scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Sichuan University

EducationChengdu, China
About: Sichuan University is a education organization based out in Chengdu, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 107623 authors who have published 102844 publications receiving 1612131 citations. The organization is also known as: Sìchuān Dàxué.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Stephan Ripke1, Stephan Ripke2, Benjamin M. Neale2, Benjamin M. Neale1  +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
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors provides a timely opportunity to update the comparative risk assessment with new data for exposure, relative risks, and evidence on the appropriate counterfactual risk distribution.

5,668 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
Theo Vos1, Christine Allen1, Megha Arora1, Ryan M Barber1  +696 moreInstitutions (260)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015) as discussed by the authors was used to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015.

5,050 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos1, Ryan M Barber1, Brad Bell1, Amelia Bertozzi-Villa1  +686 moreInstitutions (287)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as mentioned in this paper, the authors estimated the quantities for acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries between 1990 and 2013.

4,510 citations


Authors

Showing all 108474 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lin Liu7893724389
Hom-Lay Wang7857622637
Yuquan Wei7683426478
Chao Xu7584520541
Pheng-Ann Heng7564623963
Wei Wang75196335183
Wei Wei75106829415
Xuping Sun7418215791
Minghua Liu7467920727
Ming Zhang7492129116
Gang Liu7348920866
Jun Zhang7394725651
Enrico Zio73112723809
Tian Li Wang7327422717
John D. B. Featherstone7227518342
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
184.6K papers, 3.4M citations

94% related

Zhejiang University
183.2K papers, 3.4M citations

94% related

Fudan University
117.9K papers, 2.6M citations

93% related

Nanjing University
105.5K papers, 2.2M citations

93% related

Peking University
181K papers, 4.1M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023339
20221,712
202113,846
202011,702
20199,714
20187,906