scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of California, San Francisco

EducationSan 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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Robert Langer2812324326306
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
Gordon H. Guyatt2311620228631
Eugene Braunwald2301711264576
John Q. Trojanowski2261467213948
Fred H. Gage216967185732
Robert J. Lefkowitz214860147995
Peter Libby211932182724
Edward Giovannucci2061671179875
Rob Knight2011061253207
Irving L. Weissman2011141172504
Eugene V. Koonin1991063175111
Peter J. Barnes1941530166618
Virginia M.-Y. Lee194993148820
Gordon B. Mills1871273186451
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

98% related

University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

96% related

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

96% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

96% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20241
2023179
2022981
202111,518
202010,575
20199,343