scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Franche-Comté

EducationBesançon, France
About: University of Franche-Comté is a education organization based out in Besançon, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Optical fiber. The organization has 5430 authors who have published 10695 publications receiving 317351 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Franche-Comte & university of Besançon.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Rafael Lozano1, Mohsen Naghavi1, Kyle J Foreman2, Stephen S Lim1  +192 moreInstitutions (95)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 aimed to estimate annual deaths for the world and 21 regions between 1980 and 2010 for 235 causes, with uncertainty intervals (UIs), separately by age and sex, using the Cause of Death Ensemble model.

11,809 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos, Abraham D. Flaxman1, Mohsen Naghavi1, Rafael Lozano1  +360 moreInstitutions (143)
TL;DR: Prevalence and severity of health loss were weakly correlated and age-specific prevalence of YLDs increased with age in all regions and has decreased slightly from 1990 to 2010, but population growth and ageing have increased YLD numbers and crude rates over the past two decades.

7,021 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Christopher J L Murray1, Theo Vos2, Rafael Lozano1, Mohsen Naghavi1  +366 moreInstitutions (141)
TL;DR: The results for 1990 and 2010 supersede all previously published Global Burden of Disease results and highlight the importance of understanding local burden of disease and setting goals and targets for the post-2015 agenda taking such patterns into account.

6,861 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
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 5500 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Dean Fergusson9065532781
Annie C. Robin8331857251
Hansjakob Furrer7839424330
Bruno Gottstein7043616757
John M. Dudley7054920754
Paul A. Corris7034825537
Stéphane Roux6862719123
Jennifer Sobeck6517027542
Léon Sanche6443217111
Amit Kumar6325612509
Mathias Schultheis6120323946
Tamas Fulop6127911245
Céline Reylé5920832793
Edward A. D. Mitchell5821813439
Catherine Tomasetto5713910479
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Paris
174.1K papers, 5M citations

96% related

University of Paris-Sud
52.7K papers, 2.1M citations

95% related

Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University
56.1K papers, 2.3M citations

95% related

Centre national de la recherche scientifique
382.4K papers, 13.6M citations

93% related

École Normale Supérieure
99.4K papers, 3M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202321
202299
2021289
2020266
2019250
2018247