Institution
Nottingham Trent University
Education•Nottingham, United Kingdom•
About: Nottingham Trent University is a education organization based out in Nottingham, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 4702 authors who have published 12862 publications receiving 307430 citations. The organization is also known as: NTU & Trent Polytechnic.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The ability of simple tailor-made monochemical surfaces to influence binding rates and conformation of bound proteins through protein-surface interactions is demonstrated, with the effect observed greatest for albumin.
Abstract: Protein adhesion plays a major role in determining the biocompatibility of materials. The first stage of implant integration is the adhesion of protein followed by cell attachment. Surface modification of implants (surface chemistry and topography) to induce and control protein and cell adhesion is currently of great interest. This communication presents data on protein adsorption (bovine serum albumin and fibrinogen) onto model hydrophobic (CH3) and hydrophilic (OH) surfaces, investigated using a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) and grazing angle infrared spectroscopy. Our data suggest that albumin undergoes adsorption via a single step whereas fibrinogen adsorption is a more complex, multistage process. Albumin has a stronger affinity toward the CH3 compared to OH terminated surface. In contrast, fibrinogen adheres more rapidly to both surfaces, having a slightly higher affinity toward the hydrophobic surface. Conformational assessment of the adsorbed proteins by grazing angle infrared spectroscopy (GA...
1,324 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify the drivers of agility and discuss the portfolio of competitive advantages that have emerged over time as a result of the changing requirements of manufacturing, and highlight some of the key enablers of agility.
1,146 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
••
TL;DR: A new dataset, UCID (pronounced "use it") - an Uncompressed Colour Image Dataset which tries to bridge the gap between standardised image databases and objective evaluation of image retrieval algorithms that operate in the compressed domain.
Abstract: Standardised image databases or rather the lack of them are one of the main weaknesses in the field of content based image retrieval (CBIR). Authors often use their own images or do not specify the source of their datasets. Naturally this makes comparison of results somewhat difficult. While a first approach towards a common colour image set has been taken by the MPEG 7 committee 1 their database does not cater for all strands of research in the CBIR community. In particular as the MPEG-7 images only exist in compressed form it does not allow for an objective evaluation of image retrieval algorithms that operate in the compressed domain or to judge the influence image compression has on the performance of CBIR algorithms. In this paper we introduce a new dataset, UCID (pronounced ”use it”) - an Uncompressed Colour Image Dataset which tries to bridge this gap. The UCID dataset currently consists of 1338 uncompressed images together with a ground truth of a series of query images with corresponding models that an ideal CBIR algorithm would retrieve. While its initial intention was to provide a dataset for the evaluation of compressed domain algorithms, the UCID database also represents a good benchmark set for the evaluation of any kind of CBIR method as well as an image set that can be used to evaluate image compression and colour quantisation algorithms.
1,117 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors address some of the more common misunderstandings and misrepresentations that constitute obstacles to the use of one of the very first qualitative research methods to have been developed in the context of psychology.
Abstract: This paper has a marked practical aspect. We wish to encourage and facilitate the use of Q methodology amongst psychologists interested in qualitative research. The paper duly answers a number of pertinent ‘how to do Q’ questions. Yet our primary intention is not to produce an exhaustive ‘how to do Q’ guide. In discussing issues of theory, method and interpretation in Q methodology, the main aim of the paper is rather to address some of the more common misunderstandings and misrepresentations that constitute obstacles to the use of one of the very first ‘alternative’ methods to have been developed in the context of psychology. In addressing such obstacles, the paper hopes to bring ‘Why do Q?’ questions to the fore. In so doing, Q methodology will also be ‘positioned’ in relation to a number of other qualitative research methods, each of which currently enjoys a degree of prominence within the psychological discipline.
1,053 citations
Authors
Showing all 4806 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David L. Kaplan | 177 | 1944 | 146082 |
Paul Mitchell | 146 | 1378 | 95659 |
Matthew Nguyen | 131 | 1291 | 84346 |
Ian O. Ellis | 126 | 1051 | 75435 |
Mark D. Griffiths | 124 | 1238 | 61335 |
Tao Zhang | 123 | 2772 | 83866 |
Graham J. Hutchings | 97 | 995 | 44270 |
Andrzej Cichocki | 97 | 952 | 41471 |
Chris Ryan | 95 | 971 | 34388 |
Graham Pawelec | 89 | 572 | 27373 |
Christopher D. Buckley | 88 | 440 | 25664 |
Ester Cerin | 78 | 279 | 27086 |
Michael Hofreiter | 78 | 271 | 20628 |
Craig E. Banks | 77 | 569 | 27520 |
John R. Griffiths | 76 | 356 | 23179 |