scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Canterbury

EducationChristchurch, New Zealand
About: University of Canterbury is a education organization based out in Christchurch, New Zealand. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Large Hadron Collider. The organization has 11100 authors who have published 29846 publications receiving 893232 citations. The organization is also known as: Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha & Canterbury College.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, results from searches for the standard model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV in the CMS experiment at the LHC, using data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of up to 5.8 standard deviations.

8,857 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a stress-strain model for concrete subjected to uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement is developed for concrete sections with either spiral or circular hoops, or rectangular hoops with or without supplementary cross ties.
Abstract: A stress‐strain model is developed for concrete subjected to uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement. The concrete section may contain any general type of confining steel: either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops with or without supplementary cross ties. These cross ties can have either equal or unequal confining stresses along each of the transverse axes. A single equation is used for the stress‐strain equation. The model allows for cyclic loading and includes the effect of strain rate. The influence of various types of confinement is taken into account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which is dependent on the configuration of the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement. An energy balance approach is used to predict the longitudinal compressive strain in the concrete corresponding to first fracture of the transverse reinforcement by equating the strain energy capacity of the transverse reinforcement to the strain energy stored in the concret...

6,261 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Mohsen Naghavi1, Haidong Wang1, Rafael Lozano1, Adrian Davis2  +728 moreInstitutions (294)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.

5,792 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN as mentioned in this paper was designed to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1)
Abstract: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector is described. The detector operates at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. It was conceived to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1) (10(27)cm(-2)s(-1)). At the core of the CMS detector sits a high-magnetic-field and large-bore superconducting solenoid surrounding an all-silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead-tungstate scintillating-crystals electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass-scintillator sampling hadron calorimeter. The iron yoke of the flux-return is instrumented with four stations of muon detectors covering most of the 4 pi solid angle. Forward sampling calorimeters extend the pseudo-rapidity coverage to high values (vertical bar eta vertical bar <= 5) assuring very good hermeticity. The overall dimensions of the CMS detector are a length of 21.6 m, a diameter of 14.6 m and a total weight of 12500 t.

5,193 citations

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


Authors

Showing all 11248 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Carlo Rovelli1461502103550
Kenneth A. Dodge13846879640
John D. Potter13779575310
David A. Jackson136109568352
Wajid Ali Khan128127279308
David Krofcheck128104377143
Hafeez R Hoorani128120880646
Muhammad Ahmad128118779758
David M. Fergusson12747455992
Philip H Butler12597071999
Paul Lujan123125576799
W. Dominik12266964410
A. J. Bell11949855643
Cynthia M. Bulik10771441562
David A. Boas10663138003
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Australian National University
109.2K papers, 4.3M citations

91% related

University of Queensland
155.7K papers, 5.7M citations

90% related

University of New South Wales
153.6K papers, 4.8M citations

89% related

Arizona State University
109.6K papers, 4.4M citations

89% related

University of Melbourne
174.8K papers, 6.3M citations

89% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202387
2022211
20211,460
20201,474
20191,428
20181,383