Institution
University of Palermo
Education•Palermo, Italy•
About: University of Palermo is a(n) education organization based out in Palermo, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Cancer. The organization has 15621 authors who have published 40250 publication(s) receiving 964384 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Università degli Studi di Palermo & Universita degli Studi di Palermo.
Topics: Population, Cancer, Catalysis, Diabetes mellitus, Volcano
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: In patients with chronic hepatitis C, once-weekly peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin was tolerated as well as interferonAlfa- 2b plus Ribavirin and produced significant improvements in the rate of sustained virologic response, as compared with interfer on alfa -2b plus ribvirin or pegin terferonalfa-3a alone.
Abstract: Background Treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a alone produces significantly higher sustained virologic responses than treatment with interferon alfa-2a alone in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We compared the efficacy and safety of peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin, interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin, and peginterferon alfa-2a alone in the initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Methods A total of 1121 patients were randomly assigned to treatment and received at least one dose of study medication, consisting of 180 μg of peginterferon alfa-2a once weekly plus daily ribavirin (1000 or 1200 mg, depending on body weight), weekly peginterferon alfa-2a plus daily placebo, or 3 million units of interferon alfa-2b thrice weekly plus daily ribavirin for 48 weeks. Results A significantly higher proportion of patients who received peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin had a sustained virologic response (defined as the absence of detectable HCV RNA 24 weeks after cessation of therapy) th...
6,448 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.
4,756 citations
[...]
TL;DR: It is concluded that colorectal cancer is created and propagated by a small number of undifferentiated tumorigenic CD133+ cells, which should therefore be the target of future therapies.
Abstract: Colon carcinoma is the second most common cause of death from cancer. The isolation and characterization of tumorigenic colon cancer cells may help to devise novel diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although there is increasing evidence that a rare population of undifferentiated cells is responsible for tumour formation and maintenance, this has not been explored for colorectal cancer. Here, we show that tumorigenic cells in colon cancer are included in the high-density CD133+ population, which accounts for about 2.5% of the tumour cells. Subcutaneous injection of colon cancer CD133+ cells readily reproduced the original tumour in immunodeficient mice, whereas CD133- cells did not form tumours. Such tumours were serially transplanted for several generations, in each of which we observed progressively faster tumour growth without significant phenotypic alterations. Unlike CD133- cells, CD133+ colon cancer cells grew exponentially for more than one year in vitro as undifferentiated tumour spheres in serum-free medium, maintaining the ability to engraft and reproduce the same morphological and antigenic pattern of the original tumour. We conclude that colorectal cancer is created and propagated by a small number of undifferentiated tumorigenic CD133+ cells, which should therefore be the target of future therapies.
3,775 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.
3,426 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss one of the pioneer projects regarding risk perception issues, which was originally titled Risikogesellshaft, Auf dem weg in eine andere Moderne or in English The society of risk, towards a new modernity.
Abstract: The present review discusses one of the pioneer projects authored by Ulrich Beck, regarding risk perception issues, which was originally titled Risikogesellshaft, Auf dem weg in eine andere Moderne or in English The society of risk, towards a new modernity. This review is part of a broader project related to a Social Psychology doctoral thesis on fears of travelling in urban circumstances.
3,377 citations
Authors
Showing all 15621 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robin M. Murray | 171 | 1539 | 116362 |
Frede Blaabjerg | 147 | 2161 | 112017 |
Jean Bousquet | 145 | 1288 | 96769 |
Zhanhu Guo | 128 | 886 | 53378 |
Jean Ballet | 115 | 263 | 46301 |
Antonio Facchetti | 111 | 602 | 51885 |
Michele Pagano | 97 | 306 | 42211 |
Frank Z. Stanczyk | 93 | 620 | 30244 |
Eleonora Troja | 91 | 271 | 30873 |
Francesco Sciortino | 90 | 536 | 28956 |
Zev Rosenwaks | 89 | 772 | 32039 |
Antonio Russo | 88 | 934 | 34563 |
Carlo Salvarani | 88 | 730 | 31699 |
Giuseppe Basso | 87 | 643 | 33320 |
Antonio Craxì | 86 | 659 | 39463 |