Institution
Trinity College, Dublin
Education•Dublin, Dublin, Ireland•
About: Trinity College, Dublin is a education organization based out in Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 20576 authors who have published 48296 publications receiving 1780313 citations.
Topics: Population, Context (language use), Irish, Health care, Mental health
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
Broad Institute1, Harvard University2, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute3, Cardiff University4, North Carolina State University5, Trinity College, Dublin6, University of Edinburgh7, Karolinska Institutet8, Uppsala University9, University of Southern California10, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill11, University College London12, National Health Service13, University of Oxford14, University of Aberdeen15, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences16, State University of New York Upstate Medical University17, University of Coimbra18
TL;DR: The extent to which common genetic variation underlies the risk of schizophrenia is shown, using two analytic approaches, and the major histocompatibility complex is implicate, which is shown to involve thousands of common alleles of very small effect.
Abstract: Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder with a lifetime risk of about 1%, characterized by hallucinations, delusions and cognitive deficits, with heritability estimated at up to 80%(1,2). We performed a genome-wide association study of 3,322 European individuals with schizophrenia and 3,587 controls. Here we show, using two analytic approaches, the extent to which common genetic variation underlies the risk of schizophrenia. First, we implicate the major histocompatibility complex. Second, we provide molecular genetic evidence for a substantial polygenic component to the risk of schizophrenia involving thousands of common alleles of very small effect. We show that this component also contributes to the risk of bipolar disorder, but not to several non-psychiatric diseases.
4,573 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
4,316 citations
••
TL;DR: It is reported that natural oligomers of human Aβ are formed soon after generation of the peptide within specific intracellular vesicles and are subsequently secreted from the cell, indicating that synaptotoxic Aβ oligomers can be targeted therapeutically.
Abstract: Although extensive data support a central pathogenic role for amyloid β protein (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease1, the amyloid hypothesis remains controversial, in part because a specific neurotoxic species of Aβ and the nature of its effects on synaptic function have not been defined in vivo. Here we report that natural oligomers of human Aβ are formed soon after generation of the peptide within specific intracellular vesicles and are subsequently secreted from the cell. Cerebral microinjection of cell medium containing these oligomers and abundant Aβ monomers but no amyloid fibrils markedly inhibited hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) in rats in vivo. Immunodepletion from the medium of all Aβ species completely abrogated this effect. Pretreatment of the medium with insulin-degrading enzyme, which degrades Aβ monomers but not oligomers, did not prevent the inhibition of LTP. Therefore, Aβ oligomers, in the absence of monomers and amyloid fibrils, disrupted synaptic plasticity in vivo at concentrations found in human brain and cerebrospinal fluid. Finally, treatment of cells with γ-secretase inhibitors prevented oligomer formation at doses that allowed appreciable monomer production, and such medium no longer disrupted LTP, indicating that synaptotoxic Aβ oligomers can be targeted therapeutically.
4,315 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, a review of the progress to date in the field of mechanical reinforcement of polymers using nanotubes is presented, and the most promising processing methods for mechanical reinforcement are discussed.
3,770 citations
Authors
Showing all 20853 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Edward Giovannucci | 206 | 1671 | 179875 |
Robin M. Murray | 171 | 1539 | 116362 |
Mark E. Cooper | 158 | 1463 | 124887 |
Stephen J. O'Brien | 153 | 1062 | 93025 |
Amartya Sen | 149 | 689 | 141907 |
Kevin Murphy | 146 | 728 | 120475 |
Peter M. Visscher | 143 | 694 | 118115 |
Mihai G. Netea | 142 | 1170 | 86908 |
Kristine Yaffe | 136 | 794 | 72250 |
Cisca Wijmenga | 136 | 668 | 86572 |
David A. Jackson | 136 | 1095 | 68352 |
Patrick F. Sullivan | 133 | 594 | 92298 |
Thomas N. Williams | 132 | 1145 | 95109 |
Paul Brennan | 132 | 1221 | 72748 |
David Taylor | 131 | 2469 | 93220 |