scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Houston

EducationHouston, Texas, United States
About: University of Houston is a education organization based out in Houston, Texas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 23074 authors who have published 53903 publications receiving 1641968 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Pan-Cancer initiative compares the first 12 tumor types profiled by TCGA with a major opportunity to develop an integrated picture of commonalities, differences and emergent themes across tumor lineages.
Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network has profiled and analyzed large numbers of human tumors to discover molecular aberrations at the DNA, RNA, protein and epigenetic levels. The resulting rich data provide a major opportunity to develop an integrated picture of commonalities, differences and emergent themes across tumor lineages. The Pan-Cancer initiative compares the first 12 tumor types profiled by TCGA. Analysis of the molecular aberrations and their functional roles across tumor types will teach us how to extend therapies effective in one cancer type to others with a similar genomic profile.

5,294 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a basic set of guidelines and recommendations for information that should be included in any manuscript that has confirmatory factor analysis or structural equation modeling as the primary statistical analysis technique.
Abstract: The authors provide a basic set of guidelines and recommendations for information that should be included in any manuscript that has confirmatory factor analysis or structural equation modeling as the primary statistical analysis technique. The authors provide an introduction to both techniques, along with sample analyses, recommendations for reporting, evaluation of articles in The Journal of Educational Research using these techniques, and concluding remarks.

5,221 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

Book
01 Jan 1989
TL;DR: Fundamentals of Database Systems combines clear explanations of theory and design, broad coverage of models and real systems, and excellent examples with up-to-date introductions to modern database technologies.
Abstract: From the Publisher: Fundamentals of Database Systems combines clear explanations of theory and design, broad coverage of models and real systems, and excellent examples with up-to-date introductions to modern database technologies. This edition is completely revised and updated, and reflects the latest trends in technological and application development. Professors Elmasri and Navathe focus on the relational model and include coverage of recent object-oriented developments. They also address advanced modeling and system enhancements in the areas of active databases, temporal and spatial databases, and multimedia information systems. This edition also surveys the latest application areas of data warehousing, data mining, web databases, digital libraries, GIS, and genome databases. New to the Third Edition Reorganized material on data modeling to clearly separate entity relationship modeling, extended entity relationship modeling, and object-oriented modeling Expanded coverage of the object-oriented and object/relational approach to data management, including ODMG and SQL3 Uses examples from real database systems including OracleTM and Microsoft AccessAE Includes discussion of decision support applications of data warehousing and data mining, as well as emerging technologies of web databases, multimedia, and mobile databases Covers advanced modeling in the areas of active, temporal, and spatial databases Provides coverage of issues of physical database tuning Discusses current database application areas of GIS, genome, and digital libraries

4,242 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: A discussion of key differences and rationale that researchers can use to support their use of PLS is provided, followed by two examples from the discipline of Information Systems.
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to provide a basic framework for researchers interested in reporting the results of their PLS analyses. Since the dominant paradigm in reporting Structural Equation Modeling results is covariance based, this paper begins by providing a discussion of key differences and rationale that researchers can use to support their use of PLS. This is followed by two examples from the discipline of Information Systems. The first consists of constructs with reflective indicators (mode A). This is followed up with a model that includes a construct with formative indicators (mode B).

3,537 citations


Authors

Showing all 23345 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Matthew Meyerson194553243726
Gad Getz189520247560
Eric Boerwinkle1831321170971
Pulickel M. Ajayan1761223136241
Zhenan Bao169865106571
Marc Weber1672716153502
Steven N. Blair165879132929
Martin Karplus163831138492
Dongyuan Zhao160872106451
Xiang Zhang1541733117576
Jan-Åke Gustafsson147105898804
James M. Tour14385991364
Guanrong Chen141165292218
Naomi J. Halas14043582040
Antonios G. Mikos13869470204
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Texas at Austin
206.2K papers, 9M citations

95% related

University of Southern California
169.9K papers, 7.8M citations

94% related

Texas A&M University
164.3K papers, 5.7M citations

93% related

Pennsylvania State University
196.8K papers, 8.3M citations

93% related

University of California, Irvine
113.6K papers, 5.5M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023111
2022440
20213,031
20203,072
20192,806
20182,568