scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Education•Birmingham, Alabama, United States•
About: University of Alabama at Birmingham is a education organization based out in Birmingham, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 38523 authors who have published 86775 publications receiving 3930642 citations. The organization is also known as: UAB & The University of Alabama at Birmingham.


Papers
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Theo Vos1, Ryan M Barber1, Brad Bell1, Amelia Bertozzi-Villa1  +686 more•Institutions (287)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as mentioned in this paper, the authors estimated the quantities for acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries between 1990 and 2013.

4,510 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
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

Journal Article•DOI•
TL;DR: In this article, the most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain, and the authors propose a target of less than 120 mm Hg.
Abstract: BACKGROUND The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

4,125 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors have developed recommendations for reliable evaluation of kinetic parameters (the activation energy, the preexponential factor, and the reaction model) from the data obtained by means of thermal analysis methods such as TGA, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and differential thermal analysis (DTA).

4,112 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Eric A. Collisson1, Joshua D. Campbell2, Angela N. Brooks2, Angela N. Brooks3  +315 more•Institutions (41)
01 Jan 2014-Nature
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report molecular profiling of 230 resected lung adnocarcinomas using messenger RNA, microRNA and DNA sequencing integrated with copy number, methylation and proteomic analyses.
Abstract: Adenocarcinoma of the lung is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Here we report molecular profiling of 230 resected lung adenocarcinomas using messenger RNA, microRNA and DNA sequencing integrated with copy number, methylation and proteomic analyses. High rates of somatic mutation were seen (mean 8.9 mutations per megabase). Eighteen genes were statistically significantly mutated, including RIT1 activating mutations and newly described loss-of-function MGA mutations which are mutually exclusive with focal MYC amplification. EGFR mutations were more frequent in female patients, whereas mutations in RBM10 were more common in males. Aberrations in NF1, MET, ERBB2 and RIT1 occurred in 13% of cases and were enriched in samples otherwise lacking an activated oncogene, suggesting a driver role for these events in certain tumours. DNA and mRNA sequence from the same tumour highlighted splicing alterations driven by somatic genomic changes, including exon 14 skipping in MET mRNA in 4% of cases. MAPK and PI(3)K pathway activity, when measured at the protein level, was explained by known mutations in only a fraction of cases, suggesting additional, unexplained mechanisms of pathway activation. These data establish a foundation for classification and further investigations of lung adenocarcinoma molecular pathogenesis.

4,104 citations


Authors

Showing all 38940 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Rudolf Jaenisch206606178436
Joel Schwartz1831149109985
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Gregg L. Semenza168502130316
David R. Jacobs1651262113892
Hua Zhang1631503116769
David R. Holmes1611624114187
David Cella1561258106402
Elaine S. Jaffe156828112412
Michael A. Matthay15199898687
Lawrence Corey14677378105
Barton F. Haynes14491179014
Douglas D. Richman14263382806
Kjell Fuxe142147989846
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

98% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

97% related

Brigham and Women's Hospital
110.5K papers, 6.8M citations

97% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023168
2022530
20215,327
20205,028
20194,402
20184,083