10, Argonne National Laboratory11, ETH Zurich12, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research13, Hillsdale College14, Spanish National Research Council15, Ohio State University16, University of Notre Dame17, Kent State University18, University of California, San Diego19, University of California, Berkeley20, University of Minnesota21, University of Alabama22, University of Helsinki23, Los Alamos National Laboratory24, California Institute of Technology25, George Washington University26, Syracuse University27, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory28, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater29, University of Washington30, Max Planck Society31, Boston University32, University of California, Los Angeles33, Royal Holloway, University of London34, Université Paris-Saclay35, University of Pennsylvania36, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign37, University of Bristol38, University of Tokyo39, University of Delaware40, Carnegie Mellon University41, University of California, Santa Cruz42, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology43, Heidelberg University44, Florida State University45, University of Mainz46, University of Edinburgh47, Brookhaven National Laboratory48, Durham University49, University of Lausanne50, Massachusetts Institute of Technology51, University of Southampton52, Nagoya University53, University of Oxford54, Northwestern University55, University of British Columbia56, Columbia University57, Lund University58, University of Sheffield59, University of California, Santa Barbara60, Iowa State University61, University of Alberta62, University of Cambridge63
TL;DR: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, and features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. This edition features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations. For the first time we cover searches for evidence of extra dimensions (both in the particle listings and in a new review). Another new review is on Grand Unified Theories. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov.

5,143 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
26 Jul 2007-Nature
TL;DR: Graphene oxide paper is reported, a free-standing carbon-based membrane material made by flow-directed assembly of individual graphene oxide sheets that outperforms many other paper-like materials in stiffness and strength.
Abstract: Free-standing paper-like or foil-like materials are an integral part of our technological society. Their uses include protective layers, chemical filters, components of electrical batteries or supercapacitors, adhesive layers, electronic or optoelectronic components, and molecular storage. Inorganic 'paper-like' materials based on nanoscale components such as exfoliated vermiculite or mica platelets have been intensively studied and commercialized as protective coatings, high-temperature binders, dielectric barriers and gas-impermeable membranes. Carbon-based flexible graphite foils composed of stacked platelets of expanded graphite have long been used in packing and gasketing applications because of their chemical resistivity against most media, superior sealability over a wide temperature range, and impermeability to fluids. The discovery of carbon nanotubes brought about bucky paper, which displays excellent mechanical and electrical properties that make it potentially suitable for fuel cell and structural composite applications. Here we report the preparation and characterization of graphene oxide paper, a free-standing carbon-based membrane material made by flow-directed assembly of individual graphene oxide sheets. This new material outperforms many other paper-like materials in stiffness and strength. Its combination of macroscopic flexibility and stiffness is a result of a unique interlocking-tile arrangement of the nanoscale graphene oxide sheets.

5,117 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
03 May 2001-Nature
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that the phenotypic consequence of a single gene deletion in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is affected to a large extent by the topological position of its protein product in the complex hierarchical web of molecular interactions.
Abstract: The most highly connected proteins in the cell are the most important for its survival. Proteins are traditionally identified on the basis of their individual actions as catalysts, signalling molecules, or building blocks in cells and microorganisms. But our post-genomic view is expanding the protein's role into an element in a network of protein–protein interactions as well, in which it has a contextual or cellular function within functional modules1,2. Here we provide quantitative support for this idea by demonstrating that the phenotypic consequence of a single gene deletion in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is affected to a large extent by the topological position of its protein product in the complex hierarchical web of molecular interactions.

5,115 citations


Authors

Showing all 76189 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
George M. Whitesides2401739269833
Ralph B. D'Agostino2261287229636
Daniel Levy212933194778
David Miller2032573204840
Ronald M. Evans199708166722
Michael Marmot1931147170338
Robert C. Nichol187851162994
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Stuart H. Orkin186715112182
Michael A. Strauss1851688208506
Ralph Weissleder1841160142508
Patrick O. Brown183755200985
Aaron R. Folsom1811118134044
Valentin Fuster1791462185164
Ronald C. Petersen1781091153067
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

96% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

96% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

95% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

95% related

Stanford University
320.3K papers, 21.8M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023275
20221,183
202110,513
202010,260
20199,331
20188,301