scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Queen's University Belfast

EducationBelfast, United Kingdom
About: Queen's University Belfast is a education organization based out in Belfast, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Ionic liquid. The organization has 25457 authors who have published 55463 publications receiving 1751346 citations. The organization is also known as: Queen's College, Belfast & Queen's College.
Topics: Population, Ionic liquid, Laser, Supernova, Catalysis


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Stephan Ripke1, Stephan Ripke2, Benjamin M. Neale1, Benjamin M. Neale2  +351 moreInstitutions (102)
24 Jul 2014-Nature
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

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
TL;DR: There have been parallel and collaborative exchanges between academic research and industrial developments since the materials were first reported in 1914, it is demonstrated.
Abstract: In contrast to a recently expressed, and widely cited, view that “Ionic liquids are starting to leave academic labs and find their way into a wide variety of industrial applications”, we demonstrate in this critical review that there have been parallel and collaborative exchanges between academic research and industrial developments since the materials were first reported in 1914 (148 references)

4,865 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work has shown that novel genes identified in DNA microarray profiling have the potential to identify novel genes that are involved in mediating resistance to 5-FU, and these genes might prove to be therapeutically valuable as new targets for chemotherapy, or as predictive biomarkers of response to5-FU-based chemotherapy.
Abstract: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is widely used in the treatment of cancer. Over the past 20 years, increased understanding of the mechanism of action of 5-FU has led to the development of strategies that increase its anticancer activity. Despite these advances, drug resistance remains a significant limitation to the clinical use of 5-FU. Emerging technologies, such as DNA microarray profiling, have the potential to identify novel genes that are involved in mediating resistance to 5-FU. Such target genes might prove to be therapeutically valuable as new targets for chemotherapy, or as predictive biomarkers of response to 5-FU-based chemotherapy.

4,177 citations


Authors

Showing all 25808 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
George Davey Smith2242540248373
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Grant W. Montgomery157926108118
Caroline S. Fox155599138951
Debbie A Lawlor1471114101123
Markus Ackermann14661071071
Hermann Kolanoski145127996152
Paul Jackson141137293464
Alan Ashworth13457872089
Conor Henderson133138788725
David Smith1292184100917
Stuart J. Connolly12561075925
G. Merino12368766163
Richard J.H. Smith118130861779
Yong-Guan Zhu11568446973
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Manchester
168K papers, 6.4M citations

96% related

University College London
210.6K papers, 9.8M citations

95% related

University of Edinburgh
151.6K papers, 6.6M citations

95% related

University of Cambridge
282.2K papers, 14.4M citations

94% related

Imperial College London
209.1K papers, 9.3M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023140
2022493
20213,360
20203,192
20192,769
20182,448