Institution
University of Alabama
Education•Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States•
About: University of Alabama is a education organization based out in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 27323 authors who have published 48609 publications receiving 1565337 citations. The organization is also known as: Alabama & Bama.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Galaxy, Health care, Large Hadron Collider
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Urbino6, CERN7, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics8, University of California, Irvine9, Cornell University10, Argonne National Laboratory11, ETH Zurich12, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research13, Hillsdale College14, Spanish National Research Council15, Ohio State University16, University of Notre Dame17, Kent State University18, University of California, San Diego19, University of California, Berkeley20, University of Minnesota21, University of Alabama22, University of Helsinki23, Los Alamos National Laboratory24, California Institute of Technology25, George Washington University26, Syracuse University27, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory28, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater29, University of Washington30, Max Planck Society31, Boston University32, University of California, Los Angeles33, Royal Holloway, University of London34, Université Paris-Saclay35, University of Pennsylvania36, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign37, University of Bristol38, University of Tokyo39, University of Delaware40, Carnegie Mellon University41, University of California, Santa Cruz42, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology43, Heidelberg University44, Florida State University45, University of Mainz46, University of Edinburgh47, Brookhaven National Laboratory48, Durham University49, University of Lausanne50, Massachusetts Institute of Technology51, University of Southampton52, Nagoya University53, University of Oxford54, Northwestern University55, University of British Columbia56, Columbia University57, Lund University58, University of Sheffield59, University of California, Santa Barbara60, Iowa State University61, University of Alberta62, University of Cambridge63
TL;DR: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, and features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. This edition features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations. For the first time we cover searches for evidence of extra dimensions (both in the particle listings and in a new review). Another new review is on Grand Unified Theories. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov.
5,143 citations
••
TL;DR: The authors investigated the relation between founding-family ownership and firm performance and found that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one-third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity.
Abstract: We investigate the relation between founding-family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one-third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure. FOUNDING-FAMILYOWNERSHIPAND CONTROL in public U.S. firms is commonly perceived as a less efficient, or at the very least, a less profitable ownership structure than dispersed ownership. Fama and Jensen (1983) note that combining ownership and control allows concentrated shareholders to exchange profits for private rents. Demsetz (1983) argues that such owners may choose nonpecuniary consumption and thereby draw scarce resources away from profitable projects. Shleifer and Vishny (1997) observe that the large premiums associated with superiorvoting shares or control rights provide evidence that controlling shareholders seek to extract private benefits from the firm. More generally, firms with large, undiversified owners such as founding families may forgo maximum profits because they are unable to separate their financial preferences with those of outside owners.1 Families also often limit executive management positions to family
4,923 citations
••
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of Wisconsin-Madison2, Autonomous University of Barcelona3, Eli Lilly and Company4, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center5, University of Virginia6, University of the Witwatersrand7, University of Colorado Boulder8, Gdańsk Medical University9, University of Alabama10, Merck KGaA11, ImClone Systems12
TL;DR: Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer with concomitant high-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab improves locoreGional control and reduces mortality without increasing the common toxic effects associated with radiotherapy to the head andneck.
Abstract: BACKGROUND We conducted a multinational, randomized study to compare radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor, in the treatment of locoregionally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS Patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with high-dose radiotherapy alone (213 patients) or high-dose radiotherapy plus weekly cetuximab (211 patients) at an initial dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by 250 mg per square meter weekly for the duration of radiotherapy. The primary end point was the duration of control of locoregional disease; secondary end points were overall survival, progression-free survival, the response rate, and safety. RESULTS The median duration of locoregional control was 24.4 months among patients treated with cetuximab plus radiotherapy and 14.9 months among those given radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for locoregional progression or death, 0.68; P = 0.005). With a median follow-up of 54.0 months, the median duration of overall survival was 49.0 months among patients treated with combined therapy and 29.3 months among those treated with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.74; P = 0.03). Radiotherapy plus cetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; P = 0.006). With the exception of acneiform rash and infusion reactions, the incidence of grade 3 or greater toxic effects, including mucositis, did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer with concomitant highdose radiotherapy plus cetuximab improves locoregional control and reduces mortality without increasing the common toxic effects associated with radiotherapy to the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004227.)
4,705 citations
••
Ashkan Afshin, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar, Marissa B Reitsma, Patrick J Sur +164 more•Institutions (70)
TL;DR: The rapid increase in the prevalence and disease burden of elevated BMI highlights the need for continued focus on surveillance of BMI and identification, implementation, and evaluation of evidence‐based interventions to address this problem.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Although the rising pandemic of obesity has received major attention in many countries, the effects of this attention on trends and the disease burden of obesity remain uncertain. METHOD ...
4,519 citations
Authors
Showing all 27508 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
Hongfang Liu | 166 | 2356 | 156290 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Yongsun Kim | 156 | 2588 | 145619 |
Dong-Chul Son | 138 | 1370 | 98686 |
Simon C. Watkins | 135 | 950 | 68358 |
Kenichi Hatakeyama | 134 | 1731 | 102438 |
Conor Henderson | 133 | 1387 | 88725 |
Peter R Hobson | 133 | 1590 | 94257 |
Tulika Bose | 132 | 1285 | 88895 |
Helen F Heath | 132 | 1185 | 89466 |
James Rohlf | 131 | 1215 | 89436 |
Panos A Razis | 130 | 1287 | 90704 |
David B. Allison | 129 | 836 | 69697 |
Eduardo Marbán | 129 | 579 | 49586 |