scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Münster

EducationMünster, Germany
About: University of Münster is a education organization based out in Münster, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 35609 authors who have published 69059 publications receiving 2278534 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Munster & University of Muenster.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Betty Abelev1, Jaroslav Adam2, Dagmar Adamová3, Andrew Marshall Adare4  +997 moreInstitutions (89)
18 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this article, the authors measured the centrality of inelastic Pb-Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 2.76 TeV per colliding nucleon pair with ALICE.
Abstract: This publication describes the methods used to measure the centrality of inelastic Pb-Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 2.76 TeV per colliding nucleon pair with ALICE. The centrality is a key parameter in the study of the properties of QCD matter at extreme temperature and energy density, because it is directly related to the initial overlap region of the colliding nuclei. Geometrical properties of the collision, such as the number of participating nucleons and the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions, are deduced from a Glauber model with a sharp impact parameter selection and shown to be consistent with those extracted from the data. The centrality determination provides a tool to compare ALICE measurements with those of other experiments and with theoretical calculations.

388 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that the ASIP/PAR‐3–aPKC complex is tethered to tight junctions via its association with JAM, indicating a potential role for JAM in the generation of cell polarity in epithelial cells.
Abstract: The establishment and maintenance of cellular polarity are critical for the development of multicellular organisms. PAR (partitioning‐defective) proteins were identified in Caenorhabditis elegans as determinants of asymmetric cell division and polarized cell growth. Recently, vertebrate orthologues of two of these proteins, ASIP/PAR‐3 and PAR‐6, were found to form a signalling complex with the small GTPases Cdc42/Rac1 and with atypical protein kinase C (PKC). Here we show that ASIP/PAR‐3 associates with the tight‐junction‐associated protein junctional adhesion molecule (JAM) in vitro and in vivo . No binding was observed with claudin‐1, ‐4 or ‐5. In fibroblasts and CHO cells overexpressing JAM, endogenous ASIP is recruited to JAM at sites of cell–cell contact. Over expression of truncated JAM lacking the extracellular part disrupts ASIP/PAR‐3 localization at intercellular junctions and delays ASIP/PAR‐3 recruitment to newly formed cell junctions. During junction formation, JAM appears early in primordial forms of junctions. Our data suggest that the ASIP/PAR‐3–aPKC complex is tethered to tight junctions via its association with JAM, indicating a potential role for JAM in the generation of cell polarity in epithelial cells.

387 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 May 2008-Stroke
TL;DR: Recommendations regarding the standardization of perfusion and penumbral imaging techniques, the validation of the accuracy and clinical utility of imaging markers of the ischemic penumbra, and the validate of imaging biomarkers relevant to clinical outcomes are summarized.
Abstract: The recent "Advanced Neuroimaging for Acute Stroke Treatment" meeting on September 7 and 8, 2007 in Washington DC, brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, emergency physicians, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to discuss the role of advanced neuroimaging in acute stroke treatment. The goals of the meeting were to assess state-of-the-art practice in terms of acute stroke imaging research and to propose specific recommendations regarding: (1) the standardization of perfusion and penumbral imaging techniques, (2) the validation of the accuracy and clinical utility of imaging markers of the ischemic penumbra, (3) the validation of imaging biomarkers relevant to clinical outcomes, and (4) the creation of a central repository to achieve these goals. The present article summarizes these recommendations and examines practical steps to achieve them.

387 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An up-to-date snapshot of how benchtop platforms have evolved since the previous study is provided to bring readers’ attention to some shortcomings in the report from Loman et al.1.
Abstract: In April 2012, your journal published a study by Loman et al.1 that systematically compared desktop next-generation sequencers (NGS) from three instrument providers. Using the custom scripts supplied by the authors, the same software and the same draft genome (with 153 remaining gaps within several scaffolds) as the reference, we reproduced their results with their data of the enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) strain found in the 2011 outbreak in Germany. However, we wish to bring readers’ attention to some shortcomings in the report from Loman et al.1, focusing particularly on its discussion of read-level error analysis. NGS is a rapidly changing market, which clearly complicates the comparisons such as that made by Loman et al. Since the original study1, Illumina (San Diego) has launched the MiSeq sequencer officially and has released Nextera library construction kits and 2 × 250–base-pair (250-bp) paired-end (PE) sequencing chemistry. Furthermore, Life Technologies (Carlsbad, California), has made 200-bp and 300-bp kits available for the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM). Roche (Basel, Switzerland) has updated the Sequencing System software for its 454 GS Junior (GSJ) from version 2.6 to 2.7. In this report, we provide an up-to-date snapshot of how benchtop platforms have evolved since the previous study1.

386 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis is produced through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometiosis.
Abstract: Author(s): Johnson, Neil P; Hummelshoj, Lone; Adamson, G David; Keckstein, Jorg; Taylor, Hugh S; Abrao, Mauricio S; Bush, Deborah; Kiesel, Ludwig; Tamimi, Rulla; Sharpe-Timms, Kathy L; Rombauts, Luk; Giudice, Linda C; World Endometriosis Society Sao Paulo Consortium | Abstract: Study questionWhat is the global consensus on the classification of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis?Summary answerWe have produced an international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometriosis.What is known alreadyClassification systems of endometriosis, developed by several professional organizations, traditionally have been based on lesion appearance, pelvic adhesions, and anatomic location of disease. One system predicts fertility outcome and none predicts pelvic pain, response to medications, disease recurrence, risks for associated disorders, quality of life measures, and other endpoints important to women and health care providers for guiding appropriate therapeutic options and prognosis.Study design, size, durationA consensus meeting, in conjunction with pre- and post-meeting processes, was undertaken.Participants/materials, setting, methodsA consensus meeting was held on 30 April 2014 in conjunction with the World Endometriosis Society's 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. Rigorous pre- and post-meeting processes, involving 55 representatives of 29 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement.Main results and the role of chanceA total of 28 consensus statements were made. Of all, 10 statements had unanimous consensus, however none of the statements was made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Two statements did not achieve majority consensus. The statements covered women's priorities, aspects of classification, impact of low resources, as well as all the major classification systems for endometriosis. Until better classification systems are developed, we propose a classification toolbox (that includes the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and, where appropriate, the Enzian and Endometriosis Fertility Index staging systems), that may be used by all surgeons in each case of surgery undertaken for women with endometriosis. We also propose wider use of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project surgical and clinical data collection tools for research to improve classification of endometriosis in the future, of particular relevance when surgery is not undertaken.Limitations, reasons for cautionThis consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development, although based on the same available evidence. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process may have yielded subtly different consensus statements.Wider implications of the findingsThis is the first time that a large, global, consortium-representing 29 major stake-holding organizations, from 19 countries - has convened to systematically evaluate the best available evidence on the classification of endometriosis and reach consensus. In addition to 21 international medical organizations and companies, representatives from eight national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating and including input from women who suffer from endometriosis in an endeavour to keep uppermost the goal of optimizing quality of life for women with endometriosis.Study funding/competing interestsThe World Endometriosis Society convened and hosted the consensus meeting. Financial support for participants to attend the meeting was provided by the organizations that they represented. There was no other specific funding for this consensus process. Mauricio Abrao is an advisor to Bayer Pharma, and a consultant to AbbVie and AstraZeneca; G David Adamson is the Owner of Advanced Reproductive Care Inc and Ziva and a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Ferring, and AbbVie; Deborah Bush has received travel grants from Fisher a Paykel Healthcare and Bayer Pharmaceuticals; Linda Giudice is a consultant to AbbVie, Juniper Pharmaceutical, and NextGen Jane, holds research grant from the NIH, is site PI on a clinical trial sponsored by Bayer, and is a shareholder in Merck and Pfizer; Lone Hummelshoj is an unpaid consultant to AbbVie; Neil Johnson has received conference expenses from Bayer Pharma, Merck-Serono, and MSD, research funding from AbbVie, and is a consultant to Vifor Pharma and Guerbet; Jorg Keckstein has received a travel grant from AbbVie; Ludwig Kiesel is a consultant to Bayer Pharma, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, and Shionogi, and holds a research grant from Bayer Pharma; Luk Rombauts is an advisor to MSD, Merck Serono, and Ferring, and a shareholder in Monash IVF. The following have declared that they have nothing to disclose: Kathy Sharpe Timms; Rulla Tamimi; Hugh Taylor.Trial registration numberN/A.

386 citations


Authors

Showing all 36075 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Hyun-Chul Kim1764076183227
Klaus Müllen1642125140748
Giacomo Bruno1581687124368
Anders M. Dale156823133891
Holger J. Schünemann141810113169
Joachim Heinrich136130976887
Markus Merschmeyer132118884975
Klaus Ley12949557964
Robert W. Mahley12836360774
Robert J. Kurman12739760277
Bart Barlogie12677957803
Thomas Schwarz12370154560
Carlos Caldas12254773840
Klaus Weber12152460346
Andrey L. Rogach11757646820
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
161.5K papers, 5.7M citations

96% related

University of Zurich
124K papers, 5.3M citations

96% related

University of Amsterdam
140.8K papers, 5.9M citations

95% related

University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

95% related

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

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023253
2022831
20213,683
20203,499
20193,236
20182,918