scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Alcalá

EducationAlcalá de Henares, Spain
About: University of Alcalá is a education organization based out in Alcalá de Henares, Spain. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Receptor. The organization has 10795 authors who have published 20718 publications receiving 410089 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Alcala & University of Alcala de Henares.


Papers
More filters
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: Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Summary Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (>18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 ) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. Findings Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5–5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25–0·54; p vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. Interpretation Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Funding Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

4,791 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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 ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a review of the Kuramoto model of coupled phase oscillators is presented, with a rigorous mathematical treatment, specific numerical methods, and many variations and extensions of the original model that have appeared in the last few years.
Abstract: Synchronization phenomena in large populations of interacting elements are the subject of intense research efforts in physical, biological, chemical, and social systems. A successful approach to the problem of synchronization consists of modeling each member of the population as a phase oscillator. In this review, synchronization is analyzed in one of the most representative models of coupled phase oscillators, the Kuramoto model. A rigorous mathematical treatment, specific numerical methods, and many variations and extensions of the original model that have appeared in the last few years are presented. Relevant applications of the model in different contexts are also included.

2,864 citations


Authors

Showing all 10907 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
José Luis Zamorano105695133396
Jesús F. San Miguel9752744918
Sebastián F. Sánchez9662932496
Javier P. Gisbert9599033726
Luis M. Ruilope9484197778
Luis M. Garcia-Segura8848427077
Alberto Orfao8559737670
Amadeo R. Fernández-Alba8331821458
Rafael Luque8069328395
Francisco Rodríguez7974824992
Andrea Negri7924235311
Rafael Cantón7857529702
David J. Grignon7830123119
Christophe Baudouin7455322068
Josep M. Argilés7331019675
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Complutense University of Madrid
90.2K papers, 2.1M citations

95% related

University of Valencia
65.6K papers, 1.7M citations

94% related

Autonomous University of Barcelona
80.5K papers, 2.3M citations

94% related

University of Barcelona
108.5K papers, 3.7M citations

93% related

University of Florence
79.5K papers, 2.3M citations

90% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20251
20243
202375
2022166
20211,660
20201,532