Institution
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Education•Brussels, Belgium•
About: Vrije Universiteit Brussel is a education organization based out in Brussels, Belgium. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 14295 authors who have published 38258 publications receiving 1203970 citations. The organization is also known as: VUB.
Topics: Population, Context (language use), Large Hadron Collider, Palliative care, Computer science
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: MGWAS analysis showed that patients with type 2 diabetes were characterized by a moderate degree of gut microbial dysbiosis, a decrease in the abundance of some universal butyrate-producing bacteria and an increase in various opportunistic pathogens, as well as an enrichment of other microbial functions conferring sulphate reduction and oxidative stress resistance.
Abstract: Assessment and characterization of gut microbiota has become a major research area in human disease, including type 2 diabetes, the most prevalent endocrine disease worldwide. To carry out analysis on gut microbial content in patients with type 2 diabetes, we developed a protocol for a metagenome-wide association study (MGWAS) and undertook a two-stage MGWAS based on deep shotgun sequencing of the gut microbial DNA from 345 Chinese individuals. We identified and validated approximately 60,000 type-2-diabetes-associated markers and established the concept of a metagenomic linkage group, enabling taxonomic species-level analyses. MGWAS analysis showed that patients with type 2 diabetes were characterized by a moderate degree of gut microbial dysbiosis, a decrease in the abundance of some universal butyrate-producing bacteria and an increase in various opportunistic pathogens, as well as an enrichment of other microbial functions conferring sulphate reduction and oxidative stress resistance. An analysis of 23 additional individuals demonstrated that these gut microbial markers might be useful for classifying type 2 diabetes.
4,981 citations
••
TL;DR: It is proved that replacing the usual quadratic regularizing penalties by weighted 𝓁p‐penalized penalties on the coefficients of such expansions, with 1 ≤ p ≤ 2, still regularizes the problem.
Abstract: We consider linear inverse problems where the solution is assumed to have a sparse expansion on an arbitrary preassigned orthonormal basis. We prove that replacing the usual quadratic regularizing penalties by weighted p-penalties on the coefficients of such expansions, with 1 ≤ p ≤ 2, still regularizes the problem. Use of such p-penalized problems with p < 2 is often advocated when one expects the underlying ideal noiseless solution to have a sparse expansion with respect to the basis under consideration. To compute the corresponding regularized solutions, we analyze an iterative algorithm that amounts to a Landweber iteration with thresholding (or nonlinear shrinkage) applied at each iteration step. We prove that this algorithm converges in norm. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
4,339 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
••
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital1, University of Edinburgh2, Singapore Immunology Network3, New York University4, University College London5, Heidelberg University6, University of Oxford7, Royal Melbourne Hospital8, Hospital for Special Surgery9, University of Milan10, Aix-Marseille University11, University of Maryland, College Park12, European Institute of Oncology13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology14, University of Bonn15, University of Maryland, Baltimore16, University of Eastern Piedmont17, University of Louisville18, Vrije Universiteit Brussel19, National Institutes of Health20
TL;DR: A set of standards encompassing three principles-the source of macrophages, definition of the activators, and a consensus collection of markers to describe macrophage activation are described with the goal of unifying experimental standards for diverse experimental scenarios.
4,287 citations
••
TL;DR: This chapter discusses the development of DFT as a tool for Calculating Atomic andMolecular Properties and its applications, as well as some of the fundamental and Computational aspects.
Abstract: I. Introduction: Conceptual vs Fundamental andComputational Aspects of DFT1793II. Fundamental and Computational Aspects of DFT 1795A. The Basics of DFT: The Hohenberg−KohnTheorems1795B. DFT as a Tool for Calculating Atomic andMolecular Properties: The Kohn−ShamEquations1796C. Electronic Chemical Potential andElectronegativity: Bridging Computational andConceptual DFT1797III. DFT-Based Concepts and Principles 1798A. General Scheme: Nalewajski’s ChargeSensitivity Analysis1798B. Concepts and Their Calculation 18001. Electronegativity and the ElectronicChemical Potential18002. Global Hardness and Softness 18023. The Electronic Fukui Function, LocalSoftness, and Softness Kernel18074. Local Hardness and Hardness Kernel 18135. The Molecular Shape FunctionsSimilarity 18146. The Nuclear Fukui Function and ItsDerivatives18167. Spin-Polarized Generalizations 18198. Solvent Effects 18209. Time Evolution of Reactivity Indices 1821C. Principles 18221. Sanderson’s Electronegativity EqualizationPrinciple18222. Pearson’s Hard and Soft Acids andBases Principle18253. The Maximum Hardness Principle 1829IV. Applications 1833A. Atoms and Functional Groups 1833B. Molecular Properties 18381. Dipole Moment, Hardness, Softness, andRelated Properties18382. Conformation 18403. Aromaticity 1840C. Reactivity 18421. Introduction 18422. Comparison of Intramolecular ReactivitySequences18443. Comparison of Intermolecular ReactivitySequences18494. Excited States 1857D. Clusters and Catalysis 1858V. Conclusions 1860VI. Glossary of Most Important Symbols andAcronyms1860VII. Acknowledgments 1861VIII. Note Added in Proof 1862IX. References 1865
3,890 citations
Authors
Showing all 14460 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
D. M. Strom | 176 | 3167 | 194314 |
Christopher M. Dobson | 150 | 1008 | 105475 |
Dario Bisello | 140 | 2005 | 107859 |
Giorgio Maggi | 135 | 1323 | 90270 |
Jörg P. Rachen | 133 | 400 | 94766 |
Pascal Vanlaer | 133 | 1270 | 91850 |
Freya Blekman | 133 | 1388 | 89808 |
Jorgen D'Hondt | 132 | 1257 | 89685 |
Tae Jeong Kim | 132 | 1420 | 93959 |
Xavier Janssen | 132 | 1309 | 86860 |
Matthias Ulrich Mozer | 131 | 1185 | 87709 |
Valery Zhukov | 129 | 1255 | 83330 |
Stephanie Beauceron | 129 | 1213 | 86374 |
Steven Lowette | 128 | 1094 | 78876 |
Yen-Jie Lee | 128 | 1247 | 82542 |