Institution
University of Pavia
Education•Pavia, Italy•
About: University of Pavia is a education organization based out in Pavia, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Large Hadron Collider. The organization has 21173 authors who have published 52524 publications receiving 1610492 citations. The organization is also known as: Università degli Studi di Pavia & Università di Pavia.
Topics: Population, Large Hadron Collider, Transplantation, CMOS, Lepton
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article, a search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC is presented, which has a significance of 5.9 standard deviations, corresponding to a background fluctuation probability of 1.7×10−9.
9,282 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, results from searches for the standard model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV in the CMS experiment at the LHC, using data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of up to 5.8 standard deviations.
8,857 citations
••
TL;DR: The 2016 edition of the World Health Organization classification of tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues represents a revision of the prior classification rather than an entirely new classification and attempts to incorporate new clinical, prognostic, morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic data that have emerged since the last edition.
7,147 citations
••
TL;DR: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN as mentioned in this paper was designed to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1)
Abstract: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector is described. The detector operates at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. It was conceived to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1) (10(27)cm(-2)s(-1)). At the core of the CMS detector sits a high-magnetic-field and large-bore superconducting solenoid surrounding an all-silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead-tungstate scintillating-crystals electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass-scintillator sampling hadron calorimeter. The iron yoke of the flux-return is instrumented with four stations of muon detectors covering most of the 4 pi solid angle. Forward sampling calorimeters extend the pseudo-rapidity coverage to high values (vertical bar eta vertical bar <= 5) assuring very good hermeticity. The overall dimensions of the CMS detector are a length of 21.6 m, a diameter of 14.6 m and a total weight of 12500 t.
5,193 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.
5,187 citations
Authors
Showing all 21348 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Sinead Farrington | 133 | 1422 | 91099 |
Roberto Ferrari | 133 | 1654 | 103824 |
Roberto Sacchi | 132 | 1186 | 89012 |
Ada Solano | 132 | 1205 | 87766 |
Roberto Dell'Orso | 132 | 1412 | 92792 |
Laurent Vacavant | 131 | 921 | 82977 |
Andrea Venturi | 131 | 1336 | 90230 |
Lorenzo Moretta | 131 | 658 | 63417 |
Paolo Spagnolo | 130 | 1282 | 89396 |
Sten Orrenius | 130 | 447 | 57445 |
Teimuraz Lomtadze | 129 | 893 | 80314 |
Sandra Malvezzi | 129 | 1326 | 84401 |
P. A. Caraveo | 129 | 688 | 63239 |
Thorsten Wengler | 129 | 1103 | 82495 |
Cristina Riccardi | 129 | 1627 | 91452 |