About: Tongji University is a(n) education organization based out in Shanghai, China. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Adsorption. The organization has 76116 authors who have published 81176 publication(s) receiving 1248911 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Tongji & Tóngjì Dàxué.
Topics: Population, Adsorption, Cancer, Lung cancer, Finite element method
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: In this article, a comprehensive review is presented on the researches and developments related to electrospun polymer nanofibers including processing, structure and property characterization, applications, and modeling and simulations.
Abstract: Electrospinning has been recognized as an efficient technique for the fabrication of polymer nanofibers. Various polymers have been successfully electrospun into ultrafine fibers in recent years mostly in solvent solution and some in melt form. Potential applications based on such fibers specifically their use as reinforcement in nanocomposite development have been realized. In this paper, a comprehensive review is presented on the researches and developments related to electrospun polymer nanofibers including processing, structure and property characterization, applications, and modeling and simulations. Information of those polymers together with their processing conditions for electrospinning of ultrafine fibers has been summarized in the paper. Other issues regarding the technology limitations, research challenges, and future trends are also discussed.
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4 +2519 more•Institutions (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.
Tongji University1, Guangdong General Hospital2, Harbin Medical University3, Academy of Military Medical Sciences4, Capital Medical University5, Peking University6, Shanghai Jiao Tong University7, Sun Yat-sen University8, Central South University9, Shantou University10, Soochow University (Suzhou)11, Second Military Medical University12, Southern Medical University13
01 Aug 2011-Lancet Oncology
TL;DR: It is suggested that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, and was associated with more favourable tolerability than standard chemotherapy.
Abstract: Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up. Findings 83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58–16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21–5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10–0.26; p vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]). Interpretation Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality.
TL;DR: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR‐TKIs in the first‐line treatment of EGFR mutation–positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events.
Abstract: BackgroundOsimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI–sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation–positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation–positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. ResultsThe median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confi...
03 Jan 2009-The Lancet
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of second-generation antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia provided data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost.
Abstract: Summary Background Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia. Methods We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation. Findings We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride −0·31 [95% CI −0·44 to −0·19, p Interpretation Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost. Funding National Institute of Mental Health.
Showing all 76116 results
|Georgios B. Giannakis||137||1321||73517|
|Richard B. Kaner||106||557||66862|
Related Institutions (5)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
184.6K papers, 3.4M citations
183.2K papers, 3.4M citations
105.5K papers, 2.2M citations
181K papers, 4.1M citations
117.9K papers, 2.6M citations