Institution
University of Göttingen
Education•Göttingen, Germany•
About: University of Göttingen is a education organization based out in Göttingen, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Species richness. The organization has 43851 authors who have published 86318 publications receiving 3010295 citations. The organization is also known as: Georg-August-Universität Göttingen & Universität Göttingen.
Topics: Population, Species richness, Gene, Biodiversity, Large Hadron Collider
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: A table of abundances of the elements in the various major units of the Earth's lithic crust with a documentation of the sources and a discussion of the choice of units and data is presented in this article.
Abstract: This paper presents a table of abundances of the elements in the various major units of the Earth's lithic crust with a documentation of the sources and a discussion of the choice of units and data.
4,619 citations
••
TL;DR: The theory of interference and interferometers has been studied extensively in the field of geometrical optics, see as discussed by the authors for a survey of the basic properties of the electromagnetic field.
Abstract: Historical introduction 1. Basic properties of the electromagnetic field 2. Electromagnetic potentials and polarization 3. Foundations of geometrical optics 4. Geometrical theory of optical imaging 5. Geometrical theory of aberrations 6. Image-forming instruments 7. Elements of the theory of interference and interferometers 8. Elements of the theory of diffraction 9. The diffraction theory of aberrations 10. Interference and diffraction with partially coherent light 11. Rigorous diffraction theory 12. Diffraction of light by ultrasonic waves 13. Scattering from inhomogeneous media 14. Optics of metals 15. Optics of crystals 16. Appendices Author index Subject index.
4,439 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
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
••
Newcastle University1, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, Mayo Clinic3, University of Nottingham4, Istanbul University5, University of British Columbia6, University of California, Los Angeles7, Veterans Health Administration8, Drexel University9, Stavanger University Hospital10, Tohoku University11, King's College London12, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University13, University of California, San Diego14, McGill University15, Rush University Medical Center16, Autonomous University of Madrid17, Neuroscience Research Australia18, National Institutes of Health19, University of Tokyo20, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill21, Tel Aviv University22, University of Pennsylvania23, University College London24, University of Louisville25, Lund University26, University of Pittsburgh27, University of Washington28, Juntendo University29, Complutense University of Madrid30, University of Göttingen31, Kanazawa University32
TL;DR: The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. REM sleep behavior disorder, severe neuroleptic sensitivity, and reduced striatal dopamine transporter activity on functional neuroimaging are given greater diagnostic weighting as features suggestive of a DLB diagnosis. The 1-year rule distinguishing between DLB and Parkinson disease with dementia may be difficult to apply in clinical settings and in such cases the term most appropriate to each individual patient should be used. Generic terms such as Lewy body (LB) disease are often helpful. The authors propose a new scheme for the pathologic assessment of LBs and Lewy neurites (LN) using alpha-synuclein immunohistochemistry and semiquantitative grading of lesion density, with the pattern of regional involvement being more important than total LB count. The new criteria take into account both Lewy-related and Alzheimer disease (AD)-type pathology to allocate a probability that these are associated with the clinical DLB syndrome. Finally, the authors suggest patient management guidelines including the need for accurate diagnosis, a target symptom approach, and use of appropriate outcome measures. There is limited evidence about specific interventions but available data suggest only a partial response of motor symptoms to levodopa: severe sensitivity to typical and atypical antipsychotics in ∼50%, and improvements in attention, visual hallucinations, and sleep disorders with cholinesterase inhibitors.
4,258 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, need a landscape perspective, which is difficult to be found in the literature.
Abstract: Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land-use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local high-intensity management. Organisms with high-dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri-environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.
3,460 citations
Authors
Showing all 44172 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Yang Gao | 168 | 2047 | 146301 |
J. S. Lange | 160 | 2083 | 145919 |
Jens J. Holst | 160 | 1536 | 107858 |
Hans Lassmann | 155 | 724 | 79933 |
Walter Paulus | 149 | 809 | 86252 |
Arnulf Quadt | 135 | 1409 | 123441 |
Elizaveta Shabalina | 133 | 1421 | 92273 |
Ernst Detlef Schulze | 133 | 670 | 69504 |
Mark Stitt | 132 | 456 | 60800 |
Meinrat O. Andreae | 131 | 700 | 72714 |
Teja Tscharntke | 130 | 520 | 70554 |
William C. Hahn | 130 | 448 | 72191 |
Vladimir Cindro | 129 | 1157 | 82000 |
Dave Britton | 129 | 1094 | 84187 |
Johannes Haller | 129 | 1178 | 84813 |