Institution
Stony Brook University
Education•Stony Brook, New York, United States•
About: Stony Brook University is a education organization based out in Stony Brook, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 32534 authors who have published 68218 publications receiving 3035131 citations. The organization is also known as: State University of New York at Stony Brook & SUNY Stony Brook.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The primary goals of the treatment of wounds are rapid wound closure and a functional and aesthetically satisfactory scar.
Abstract: The primary function of the skin is to serve as a protective barrier against the environment. Loss of the integrity of large portions of the skin as a result of injury or illness may lead to major disability or even death. Every year in the United States more than 1.25 million people have burns1 and 6.5 million have chronic skin ulcers caused by pressure, venous stasis, or diabetes mellitus.2 The primary goals of the treatment of wounds are rapid wound closure and a functional and aesthetically satisfactory scar. Recent advances in cellular and molecular biology have greatly expanded our understanding . . .
5,462 citations
••
TL;DR: This article developed models of collective behavior for situations where actors have two alternatives and the costs and/or benefits of each depend on how many other actors choose which alternative, and the key...
Abstract: Models of collective behavior are developed for situations where actors have two alternatives and the costs and/or benefits of each depend on how many other actors choose which alternative. The key...
5,195 citations
••
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
••
TL;DR: The use of sipuleucel-T prolonged overall survival among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and immune responses to the immunizing antigen were observed in patients who received sipuleUcel- T.
Abstract: Background Sipuleucel-T, an autologous active cellular immunotherapy, has shown evidence of efficacy in reducing the risk of death among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 512 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either sipuleucel-T (341 patients) or placebo (171 patients) administered intravenously every 2 weeks, for a total of three infusions. The primary end point was overall survival, analyzed by means of a stratified Cox regression model adjusted for baseline levels of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and lactate dehydrogenase. Results In the sipuleucel-T group, there was a relative reduction of 22% in the risk of death as compared with the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.03). This reduction represented a 4.1-month improvement in median survival (25.8 months in the sipuleucel-T group vs. 21.7 months in the placebo group). The 36-month survival probability was 31.7% in the sipuleucel-T group versus 23.0% in the placebo group. The treatment effect was also observed with the use of an unadjusted Cox model and a log-rank test (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.97; P = 0.02) and after adjustment for use of docetaxel after the study therapy (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = 0.03). The time to objective disease progression was similar in the two study groups. Immune responses to the immunizing antigen were observed in patients who received sipuleucel-T. Adverse events that were more frequently reported in the sipuleucel-T group than in the placebo group included chills, fever, and headache. Conclusions The use of sipuleucel-T prolonged overall survival among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. No effect on the time to disease progression was observed. (Funded by Dendreon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00065442.)
4,840 citations
01 Jan 1998
4,490 citations
Authors
Showing all 32829 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Zhong Lin Wang | 245 | 2529 | 259003 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Hyun-Chul Kim | 176 | 4076 | 183227 |
David Baker | 173 | 1226 | 109377 |
J. N. Butler | 172 | 2525 | 175561 |
Roderick T. Bronson | 169 | 679 | 107702 |
Nora D. Volkow | 165 | 958 | 107463 |
Jovan Milosevic | 152 | 1433 | 106802 |
Thomas E. Starzl | 150 | 1625 | 91704 |
Paolo Boffetta | 148 | 1455 | 93876 |
Jacques Banchereau | 143 | 634 | 99261 |
Larry R. Squire | 143 | 472 | 85306 |
John D. E. Gabrieli | 142 | 480 | 68254 |
Alexander Milov | 142 | 1143 | 93374 |
Meenakshi Narain | 142 | 1805 | 147741 |