Institution
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Education•George Town, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia•
About: Universiti Sains Malaysia is a education organization based out in George Town, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Ring (chemistry). The organization has 23231 authors who have published 39356 publications receiving 655434 citations. The organization is also known as: USM & University of Science, Malaysia.
Topics: Population, Ring (chemistry), Dihedral angle, Adsorption, Natural rubber
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Theo Vos1, Amanuel Alemu Abajobir, Kalkidan Hassen Abate2, Cristiana Abbafati3 +775 more•Institutions (305)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) provides a comprehensive assessment of prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 328 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016.
10,401 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a review of the state-of-the-art in isotherm modeling, its fundamental characteristics and mathematical derivations, as well as the key advance of the error functions, its utilization principles together with the comparisons of linearized and nonlinearized isotherms models have been highlighted and discussed.
5,914 citations
••
TL;DR: Global health has steadily improved over the past 30 years as measured by age-standardised DALY rates, and there has been a marked shift towards a greater proportion of burden due to YLDs from non-communicable diseases and injuries.
5,802 citations
••
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4 +1025 more•Institutions (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
••
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
Authors
Showing all 23437 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Peter J. Anderson | 120 | 966 | 63635 |
B.H. Hameed | 106 | 328 | 39456 |
Abdul Rahman Mohamed | 84 | 542 | 23633 |
Muhammad Iqbal | 77 | 961 | 23821 |
Xiao-Zeng You | 73 | 763 | 22917 |
Keat Teong Lee | 71 | 276 | 16745 |
Rajeev Singh | 69 | 365 | 17805 |
Abdul Latif Ahmad | 68 | 490 | 22012 |
Hiroyuki Osada | 67 | 651 | 18192 |
Mohammad Jawaid | 65 | 503 | 19471 |
Subhash Bhatia | 63 | 204 | 12804 |
Mohammed Farid | 61 | 299 | 15820 |
Thurasamy Ramayah | 57 | 388 | 12103 |
Colleen Ward | 56 | 173 | 17494 |
Robert R. Twilley | 55 | 166 | 11745 |