scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Costa Rica

EducationSan José, Costa Rica
About: University of Costa Rica is a education organization based out in San José, Costa Rica. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Venom. The organization has 9817 authors who have published 16781 publications receiving 238208 citations. The organization is also known as: UCR & Universidad de Costa Rica.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Linear regression equations have been obtained to directly calculate the nutrient requirements of dairy cattle (TDN, DE, ME, NEL,CP, Ca, P, Vitamin A and Vitamin D) on different physiological stages: maintenance, pregnancy and milk production based on NRC nutrient requirements tables.
Abstract: Linear regression equations have been obtained to directly calculatenutrient requirements of dairy cattle (TDN, DE, ME, NEL,CP, Ca, P, Vitamin A and Vitamin D) on differentphysiological stages: maintenance, pregnancy and milkproduction based on NRC nutrient requirements tables. TheR-square was calculated for each equation to establish thedegree of adjustment.

6,663 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

Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos1, Christine Allen1, Megha Arora1, Ryan M Barber1  +696 moreInstitutions (260)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015) as discussed by the authors was used to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015.

5,050 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Haidong Wang1, Mohsen Naghavi1, Christine Allen1, Ryan M Barber1  +841 moreInstitutions (293)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study provides a comprehensive assessment of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1980 to 2015, finding several countries in sub-Saharan Africa had very large gains in life expectancy, rebounding from an era of exceedingly high loss of life due to HIV/AIDS.

4,804 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


Authors

Showing all 9922 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Alberto Ascherio13646269578
Gervasio Gomez133184499695
Myron M. Levine12378960865
Hong-Cai Zhou11448966320
Edward O. Wilson10140689994
Mary Claire King10033647454
Olga Martín-Belloso8638423428
José María Gutiérrez8460726779
Cesare Montecucco8438227738
Rodolphe Clérac7850622604
Kim R. Dunbar7447020262
Paul J. Hanson7025119504
Hannia Campos6921015164
Jean-Pierre Gorvel6723115005
F. Albert Cotton66102327647
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National University of Cordoba
20.1K papers, 355.1K citations

85% related

University of Los Andes
25.5K papers, 413.4K citations

83% related

University of Buenos Aires
50.9K papers, 1M citations

83% related

National Autonomous University of Mexico
127.7K papers, 2.2M citations

83% related

National University of Colombia
43.4K papers, 395.7K citations

82% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202325
2022155
2021865
20201,009
2019894
2018834