Institution
University of North Texas Health Science Center
Education•Fort Worth, Texas, United States•
About: University of North Texas Health Science Center is a education organization based out in Fort Worth, Texas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Receptor. The organization has 2972 authors who have published 5401 publications receiving 153180 citations. The organization is also known as: UNT Health Science Center & UNTHSC.
Topics: Population, Receptor, Neuroprotection, Health care, Oxidative stress
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
TL;DR: It is shown that cardiac hypertrophy is induced by the calcium-dependent phosphatase calcineurin, which dephosphorylates the transcription factor NF-AT3, enabling it to translocate to the nucleus.
2,596 citations
••
Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University1, AXA2, University of British Columbia3, VU University Medical Center4, University of Southern California5, University of Toulouse6, ICM Partners7, French Institute of Health and Medical Research8, University of Lübeck9, Imperial College London10, Sahlgrenska University Hospital11, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices12, UCL Institute of Neurology13, University of Bordeaux14, University of Geneva15, McGill University16, University of Paris17, University of Washington18, University of Eastern Finland19, Karolinska University Hospital20, University of North Texas Health Science Center21, University of California, San Francisco22, University of Melbourne23, Brown University24, Harvard University25, Brigham and Women's Hospital26, Alzheimer's Association27, Lou Ruvo Brain Institute28, Mayo Clinic29
TL;DR: An updated review of the literature and evidence on the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage of Alzheimer's disease are provided.
Abstract: During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum. Thanks to evolving biomarker research and substantial discoveries, it is now possible to identify the disease even at the preclinical stage before the occurrence of the first clinical symptoms. This preclinical stage of AD has become a major research focus as the field postulates that early intervention may offer the best chance of therapeutic success. To date, very little evidence is established on this "silent" stage of the disease. A clarification is needed about the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage. This article is aimed at addressing all the different issues by providing for each of them an updated review of the literature and evidence, with practical recommendations.
1,235 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that China was ill-prepared to deal with the challenges the COVID-19 epidemic has posed and the uses and implications of internet of things (IoT) technologies for mapping the spread of infection.
Abstract: Objectives To provide an overview of the three major deadly coronaviruses and identify areas for improvement of future preparedness plans, as well as provide a critical assessment of the risk factors and actionable items for stopping their spread, utilizing lessons learned from the first two deadly coronavirus outbreaks, as well as initial reports from the current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic in Wuhan, China. Methods Utilizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, USA) website, and a comprehensive review of PubMed literature, we obtained information regarding clinical signs and symptoms, treatment and diagnosis, transmission methods, protection methods and risk factors for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19. Comparisons between the viruses were made. Results Inadequate risk assessment regarding the urgency of the situation, and limited reporting on the virus within China has, in part, led to the rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout mainland China and into proximal and distant countries. Compared with SARS and MERS, COVID-19 has spread more rapidly, due in part to increased globalization and the focus of the epidemic. Wuhan, China is a large hub connecting the North, South, East and West of China via railways and a major international airport. The availability of connecting flights, the timing of the outbreak during the Chinese (Lunar) New Year, and the massive rail transit hub located in Wuhan has enabled the virus to perforate throughout China, and eventually, globally. Conclusions We conclude that we did not learn from the two prior epidemics of coronavirus and were ill-prepared to deal with the challenges the COVID-19 epidemic has posed. Future research should attempt to address the uses and implications of internet of things (IoT) technologies for mapping the spread of infection.
1,138 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
Authors
Showing all 3001 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
John T. Potts | 90 | 359 | 29359 |
Evan A. Stein | 80 | 340 | 36392 |
James W. Simpkins | 79 | 431 | 20574 |
Robert J. Gatchel | 79 | 494 | 25583 |
Douglas B. Cines | 79 | 397 | 27792 |
Ranajit Chakraborty | 77 | 407 | 25474 |
Kunlin Jin | 75 | 258 | 23282 |
Bruce Budowle | 70 | 613 | 20227 |
Lisa L. Barnes | 69 | 280 | 20190 |
Abbot F. Clark | 65 | 297 | 13938 |
Yong Fang Kuo | 65 | 447 | 14938 |
Alexander C. Wagenaar | 63 | 241 | 13661 |
David P. Siderovski | 62 | 180 | 19698 |
Yogesh C. Awasthi | 61 | 254 | 12304 |
Ignacy Gryczynski | 61 | 545 | 16705 |