scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

EducationBelo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
About: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais is a education organization based out in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 41631 authors who have published 75688 publications receiving 1249905 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Mohsen Naghavi1, Haidong Wang1, Rafael Lozano1, Adrian Davis2  +728 moreInstitutions (294)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.

5,792 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4  +1025 moreInstitutions (333)
TL;DR: Non-communicable diseases comprised the greatest fraction of deaths, contributing to 73·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 72·5–74·1) of total deaths in 2017, while communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes accounted for 18·6% (17·9–19·6), and injuries 8·0% (7·7–8·2).

5,211 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
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the first-order and double resonance Raman scattering mechanisms in graphene, which give rise to the most prominent Raman features and give special emphasis to the possibility of using Raman spectroscopy to distinguish a monolayer from few-layer graphene stacked in the Bernal configuration.

4,945 citations


Authors

Showing all 42077 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Michael Marmot1931147170338
Pulickel M. Ajayan1761223136241
Alan D. Lopez172863259291
Jens Nielsen1491752104005
Mildred S. Dresselhaus136762112525
Jing Kong12655372354
Mauricio Terrones11876061202
Michael Brammer11842446763
Terence G. Langdon117115861603
Caroline A. Sabin10869044233
Michael Brauer10648073664
Michael Bader10373537525
Michael S. Strano9848060141
Pablo Jarillo-Herrero9124539171
Riichiro Saito9150248869
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
89.1K papers, 1.5M citations

97% related

University of São Paulo
272.3K papers, 5.1M citations

96% related

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
89.4K papers, 1.4M citations

96% related

Sao Paulo State University
100.4K papers, 1.3M citations

96% related

State University of Campinas
104.6K papers, 1.8M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023111
2022624
20215,709
20205,955
20195,270
20185,020