scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Paul Sabatier University

EducationToulouse, France
About: Paul Sabatier University is a education organization based out in Toulouse, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Adipose tissue. The organization has 15431 authors who have published 23386 publications receiving 858364 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work has shown that combination of pseudo-capacitive nanomaterials, including oxides, nitrides and polymers, with the latest generation of nanostructured lithium electrodes has brought the energy density of electrochemical capacitors closer to that of batteries.
Abstract: Electrochemical capacitors, also called supercapacitors, store energy using either ion adsorption (electrochemical double layer capacitors) or fast surface redox reactions (pseudo-capacitors). They can complement or replace batteries in electrical energy storage and harvesting applications, when high power delivery or uptake is needed. A notable improvement in performance has been achieved through recent advances in understanding charge storage mechanisms and the development of advanced nanostructured materials. The discovery that ion desolvation occurs in pores smaller than the solvated ions has led to higher capacitance for electrochemical double layer capacitors using carbon electrodes with subnanometre pores, and opened the door to designing high-energy density devices using a variety of electrolytes. Combination of pseudo-capacitive nanomaterials, including oxides, nitrides and polymers, with the latest generation of nanostructured lithium electrodes has brought the energy density of electrochemical capacitors closer to that of batteries. The use of carbon nanotubes has further advanced micro-electrochemical capacitors, enabling flexible and adaptable devices to be made. Mathematical modelling and simulation will be the key to success in designing tomorrow's high-energy and high-power devices.

14,213 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Donald G. York1, Jennifer Adelman2, John E. Anderson2, Scott F. Anderson3  +148 moreInstitutions (29)
TL;DR: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) as discussed by the authors provides the data to support detailed investigations of the distribution of luminous and non-luminous matter in the universe: a photometrically and astrometrically calibrated digital imaging survey of π sr above about Galactic latitude 30° in five broad optical bands to a depth of g' ~ 23 mag.
Abstract: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) will provide the data to support detailed investigations of the distribution of luminous and nonluminous matter in the universe: a photometrically and astrometrically calibrated digital imaging survey of π sr above about Galactic latitude 30° in five broad optical bands to a depth of g' ~ 23 mag, and a spectroscopic survey of the approximately 106 brightest galaxies and 105 brightest quasars found in the photometric object catalog produced by the imaging survey. This paper summarizes the observational parameters and data products of the SDSS and serves as an introduction to extensive technical on-line documentation.

9,835 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
14 Mar 2014-Science
TL;DR: Electrochemical measurements can distinguish between different types of energy storage materials and their underlying mechanisms, used to recover power in cars and electric mass transit vehicles that would otherwise lose braking energy as heat.
Abstract: Electrochemical measurements can distinguish between different types of energy storage materials and their underlying mechanisms.

4,394 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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 15486 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Yury Gogotsi171956144520
Tobin J. Marks1591621111604
L. Montier13840397094
Jean-Paul Kneib13880589287
Olivier Forni13754895819
J. Aumont13129995006
Julian I. Schroeder12031550323
Bruno Vellas118101170667
Christopher G. Goetz11665159510
Didier Dubois11374254741
Alain Dufresne11135845904
Henri Prade10891754583
Louis Bernatchez10656835682
Walter Wahli10536549372
Patrice D. Cani10037049523
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University
56.1K papers, 2.3M citations

97% related

Centre national de la recherche scientifique
382.4K papers, 13.6M citations

97% related

University of Paris
174.1K papers, 5M citations

96% related

École Normale Supérieure
99.4K papers, 3M citations

94% related

National Research Council
76K papers, 2.4M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202332
202293
2021759
2020753
2019728
2018622