Institution
University of Salamanca
Education•Salamanca, Castilla y León, Spain•
About: University of Salamanca is a education organization based out in Salamanca, Castilla y León, Spain. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 13072 authors who have published 27606 publications receiving 607308 citations. The organization is also known as: Universidad de Salamanca & Salamanca University.
Topics: Population, Context (language use), Laser, Catalysis, Medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations, and has reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-generation sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping.
Abstract: The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.
12,661 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the first cosmological results based on Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and lensing-potential power spectra, which are extremely well described by the standard spatially-flat six-parameter ΛCDM cosmology with a power-law spectrum of adiabatic scalar perturbations.
Abstract: This paper presents the first cosmological results based on Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and lensing-potential power spectra. We find that the Planck spectra at high multipoles (l ≳ 40) are extremely well described by the standard spatially-flat six-parameter ΛCDM cosmology with a power-law spectrum of adiabatic scalar perturbations. Within the context of this cosmology, the Planck data determine the cosmological parameters to high precision: the angular size of the sound horizon at recombination, the physical densities of baryons and cold dark matter, and the scalar spectral index are estimated to be θ∗ = (1.04147 ± 0.00062) × 10-2, Ωbh2 = 0.02205 ± 0.00028, Ωch2 = 0.1199 ± 0.0027, and ns = 0.9603 ± 0.0073, respectively(note that in this abstract we quote 68% errors on measured parameters and 95% upper limits on other parameters). For this cosmology, we find a low value of the Hubble constant, H0 = (67.3 ± 1.2) km s-1 Mpc-1, and a high value of the matter density parameter, Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.017. These values are in tension with recent direct measurements of H0 and the magnitude-redshift relation for Type Ia supernovae, but are in excellent agreement with geometrical constraints from baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) surveys. Including curvature, we find that the Universe is consistent with spatial flatness to percent level precision using Planck CMB data alone. We use high-resolution CMB data together with Planck to provide greater control on extragalactic foreground components in an investigation of extensions to the six-parameter ΛCDM model. We present selected results from a large grid of cosmological models, using a range of additional astrophysical data sets in addition to Planck and high-resolution CMB data. None of these models are favoured over the standard six-parameter ΛCDM cosmology. The deviation of the scalar spectral index from unity isinsensitive to the addition of tensor modes and to changes in the matter content of the Universe. We find an upper limit of r0.002< 0.11 on the tensor-to-scalar ratio. There is no evidence for additional neutrino-like relativistic particles beyond the three families of neutrinos in the standard model. Using BAO and CMB data, we find Neff = 3.30 ± 0.27 for the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom, and an upper limit of 0.23 eV for the sum of neutrino masses. Our results are in excellent agreement with big bang nucleosynthesis and the standard value of Neff = 3.046. We find no evidence for dynamical dark energy; using BAO and CMB data, the dark energy equation of state parameter is constrained to be w = -1.13-0.10+0.13. We also use the Planck data to set limits on a possible variation of the fine-structure constant, dark matter annihilation and primordial magnetic fields. Despite the success of the six-parameter ΛCDM model in describing the Planck data at high multipoles, we note that this cosmology does not provide a good fit to the temperature power spectrum at low multipoles. The unusual shape of the spectrum in the multipole range 20 ≲ l ≲ 40 was seen previously in the WMAP data and is a real feature of the primordial CMB anisotropies. The poor fit to the spectrum at low multipoles is not of decisive significance, but is an “anomaly” in an otherwise self-consistent analysis of the Planck temperature data.
7,060 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
••
Stanford University1, Yale University2, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine3, Washington University in St. Louis4, McGill University5, Merck & Co.6, Université catholique de Louvain7, Université libre de Bruxelles8, University of California, Berkeley9, University of Salamanca10, University of Basel11, University of Padua12, Goethe University Frankfurt13, National Institutes of Health14, Aberystwyth University15, Concordia University16, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven17
TL;DR: It is shown that previously known and new genes are necessary for optimal growth under six well-studied conditions: high salt, sorbitol, galactose, pH 8, minimal medium and nystatin treatment, and less than 7% of genes that exhibit a significant increase in messenger RNA expression are also required for optimal Growth in four of the tested conditions.
Abstract: Determining the effect of gene deletion is a fundamental approach to understanding gene function. Conventional genetic screens exhibit biases, and genes contributing to a phenotype are often missed. We systematically constructed a nearly complete collection of gene-deletion mutants (96% of annotated open reading frames, or ORFs) of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA sequences dubbed 'molecular bar codes' uniquely identify each strain, enabling their growth to be analysed in parallel and the fitness contribution of each gene to be quantitatively assessed by hybridization to high-density oligonucleotide arrays. We show that previously known and new genes are necessary for optimal growth under six well-studied conditions: high salt, sorbitol, galactose, pH 8, minimal medium and nystatin treatment. Less than 7% of genes that exhibit a significant increase in messenger RNA expression are also required for optimal growth in four of the tested conditions. Our results validate the yeast gene-deletion collection as a valuable resource for functional genomics.
4,328 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
Authors
Showing all 13375 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Elias Campo | 135 | 761 | 85160 |
Adolfo García-Sastre | 134 | 733 | 69240 |
C. Hernández-Monteagudo | 118 | 231 | 80501 |
Ignacio E. Grossmann | 112 | 776 | 46185 |
David J. Williams | 107 | 2060 | 62440 |
Gary Williamson | 106 | 478 | 42960 |
Francisco A. Tomás-Barberán | 106 | 389 | 36505 |
Andrew I. Cooper | 99 | 389 | 34700 |
Jesús F. San Miguel | 97 | 527 | 44918 |
Alan G. Hinnebusch | 89 | 258 | 27349 |
James M. Anderson | 86 | 233 | 37886 |
David F. Hendry | 86 | 429 | 32439 |
Alberto Orfao | 85 | 597 | 37670 |
Alexandra M. Z. Slawin | 85 | 1607 | 38583 |
Celestino Santos-Buelga | 78 | 316 | 18797 |