Institution
University of Idaho
Education•Moscow, Idaho, United States•
About: University of Idaho is a education organization based out in Moscow, Idaho, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Climate change. The organization has 9829 authors who have published 20830 publications receiving 672457 citations. The organization is also known as: UI & U of I.
Topics: Population, Climate change, Soil water, Rainbow trout, Trout
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The Human Microbiome Project Consortium reported the first results of their analysis of microbial communities from distinct, clinically relevant body habitats in a human cohort; the insights into the microbial communities of a healthy population lay foundations for future exploration of the epidemiology, ecology and translational applications of the human microbiome as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Human Microbiome Project Consortium reports the first results of their analysis of microbial communities from distinct, clinically relevant body habitats in a human cohort; the insights into the microbial communities of a healthy population lay foundations for future exploration of the epidemiology, ecology and translational applications of the human microbiome.
8,410 citations
•
29 Dec 1995TL;DR: This book, by the authors of the Neural Network Toolbox for MATLAB, provides a clear and detailed coverage of fundamental neural network architectures and learning rules, as well as methods for training them and their applications to practical problems.
Abstract: This book, by the authors of the Neural Network Toolbox for MATLAB, provides a clear and detailed coverage of fundamental neural network architectures and learning rules. In it, the authors emphasize a coherent presentation of the principal neural networks, methods for training them and their applications to practical problems. Features Extensive coverage of training methods for both feedforward networks (including multilayer and radial basis networks) and recurrent networks. In addition to conjugate gradient and Levenberg-Marquardt variations of the backpropagation algorithm, the text also covers Bayesian regularization and early stopping, which ensure the generalization ability of trained networks. Associative and competitive networks, including feature maps and learning vector quantization, are explained with simple building blocks. A chapter of practical training tips for function approximation, pattern recognition, clustering and prediction, along with five chapters presenting detailed real-world case studies. Detailed examples and numerous solved problems. Slides and comprehensive demonstration software can be downloaded from hagan.okstate.edu/nnd.html.
6,463 citations
••
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
••
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
••
Ames Research Center1, University of California, Berkeley2, San Jose State University3, Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network4, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence5, York University6, Aarhus University7, University of Texas at Austin8, Lowell Observatory9, Harvard University10, California Institute of Technology11, Space Telescope Science Institute12, Lawrence Hall of Science13, Goddard Space Flight Center14, United States Department of the Navy15, Carnegie Institution for Science16, University of Washington17, University of Hawaii at Hilo18, University of California, Santa Cruz19, Massachusetts Institute of Technology20, Fermilab21, San Diego State University22, Southern Connecticut State University23, Planetary Science Institute24, Yale University25, Marshall Space Flight Center26, The Catholic University of America27, University of Idaho28, Villanova University29
TL;DR: The Kepler mission was designed to determine the frequency of Earth-sized planets in and near the habitable zone of Sun-like stars, which is the region where planetary temperatures are suitable for water to exist on a planet's surface.
Abstract: The Kepler mission was designed to determine the frequency of Earth-sized planets in and near the habitable zone of Sun-like stars. The habitable zone is the region where planetary temperatures are suitable for water to exist on a planet’s surface. During the first 6 weeks of observations, Kepler monitored 156,000 stars, and five new exoplanets with sizes between 0.37 and 1.6 Jupiter radii and orbital periods from 3.2 to 4.9 days were discovered. The density of the Neptune-sized Kepler-4b is similar to that of Neptune and GJ 436b, even though the irradiation level is 800,000 times higher. Kepler-7b is one of the lowest-density planets (~0.17 gram per cubic centimeter) yet detected. Kepler-5b, -6b, and -8b confirm the existence of planets with densities lower than those predicted for gas giant planets.
3,663 citations
Authors
Showing all 9903 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Bruce L. Miller | 163 | 1153 | 115975 |
Yi Yang | 143 | 2456 | 92268 |
Ernst Detlef Schulze | 133 | 670 | 69504 |
Somnath Choudhury | 128 | 1264 | 80929 |
Graham D. Farquhar | 124 | 368 | 75181 |
Peter W. Kalivas | 123 | 428 | 52445 |
Yuehe Lin | 118 | 641 | 55399 |
James R. Ehleringer | 116 | 473 | 56643 |
Rita R. Colwell | 115 | 781 | 55229 |
Cameron S. Carter | 105 | 421 | 60214 |
Howard J. Edenberg | 102 | 589 | 38531 |
Daniel F. Klessig | 101 | 267 | 40407 |
James C. Carrington | 96 | 156 | 44961 |
Arthur R. Grossman | 94 | 321 | 29561 |
Chun Li | 93 | 517 | 41645 |