Institution
University of Southampton
Education•Southampton, United Kingdom•
About: University of Southampton is a education organization based out in Southampton, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Laser. The organization has 37184 authors who have published 99400 publications receiving 3462915 citations. The organization is also known as: Southampton University & Soton Uni.
Topics: Population, Laser, Optical fiber, Fiber laser, Neutron star
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as mentioned in this paper, the authors estimated the quantities for acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries between 1990 and 2013.
4,510 citations
••
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Genoa6, University of Urbino7, CERN8, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics9, University of California, Irvine10, Cornell University11, Argonne National Laboratory12, ETH Zurich13, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research14, Hillsdale College15, Spanish National Research Council16, Ohio State University17, University of Notre Dame18, Kent State University19, University of California, San Diego20, University of California, Berkeley21, University of Minnesota22, University of Alabama23, University of Helsinki24, Los Alamos National Laboratory25, California Institute of Technology26, George Washington University27, Syracuse University28, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory29, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater30, University of Washington31, Max Planck Society32, Boston University33, University of California, Los Angeles34, Royal Holloway, University of London35, Université Paris-Saclay36, Fermilab37, University of Pennsylvania38, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign39, University of Bristol40, University of Tokyo41, University of Delaware42, Carnegie Mellon University43, University of California, Santa Cruz44, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology45, Heidelberg University46, Florida State University47, Carleton University48, University of Mainz49, University of Edinburgh50, Brookhaven National Laboratory51, Durham University52, University of Lausanne53, Massachusetts Institute of Technology54, University of Southampton55, Nagoya University56, University of Oxford57, Northwestern University58, University of British Columbia59, Columbia University60, Lund University61, University of Sheffield62, University of California, Santa Barbara63, Iowa State University64, University of Alberta65, University of Cambridge66
TL;DR: The Particle Data Group's biennial review as mentioned in this paper summarizes much of particle physics, using data from previous editions, plus 2658 new measurements from 644 papers, and lists, evaluates, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of particle physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2658 new measurements from 644 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. Among the 112 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on Heavy-Quark and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Neutrino Cross Section Measurements, Monte Carlo Event Generators, Lattice QCD, Heavy Quarkonium Spectroscopy, Top Quark, Dark Matter, V-cb & V-ub, Quantum Chromodynamics, High-Energy Collider Parameters, Astrophysical Constants, Cosmological Parameters, and Dark Matter. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov.
4,465 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.
4,316 citations
••
TL;DR: It is shown that microscopic plastic fragments and fibers are also widespread in the marine environment and may persist for centuries.
Abstract: Millions of metric tons of plastic are produced annually. Countless large items of plastic debris are accumulating in marine habitats worldwide and may persist for centuries ([ 1 ][1]–[ 4 ][2]). Here we show that microscopic plastic fragments and fibers ([Fig. 1A][3]) are also widespread in the
4,067 citations
••
University Hospital Bonn1, University of California, Riverside2, Harvard University3, Case Western Reserve University4, University of Illinois at Chicago5, European Institute6, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System7, Stanford University8, Spanish National Research Council9, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute10, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology11, University of California, Los Angeles12, University of Southern Denmark13, University of Cambridge14, Ikerbasque15, University of Manchester16, University of the Basque Country17, RIKEN Brain Science Institute18, University of Eastern Finland19, University of Bonn20, University of Massachusetts Medical School21, Center of Advanced European Studies and Research22, University of Southern California23, University of South Florida24, Duke University25, Southampton General Hospital26, University of Southampton27, Moorgreen Hospital28, Louisiana State University29, Imperial College London30, Centre national de la recherche scientifique31, Karolinska Institutet32, Max Planck Society33, University of Tübingen34, University of Groningen35, University of Colorado Denver36, Douglas Mental Health University Institute37
TL;DR: Genome-wide analysis suggests that several genes that increase the risk for sporadic Alzheimer's disease encode factors that regulate glial clearance of misfolded proteins and the inflammatory reaction.
Abstract: Increasing evidence suggests that Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis is not restricted to the neuronal compartment, but includes strong interactions with immunological mechanisms in the brain. Misfolded and aggregated proteins bind to pattern recognition receptors on microglia and astroglia, and trigger an innate immune response characterised by release of inflammatory mediators, which contribute to disease progression and severity. Genome-wide analysis suggests that several genes that increase the risk for sporadic Alzheimer's disease encode factors that regulate glial clearance of misfolded proteins and the inflammatory reaction. External factors, including systemic inflammation and obesity, are likely to interfere with immunological processes of the brain and further promote disease progression. Modulation of risk factors and targeting of these immune mechanisms could lead to future therapeutic or preventive strategies for Alzheimer's disease.
3,947 citations
Authors
Showing all 37632 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Stephen V. Faraone | 188 | 1427 | 140298 |
David R. Williams | 178 | 2034 | 138789 |
Charles M. Lieber | 165 | 521 | 132811 |
David W. Johnson | 160 | 2714 | 140778 |
Mark E. Cooper | 158 | 1463 | 124887 |
Pete Smith | 156 | 2464 | 138819 |
Joseph Jankovic | 153 | 1146 | 93840 |
Vivek Sharma | 150 | 3030 | 136228 |
David J.P. Barker | 148 | 446 | 99373 |
Debbie A Lawlor | 147 | 1114 | 101123 |
Olli T. Raitakari | 142 | 1232 | 103487 |
Stephen T. Holgate | 142 | 870 | 82345 |
Alexander Belyaev | 142 | 1895 | 100796 |
Christopher D.M. Fletcher | 138 | 674 | 82484 |