Institution
Sookmyung Women's University
Education•Seoul, South Korea•
About: Sookmyung Women's University is a education organization based out in Seoul, South Korea. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Cancer cell. The organization has 2494 authors who have published 4525 publications receiving 82861 citations.
Topics: Cancer, Cancer cell, Apoptosis, Signal transduction, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Northern Arizona University1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Minnesota3, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution4, University of California, Davis5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology6, University of Copenhagen7, University of Trento8, Chinese Academy of Sciences9, University of California, San Francisco10, University of Pennsylvania11, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory12, North Carolina State University13, University of California, San Diego14, Institute for Systems Biology15, Dalhousie University16, University of British Columbia17, Statens Serum Institut18, Anschutz Medical Campus19, University of Washington20, Michigan State University21, Stanford University22, Broad Institute23, Harvard University24, Australian National University25, University of Düsseldorf26, University of New South Wales27, Sookmyung Women's University28, San Diego State University29, Howard Hughes Medical Institute30, Cornell University31, Max Planck Society32, Colorado State University33, Google34, Syracuse University35, Webster University36, United States Department of Agriculture37, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences38, Colorado School of Mines39, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration40, University of Southern Mississippi41, University of California, Merced42, Wageningen University and Research Centre43, University of Arizona44, Environment Agency45, University of Florida46, Merck & Co.47
TL;DR: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and R.K.P. and partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 and U54MD012388.
Abstract: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and 1565057 to R.K. Partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 (J.G.C. and T.P.) and U54MD012388 (J.G.C. and T.P.); grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (J.G.C. and R.K.); ERCSTG project MetaPG (N.S.); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences QYZDB-SSW-SMC021 (Y.B.); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP1085372 (G.A.H., J.G.C., Von Bing Yap and R.K.); the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to D.L.G.; and the State of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, through Northern Arizona University. All NCI coauthors were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. S.M.G. and C. Diener were supported by the Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award.
8,821 citations
••
TL;DR: Large collaborative studies with uniform data collection seem to be necessary to elucidate a complete list of established risk factors of RCC to make successful prevention possible for a disease that is diagnosed frequently in a stage where curative treatment is not possible anymore.
1,228 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 survey of IoT and Cloud Computing with a focus on the security issues of both technologies is presented, and it shows how the Cloud Computing technology improves the function of the IoT.
894 citations
••
Northern Arizona University1, University of Minnesota2, University of California, Davis3, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution4, Massachusetts Institute of Technology5, University of Copenhagen6, University of Trento7, Chinese Academy of Sciences8, University of California, San Francisco9, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia10, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory11, North Carolina State University12, University of Montana13, Dalhousie University14, University of British Columbia15, Shedd Aquarium16, University of Colorado Denver17, University of California, San Diego18, Michigan State University19, Stanford University20, Harvard University21, Broad Institute22, Australian National University23, University of Düsseldorf24, Sookmyung Women's University25, San Diego State University26, Howard Hughes Medical Institute27, Cornell University28, Max Planck Society29, University of Washington30, Colorado State University31, Google32, Syracuse University33, Webster University34, United States Department of Agriculture35, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences36, Colorado School of Mines37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, University of Southern Mississippi39, University of California, Merced40, Wageningen University and Research Centre41, University of Arizona42, Environment Agency43, University of Florida44, Merck & Co.45
TL;DR: QIIME 2 provides new features that will drive the next generation of microbiome research, including interactive spatial and temporal analysis and visualization tools, support for metabolomics and shotgun metagenomics analysis, and automated data provenance tracking to ensure reproducible, transparent microbiome data science.
Abstract: We present QIIME 2, an open-source microbiome data science platform accessible to users spanning the microbiome research ecosystem, from scientists and engineers to clinicians and policy makers. QIIME 2 provides new features that will drive the next generation of microbiome research. These include interactive spatial and temporal analysis and visualization tools, support for metabolomics and shotgun metagenomics analysis, and automated data provenance tracking to ensure reproducible, transparent microbiome data science.
875 citations
Authors
Showing all 2511 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Suyong Choi | 135 | 1495 | 97053 |
Jong Seung Kim | 97 | 502 | 36410 |
Ruben Abagyan | 85 | 377 | 31620 |
Wonwoo Nam | 84 | 405 | 23475 |
Tetsuya Terasaki | 77 | 399 | 19262 |
Francis J. DiSalvo | 66 | 549 | 20204 |
Nayoung Kim | 57 | 597 | 14883 |
Soo Young Lee | 51 | 257 | 11620 |
Sang Ook Kang | 49 | 318 | 9139 |
Young Yang | 47 | 190 | 8996 |
Jae Hong Kim | 46 | 290 | 7517 |
Taesung Park | 46 | 453 | 18113 |
Yun Wang | 45 | 125 | 6191 |
Jung Eun Lee | 43 | 201 | 7068 |
Jik Chin | 43 | 120 | 5719 |