Institution
University of Louisville
Education•Louisville, Kentucky, United States•
About: University of Louisville is a education organization based out in Louisville, Kentucky, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 24600 authors who have published 49248 publications receiving 1573346 citations. The organization is also known as: UofL.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Transplantation, Stem cell, Breast cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital1, University of Edinburgh2, Singapore Immunology Network3, New York University4, University College London5, Heidelberg University6, University of Oxford7, Royal Melbourne Hospital8, Hospital for Special Surgery9, University of Milan10, Aix-Marseille University11, University of Maryland, College Park12, European Institute of Oncology13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology14, University of Bonn15, University of Maryland, Baltimore16, University of Eastern Piedmont17, University of Louisville18, Vrije Universiteit Brussel19, National Institutes of Health20
TL;DR: A set of standards encompassing three principles-the source of macrophages, definition of the activators, and a consensus collection of markers to describe macrophage activation are described with the goal of unifying experimental standards for diverse experimental scenarios.
4,287 citations
••
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, Newcastle University2, 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: The principal cofactor for entry mediated by the envelope glycoproteins of primary macrophage-tropic strains of HIV-1 is CC-CKR-5, a receptor for the β-chemokines RANTES, Mip-1α and MIP-1β.
Abstract: Entry of HIV-1 into target cells requires cell-surface CD4 and additional host cell cofactors. A cofactor required for infection with virus adapted for growth in transformed T-cell lines was recently identified and named fusin. However, fusin does not promote entry of macrophage-tropic viruses, which are believed to be the key pathogenic strains in vivo. The principal cofactor for entry mediated by the envelope glycoproteins of primary macrophage-tropic strains of HIV-1 is CC-CKR-5, a receptor for the β-chemokines RANTES, MIP-1α and MIP-1β.
3,802 citations
••
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Alabama at Birmingham2, University of Birmingham3, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation4, Laval University5, University of Manchester6, University College London7, University of California, Los Angeles8, Lund University9, Northwestern University10, Hanyang University11, Dalhousie University12, University of Toronto13, McGill University14, North Shore-LIJ Health System15, Allegheny General Hospital16, University of California, San Diego17, University of Pennsylvania18, Monklands Hospital19, University of the Basque Country20, St Thomas' Hospital21, University of Copenhagen22, New York University23, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill24, Karolinska Institutet25, SUNY Downstate Medical Center26, University of Manitoba27, Wake Forest University28, University of Louisville29, Emory University30, Istanbul University31, Medical University of South Carolina32, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio33, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center34, University of Maryland, Baltimore35
TL;DR: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE.
Abstract: Objective The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. Methods The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. Results Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). Conclusion The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies. (Less)
3,609 citations
Authors
Showing all 24802 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robert M. Califf | 196 | 1561 | 167961 |
Aaron R. Folsom | 181 | 1118 | 134044 |
Yang Gao | 168 | 2047 | 146301 |
Stephen J. O'Brien | 153 | 1062 | 93025 |
James J. Collins | 151 | 669 | 89476 |
Anthony E. Lang | 149 | 1028 | 95630 |
Sw. Banerjee | 146 | 1906 | 124364 |
Hermann Kolanoski | 145 | 1279 | 96152 |
Ferenc A. Jolesz | 143 | 631 | 66198 |
Daniel S. Berman | 141 | 1363 | 86136 |
Aaron T. Beck | 139 | 536 | 170816 |
Kevin J. Tracey | 138 | 561 | 82791 |
C. Dallapiccola | 136 | 1717 | 101947 |
Michael I. Posner | 134 | 414 | 104201 |
Alan Sher | 132 | 486 | 68128 |