scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University College Cork

EducationCork, Ireland
About: University College Cork is a education organization based out in Cork, Ireland. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Irish. The organization has 12056 authors who have published 28452 publications receiving 958414 citations. The organization is also known as: Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh & National University of Ireland, Cork.
Topics: Population, Irish, Gut flora, Microbiome, Casein


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos1, Theo Vos2, Theo Vos3, Stephen S Lim  +2416 moreInstitutions (246)
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

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
TL;DR: An expert panel was convened in October 2013 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to discuss the field of probiotics and the appropriate use and scope of the term probiotic.
Abstract: An expert panel was convened in October 2013 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to discuss the field of probiotics. It is now 13 years since the definition of probiotics and 12 years after guidelines were published for regulators, scientists and industry by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WHO (FAO/WHO). The FAO/WHO definition of a probiotic--"live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host"--was reinforced as relevant and sufficiently accommodating for current and anticipated applications. However, inconsistencies between the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation Report and the FAO/WHO Guidelines were clarified to take into account advances in science and applications. A more precise use of the term 'probiotic' will be useful to guide clinicians and consumers in differentiating the diverse products on the market. This document represents the conclusions of the ISAPP consensus meeting on the appropriate use and scope of the term probiotic.

5,114 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


Authors

Showing all 12300 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Stephen J. O'Brien153106293025
James J. Collins15166989476
J. Wouter Jukema12478561555
John F. Cryan12472358938
Fergus Shanahan11770551963
Timothy G. Dinan11668960561
John M. Starr11669548761
Gordon G. Wallace114126769095
Colin Hill11269354484
Robert Clarke11151290049
Douglas B. Kell11163450335
Thomas Bein10967742800
Steven C. Hayes10645051556
Åke Borg10544453835
Eamonn Martin Quigley10368539585
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Edinburgh
151.6K papers, 6.6M citations

92% related

University of Bristol
113.1K papers, 4.9M citations

92% related

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
176.5K papers, 6.2M citations

92% related

University of Manchester
168K papers, 6.4M citations

91% related

University College London
210.6K papers, 9.8M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202381
2022400
20212,153
20201,927
20191,679
20181,618