scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Maryland, Baltimore

EducationBaltimore, Maryland, United States
About: University of Maryland, Baltimore is a education organization based out in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 35249 authors who have published 64702 publications receiving 2936441 citations. The organization is also known as: UMAB & UMB.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An overview of the CHARMM program as it exists today is provided with an emphasis on developments since the publication of the original CHARMM article in 1983.
Abstract: CHARMM (Chemistry at HARvard Molecular Mechanics) is a highly versatile and widely used molecu- lar simulation program. It has been developed over the last three decades with a primary focus on molecules of bio- logical interest, including proteins, peptides, lipids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and small molecule ligands, as they occur in solution, crystals, and membrane environments. For the study of such systems, the program provides a large suite of computational tools that include numerous conformational and path sampling methods, free energy estima- tors, molecular minimization, dynamics, and analysis techniques, and model-building capabilities. The CHARMM program is applicable to problems involving a much broader class of many-particle systems. Calculations with CHARMM can be performed using a number of different energy functions and models, from mixed quantum mechanical-molecular mechanical force fields, to all-atom classical potential energy functions with explicit solvent and various boundary conditions, to implicit solvent and membrane models. The program has been ported to numer- ous platforms in both serial and parallel architectures. This article provides an overview of the program as it exists today with an emphasis on developments since the publication of the original CHARMM article in 1983.

7,035 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John W. Belmont1, Paul Hardenbol, Thomas D. Willis, Fuli Yu1, Huanming Yang2, Lan Yang Ch'Ang, Wei Huang3, Bin Liu2, Yan Shen3, Paul K.H. Tam4, Lap-Chee Tsui4, Mary M.Y. Waye5, Jeffrey Tze Fei Wong6, Changqing Zeng2, Qingrun Zhang2, Mark S. Chee7, Luana Galver7, Semyon Kruglyak7, Sarah S. Murray7, Arnold Oliphant7, Alexandre Montpetit8, Fanny Chagnon8, Vincent Ferretti8, Martin Leboeuf8, Michael S. Phillips8, Andrei Verner8, Shenghui Duan9, Denise L. Lind10, Raymond D. Miller9, John P. Rice9, Nancy L. Saccone9, Patricia Taillon-Miller9, Ming Xiao10, Akihiro Sekine, Koki Sorimachi, Yoichi Tanaka, Tatsuhiko Tsunoda, Eiji Yoshino, David R. Bentley11, Sarah E. Hunt11, Don Powell11, Houcan Zhang12, Ichiro Matsuda13, Yoshimitsu Fukushima14, Darryl Macer15, Eiko Suda15, Charles N. Rotimi16, Clement Adebamowo17, Toyin Aniagwu17, Patricia A. Marshall18, Olayemi Matthew17, Chibuzor Nkwodimmah17, Charmaine D.M. Royal16, Mark Leppert19, Missy Dixon19, Fiona Cunningham20, Ardavan Kanani20, Gudmundur A. Thorisson20, Peter E. Chen21, David J. Cutler21, Carl S. Kashuk21, Peter Donnelly22, Jonathan Marchini22, Gilean McVean22, Simon Myers22, Lon R. Cardon22, Andrew P. Morris22, Bruce S. Weir23, James C. Mullikin24, Michael Feolo24, Mark J. Daly25, Renzong Qiu26, Alastair Kent, Georgia M. Dunston16, Kazuto Kato27, Norio Niikawa28, Jessica Watkin29, Richard A. Gibbs1, Erica Sodergren1, George M. Weinstock1, Richard K. Wilson9, Lucinda Fulton9, Jane Rogers11, Bruce W. Birren25, Hua Han2, Hongguang Wang, Martin Godbout30, John C. Wallenburg8, Paul L'Archevêque, Guy Bellemare, Kazuo Todani, Takashi Fujita, Satoshi Tanaka, Arthur L. Holden, Francis S. Collins24, Lisa D. Brooks24, Jean E. McEwen24, Mark S. Guyer24, Elke Jordan31, Jane Peterson24, Jack Spiegel24, Lawrence M. Sung32, Lynn F. Zacharia24, Karen Kennedy29, Michael Dunn29, Richard Seabrook29, Mark Shillito, Barbara Skene29, John Stewart29, David Valle21, Ellen Wright Clayton33, Lynn B. Jorde19, Aravinda Chakravarti21, Mildred K. Cho34, Troy Duster35, Troy Duster36, Morris W. Foster37, Maria Jasperse38, Bartha Maria Knoppers39, Pui-Yan Kwok10, Julio Licinio40, Jeffrey C. Long41, Pilar N. Ossorio42, Vivian Ota Wang33, Charles N. Rotimi16, Patricia Spallone29, Patricia Spallone43, Sharon F. Terry44, Eric S. Lander25, Eric H. Lai45, Deborah A. Nickerson46, Gonçalo R. Abecasis41, David Altshuler47, Michael Boehnke41, Panos Deloukas11, Julie A. Douglas41, Stacey Gabriel25, Richard R. Hudson48, Thomas J. Hudson8, Leonid Kruglyak49, Yusuke Nakamura50, Robert L. Nussbaum24, Stephen F. Schaffner25, Stephen T. Sherry24, Lincoln Stein20, Toshihiro Tanaka 
18 Dec 2003-Nature
TL;DR: The HapMap will allow the discovery of sequence variants that affect common disease, will facilitate development of diagnostic tools, and will enhance the ability to choose targets for therapeutic intervention.
Abstract: The goal of the International HapMap Project is to determine the common patterns of DNA sequence variation in the human genome and to make this information freely available in the public domain. An international consortium is developing a map of these patterns across the genome by determining the genotypes of one million or more sequence variants, their frequencies and the degree of association between them, in DNA samples from populations with ancestry from parts of Africa, Asia and Europe. The HapMap will allow the discovery of sequence variants that affect common disease, will facilitate development of diagnostic tools, and will enhance our ability to choose targets for therapeutic intervention.

5,926 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John W. Belmont1, Andrew Boudreau, Suzanne M. Leal1, Paul Hardenbol  +229 moreInstitutions (40)
27 Oct 2005
TL;DR: A public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted.
Abstract: Inherited genetic variation has a critical but as yet largely uncharacterized role in human disease. Here we report a public database of common variation in the human genome: more than one million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for which accurate and complete genotypes have been obtained in 269 DNA samples from four populations, including ten 500-kilobase regions in which essentially all information about common DNA variation has been extracted. These data document the generality of recombination hotspots, a block-like structure of linkage disequilibrium and low haplotype diversity, leading to substantial correlations of SNPs with many of their neighbours. We show how the HapMap resource can guide the design and analysis of genetic association studies, shed light on structural variation and recombination, and identify loci that may have been subject to natural selection during human evolution.

5,479 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4  +1025 moreInstitutions (333)
TL;DR: Non-communicable diseases comprised the greatest fraction of deaths, contributing to 73·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 72·5–74·1) of total deaths in 2017, while communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes accounted for 18·6% (17·9–19·6), and injuries 8·0% (7·7–8·2).

5,211 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


Authors

Showing all 35490 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric J. Topol1931373151025
Nicholas G. Martin1921770161952
Eric Boerwinkle1831321170971
Dennis S. Charney179802122408
Eric J. Nestler178748116947
Marc G. Caron17367499802
George P. Chrousos1691612120752
Stanley B. Prusiner16874597528
Gregg L. Semenza168502130316
Martin Karplus163831138492
Philip A. Wolf163459114951
Caroline S. Fox155599138951
Arul M. Chinnaiyan154723109538
Joseph Jankovic153114693840
Robert O. Bonow149808114836
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
79.2K papers, 4.7M citations

97% related

National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

97% related

Emory University
122.4K papers, 6M citations

97% related

Baylor College of Medicine
94.8K papers, 5M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202365
2022382
20214,031
20203,675
20193,079
20182,704