Institution
University of California, San Francisco
Education•San Francisco, California, United States•
About: University of California, San Francisco is a education organization based out in San Francisco, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 83381 authors who have published 186236 publications receiving 12068420 citations. The organization is also known as: UCSF & UC San Francisco.
Topics: Population, Health care, Cancer, Medicine, Transplantation
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: This protocol explains how to use Cytoscape to analyze the results of mRNA expression profiling, and other functional genomics and proteomics experiments, in the context of an interaction network obtained for genes of interest.
Abstract: Cytoscape is a free software package for visualizing, modeling and analyzing molecular and genetic interaction networks. This protocol explains how to use Cytoscape to analyze the results of mRNA expression profiling, and other functional genomics and proteomics experiments, in the context of an interaction network obtained for genes of interest. Five major steps are described: (i) obtaining a gene or protein network, (ii) displaying the network using layout algorithms, (iii) integrating with gene expression and other functional attributes, (iv) identifying putative complexes and functional modules and (v) identifying enriched Gene Ontology annotations in the network. These steps provide a broad sample of the types of analyses performed by Cytoscape.
2,313 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Hagai Abeliovich2, Patrizia Agostinis3, Devendra K. Agrawal4 +232 more•Institutions (137)
TL;DR: A set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes are presented.
Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response
2,310 citations
••
TL;DR: It is reported that angiogenesis inhibitors targeting the VEGF pathway demonstrate antitumor effects in mouse models of pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma and glioblastoma but concomitantly elicit tumor adaptation and progression to stages of greater malignancy, with heightened invasiveness and in some cases increased lymphatic and distant metastasis.
2,303 citations
••
Boston Children's Hospital1, University of Washington2, Emory University3, GeneDx4, National Institutes of Health5, University of Utah6, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute7, Salisbury University8, University of California, San Francisco9, Uppsala University10, University of British Columbia11, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine12, Drexel University13, University of Groningen14, University of Pennsylvania15, University of California, Santa Cruz16, Brigham and Women's Hospital17, The Centre for Applied Genomics18, Research Triangle Park19, Mayo Clinic20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven21, University of Chicago22, American College of Medical Genetics23
TL;DR: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA).
Abstract: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%–20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype (~3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.
2,294 citations
••
University of Düsseldorf1, University of Pittsburgh2, University of New South Wales3, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai4, University of California, San Diego5, Washington University in St. Louis6, Children's Memorial Hospital7, University of Miami8, University of Gothenburg9, National Institutes of Health10, Columbia University11, University of Washington12, Johns Hopkins University13, University of California, San Francisco14, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill15, University of Hawaii at Manoa16, University of Puerto Rico17
TL;DR: This report reviews the collective experience with HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), particularly since the advent of highly active antiretroviral treatment, and their definitional criteria; discusses the impact of comorbidities; and suggests inclusion of the term asymptomatic neuroc cognitive impairment to categorize individuals with subclinical impairment.
Abstract: In 1991, the AIDS Task Force of the American Academy of Neurology published nomenclature and research case definitions to guide the diagnosis of neurologic manifestations of HIV-1 infection. Now, 16 years later, the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke have charged a working group to critically review the adequacy and utility of these definitional criteria and to identify aspects that require updating. This report represents a majority view, and unanimity was not reached on all points. It reviews our collective experience with HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), particularly since the advent of highly active antiretroviral treatment, and their definitional criteria; discusses the impact of comorbidities; and suggests inclusion of the term asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment to categorize individuals with subclinical impairment. An algorithm is proposed to assist in standardized diagnostic classification of HAND.
2,292 citations
Authors
Showing all 84066 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robert Langer | 281 | 2324 | 326306 |
Meir J. Stampfer | 277 | 1414 | 283776 |
Gordon H. Guyatt | 231 | 1620 | 228631 |
Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
John Q. Trojanowski | 226 | 1467 | 213948 |
Fred H. Gage | 216 | 967 | 185732 |
Robert J. Lefkowitz | 214 | 860 | 147995 |
Peter Libby | 211 | 932 | 182724 |
Edward Giovannucci | 206 | 1671 | 179875 |
Rob Knight | 201 | 1061 | 253207 |
Irving L. Weissman | 201 | 1141 | 172504 |
Eugene V. Koonin | 199 | 1063 | 175111 |
Peter J. Barnes | 194 | 1530 | 166618 |
Virginia M.-Y. Lee | 194 | 993 | 148820 |
Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |