scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

EducationTrois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada
About: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières is a education organization based out in Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Hydrogen storage. The organization has 3310 authors who have published 6843 publications receiving 142272 citations. The organization is also known as: UQATR & Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
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

Journal ArticleDOI
Jens Kattge1, Sandra Díaz2, Sandra Lavorel3, Iain Colin Prentice4, Paul Leadley5, Gerhard Bönisch1, Eric Garnier3, Mark Westoby4, Peter B. Reich6, Peter B. Reich7, Ian J. Wright4, Johannes H. C. Cornelissen8, Cyrille Violle3, Sandy P. Harrison4, P.M. van Bodegom8, Markus Reichstein1, Brian J. Enquist9, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia8, David D. Ackerly10, Madhur Anand11, Owen K. Atkin12, Michael Bahn13, Timothy R. Baker14, Dennis D. Baldocchi10, Renée M. Bekker15, Carolina C. Blanco16, Benjamin Blonder9, William J. Bond17, Ross A. Bradstock18, Daniel E. Bunker19, Fernando Casanoves20, Jeannine Cavender-Bares6, Jeffrey Q. Chambers21, F. S. Chapin22, Jérôme Chave3, David A. Coomes23, William K. Cornwell8, Joseph M. Craine24, B. H. Dobrin9, Leandro da Silva Duarte16, Walter Durka25, James J. Elser26, Gerd Esser27, Marc Estiarte28, William F. Fagan29, Jingyun Fang, Fernando Fernández-Méndez30, Alessandra Fidelis31, Bryan Finegan20, Olivier Flores32, H. Ford33, Dorothea Frank1, Grégoire T. Freschet34, Nikolaos M. Fyllas14, Rachael V. Gallagher4, Walton A. Green35, Alvaro G. Gutiérrez25, Thomas Hickler, Steven I. Higgins36, John G. Hodgson37, Adel Jalili, Steven Jansen38, Carlos Alfredo Joly39, Andrew J. Kerkhoff40, Don Kirkup41, Kaoru Kitajima42, Michael Kleyer43, Stefan Klotz25, Johannes M. H. Knops44, Koen Kramer, Ingolf Kühn16, Hiroko Kurokawa45, Daniel C. Laughlin46, Tali D. Lee47, Michelle R. Leishman4, Frederic Lens48, Tanja Lenz4, Simon L. Lewis14, Jon Lloyd49, Jon Lloyd14, Joan Llusià28, Frédérique Louault50, Siyan Ma10, Miguel D. Mahecha1, Peter Manning51, Tara Joy Massad1, Belinda E. Medlyn4, Julie Messier9, Angela T. Moles52, Sandra Cristina Müller16, Karin Nadrowski53, Shahid Naeem54, Ülo Niinemets55, S. Nöllert1, A. Nüske1, Romà Ogaya28, Jacek Oleksyn56, Vladimir G. Onipchenko57, Yusuke Onoda58, Jenny C. Ordoñez59, Gerhard E. Overbeck16, Wim A. Ozinga59, Sandra Patiño14, Susana Paula60, Juli G. Pausas60, Josep Peñuelas28, Oliver L. Phillips14, Valério D. Pillar16, Hendrik Poorter, Lourens Poorter59, Peter Poschlod61, Andreas Prinzing62, Raphaël Proulx63, Anja Rammig64, Sabine Reinsch65, Björn Reu1, Lawren Sack66, Beatriz Salgado-Negret20, Jordi Sardans28, Satomi Shiodera67, Bill Shipley68, Andrew Siefert69, Enio E. Sosinski70, Jean-François Soussana50, Emily Swaine71, Nathan G. Swenson72, Ken Thompson37, Peter E. Thornton73, Matthew S. Waldram74, Evan Weiher47, Michael T. White75, S. White11, S. J. Wright76, Benjamin Yguel3, Sönke Zaehle1, Amy E. Zanne77, Christian Wirth58 
Max Planck Society1, National University of Cordoba2, Centre national de la recherche scientifique3, Macquarie University4, University of Paris-Sud5, University of Minnesota6, University of Western Sydney7, VU University Amsterdam8, University of Arizona9, University of California, Berkeley10, University of Guelph11, Australian National University12, University of Innsbruck13, University of Leeds14, University of Groningen15, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul16, University of Cape Town17, University of Wollongong18, New Jersey Institute of Technology19, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza20, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory21, University of Alaska Fairbanks22, University of Cambridge23, Kansas State University24, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ25, Arizona State University26, University of Giessen27, Autonomous University of Barcelona28, University of Maryland, College Park29, Universidad del Tolima30, University of São Paulo31, University of La Réunion32, University of York33, University of Sydney34, Harvard University35, Goethe University Frankfurt36, University of Sheffield37, University of Ulm38, State University of Campinas39, Kenyon College40, Royal Botanic Gardens41, University of Florida42, University of Oldenburg43, University of Nebraska–Lincoln44, Tohoku University45, Northern Arizona University46, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire47, Naturalis48, James Cook University49, Institut national de la recherche agronomique50, Newcastle University51, University of New South Wales52, Leipzig University53, Columbia University54, Estonian University of Life Sciences55, Polish Academy of Sciences56, Moscow State University57, Kyushu University58, Wageningen University and Research Centre59, Spanish National Research Council60, University of Regensburg61, University of Rennes62, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières63, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research64, Technical University of Denmark65, University of California, Los Angeles66, Hokkaido University67, Université de Sherbrooke68, Syracuse University69, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária70, University of Aberdeen71, Michigan State University72, Oak Ridge National Laboratory73, University of Leicester74, Utah State University75, Smithsonian Institution76, University of Missouri77
01 Sep 2011
TL;DR: TRY as discussed by the authors is a global database of plant traits, including morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants and their organs, which can be used for a wide range of research from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology to biogeography.
Abstract: Plant traits – the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants and their organs – determine how primary producers respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, influence ecosystem processes and services and provide a link from species richness to ecosystem functional diversity. Trait data thus represent the raw material for a wide range of research from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology to biogeography. Here we present the global database initiative named TRY, which has united a wide range of the plant trait research community worldwide and gained an unprecedented buy-in of trait data: so far 93 trait databases have been contributed. The data repository currently contains almost three million trait entries for 69 000 out of the world's 300 000 plant species, with a focus on 52 groups of traits characterizing the vegetative and regeneration stages of the plant life cycle, including growth, dispersal, establishment and persistence. A first data analysis shows that most plant traits are approximately log-normally distributed, with widely differing ranges of variation across traits. Most trait variation is between species (interspecific), but significant intraspecific variation is also documented, up to 40% of the overall variation. Plant functional types (PFTs), as commonly used in vegetation models, capture a substantial fraction of the observed variation – but for several traits most variation occurs within PFTs, up to 75% of the overall variation. In the context of vegetation models these traits would better be represented by state variables rather than fixed parameter values. The improved availability of plant trait data in the unified global database is expected to support a paradigm shift from species to trait-based ecology, offer new opportunities for synthetic plant trait research and enable a more realistic and empirically grounded representation of terrestrial vegetation in Earth system models.

2,017 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article used repeat photography, long-term ecological monitoring and dendrochronology to document shrub expansion in arctic, high-latitude and alpine tundra.
Abstract: Recent research using repeat photography, long-term ecological monitoring and dendrochronology has documented shrub expansion in arctic, high-latitude and alpine tundra

1,153 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors define entrepreneurship as the dialogic between individual and new value creation, within an ongoing process and within an environment that has specific characteristics, emphasizing the fact that we will not understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurship if we do not consider the individual (the entrepreneur), the project, the environment and also the links between them over time.

983 citations


Authors

Showing all 3350 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Prashant V. Kamat14072579259
Kirk O. Winemiller7329621088
Laurent Brochard6927723950
Michel Havaux6616814394
Lawrence M. Dill6515623450
Suleyman I. Allakhverdiev6231216087
Richard Martel6232823276
Claude Hillaire-Marcel6128513471
Mohini Sain6143819507
David W. Grainger5727312995
Sheilagh Hodgins5723912195
Aji P. Mathew5617412074
Gilles Gauthier522378150
Roger M. Leblanc5250712539
Mohan Singh493138526
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Université de Montréal
100.4K papers, 4M citations

90% related

University of Western Ontario
99.8K papers, 3.7M citations

89% related

University of Alberta
154.8K papers, 5.3M citations

87% related

McMaster University
101.2K papers, 4.2M citations

87% related

University of Calgary
104.9K papers, 3.6M citations

87% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202322
202251
2021533
2020495
2019453
2018341