Institution
University at Albany, SUNY
Education•Albany, New York, United States•
About: University at Albany, SUNY is a education organization based out in Albany, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 10109 authors who have published 21338 publications receiving 886092 citations. The organization is also known as: SUNY Albany & University at Albany, SUNY.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article, a search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC is presented, which has a significance of 5.9 standard deviations, corresponding to a background fluctuation probability of 1.7×10−9.
9,282 citations
••
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
••
Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Lily Alexander, H. Ross Anderson, Victoria F Bachman1 +733 more•Institutions (289)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors provides a timely opportunity to update the comparative risk assessment with new data for exposure, relative risks, and evidence on the appropriate counterfactual risk distribution.
5,668 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 10215 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
James J. Collins | 151 | 669 | 89476 |
Robert J. Sternberg | 149 | 1066 | 89193 |
Georges Aad | 135 | 1121 | 88811 |
David H. Barlow | 133 | 786 | 72730 |
P. Skubic | 133 | 1573 | 97343 |
John Hobbs | 131 | 1341 | 88880 |
Dmitri Tsybychev | 129 | 1183 | 81383 |
Kurunthachalam Kannan | 126 | 820 | 59886 |
David Rousseau | 122 | 835 | 72015 |
Vivek Jain | 121 | 916 | 73303 |
Russell A. Barkley | 119 | 355 | 60109 |
Simin Liu | 118 | 485 | 73940 |
Michael Rosbash | 116 | 363 | 40231 |
John P. Giesy | 114 | 1162 | 62790 |
Xiaoming Li | 113 | 1932 | 72445 |