Institution
Radboud University Nijmegen
Education•Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands•
About: Radboud University Nijmegen is a education organization based out in Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 35417 authors who have published 83035 publications receiving 3285064 citations. The organization is also known as: Catholic University of Nijmegen & Radboud University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: With the optimal cleaning procedures, functional connectivity results from accelerated data were statistically comparable or significantly better than the standard (unaccelerated) acquisition, and, crucially, with higher spatial and temporal resolution.
1,132 citations
••
TL;DR: Tissues exhibit characteristic transcriptional signatures that show stability in postmortem samples that are dominated by a relatively small number of genes, though few are exclusive to a particular tissue and vary more across tissues than individuals.
Abstract: Transcriptional regulation and posttranscriptional processing underlie many cellular and organismal phenotypes. We used RNA sequence data generated by Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project to investigate the patterns of transcriptome variation across individuals and tissues. Tissues exhibit characteristic transcriptional signatures that show stability in postmortem samples. These signatures are dominated by a relatively small number of genes—which is most clearly seen in blood—though few are exclusive to a particular tissue and vary more across tissues than individuals. Genes exhibiting high interindividual expression variation include disease candidates associated with sex, ethnicity, and age. Primary transcription is the major driver of cellular specificity, with splicing playing mostly a complementary role; except for the brain, which exhibits a more divergent splicing program. Variation in splicing, despite its stochasticity, may play in contrast a comparatively greater role in defining individual phenotypes.
1,131 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
••
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, Paris Descartes University2, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University3, University of Bern4, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg5, Providence Portland Medical Center6, Radboud University Nijmegen7, Umeå University8, Karolinska Institutet9, Humanitas University10, Medical University of Graz11, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust12, Charles University in Prague13, Cornell University14, University Health Network15, University of Toronto16, Keio University17, Yamaguchi University18, Kindai University19, Harvard University20, Royal Melbourne Hospital21, University of Melbourne22, Sapporo Medical University23, Kurume University24, Xi'an Jiaotong University25, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center26, Mayo Clinic27, Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy28, Oregon Health & Science University29
TL;DR: In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC or UICCTNM classification.
Abstract: The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).
1,128 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a study among 214 nutrition production employees uses the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model to predict future company registered absenteeism, and the results of structural equation modeling analyses show that job demands are unique predictors of burnout (i.e., exhaustion and cynicism) and indirectly of absence duration.
1,120 citations
Authors
Showing all 35749 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Charles A. Dinarello | 190 | 1058 | 139668 |
Richard H. Friend | 169 | 1182 | 140032 |
Yang Gao | 168 | 2047 | 146301 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
David T. Felson | 153 | 861 | 133514 |
Margaret A. Pericak-Vance | 149 | 826 | 118672 |
Fernando Rivadeneira | 146 | 628 | 86582 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Mihai G. Netea | 142 | 1170 | 86908 |
Mingshui Chen | 141 | 1543 | 125369 |
George Alverson | 140 | 1653 | 105074 |
Barry Blumenfeld | 140 | 1909 | 105694 |
Harvey B Newman | 139 | 1594 | 88308 |
Tariq Aziz | 138 | 1646 | 96586 |
Stylianos E. Antonarakis | 138 | 746 | 93605 |