scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Tasmania

EducationHobart, Tasmania, Australia
About: University of Tasmania is a education organization based out in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 11406 authors who have published 33598 publications receiving 983139 citations. The organization is also known as: UTas & Tas Uni.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos, Abraham D. Flaxman1, Mohsen Naghavi1, Rafael Lozano1  +360 moreInstitutions (143)
TL;DR: Prevalence and severity of health loss were weakly correlated and age-specific prevalence of YLDs increased with age in all regions and has decreased slightly from 1990 to 2010, but population growth and ageing have increased YLD numbers and crude rates over the past two decades.

7,021 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Christopher J L Murray1, Theo Vos2, Rafael Lozano1, Mohsen Naghavi1  +366 moreInstitutions (141)
TL;DR: The results for 1990 and 2010 supersede all previously published Global Burden of Disease results and highlight the importance of understanding local burden of disease and setting goals and targets for the post-2015 agenda taking such patterns into account.

6,861 citations

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
Haidong Wang1, Mohsen Naghavi1, Christine Allen1, Ryan M Barber1  +841 moreInstitutions (293)
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study provides a comprehensive assessment of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1980 to 2015, finding several countries in sub-Saharan Africa had very large gains in life expectancy, rebounding from an era of exceedingly high loss of life due to HIV/AIDS.

4,804 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Some notable features of IQ-TREE version 2 are described and the key advantages over other software are highlighted.
Abstract: IQ-TREE (http://www.iqtree.org, last accessed February 6, 2020) is a user-friendly and widely used software package for phylogenetic inference using maximum likelihood. Since the release of version 1 in 2014, we have continuously expanded IQ-TREE to integrate a plethora of new models of sequence evolution and efficient computational approaches of phylogenetic inference to deal with genomic data. Here, we describe notable features of IQ-TREE version 2 and highlight the key advantages over other software.

4,337 citations


Authors

Showing all 11597 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Martin White1962038232387
Harry Campbell150897115457
Fabian Walter14699983016
Paul Mitchell146137895659
Olli T. Raitakari1421232103487
Graham G. Giles136124980038
John F. Thompson132142095894
David Smith1292184100917
Mark D. Griffiths124123861335
David Scott124156182554
Thomas H. Marwick121106358763
Geoffrey A. Donnan11575858971
Staffan Kjelleberg11442544414
Paul Turner114109961390
Gavin Andrews11282258486
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Queensland
155.7K papers, 5.7M citations

95% related

University of Sydney
187.3K papers, 6.1M citations

94% related

Australian National University
109.2K papers, 4.3M citations

93% related

University of Melbourne
174.8K papers, 6.3M citations

93% related

University of New South Wales
153.6K papers, 4.8M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023110
2022305
20212,330
20202,321
20192,128
20181,901