Institution
University of Urbino
Education•Urbino, Italy•
About: University of Urbino is a education organization based out in Urbino, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Gravitational wave & Population. The organization has 1986 authors who have published 6975 publications receiving 239930 citations. The organization is also known as: Università degli Studi di Urbino & Universita degli Studi di Urbino.
Topics: Gravitational wave, Population, LIGO, Apoptosis, Computer science
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The association of GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts.
Abstract: On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0×10^{4} years. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M_{⊙}, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range 1.17-1.60 M_{⊙}, with the total mass of the system 2.74_{-0.01}^{+0.04}M_{⊙}. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg^{2} (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of 40_{-14}^{+8} Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology.
7,327 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
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Urbino6, CERN7, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics8, University of California, Irvine9, Cornell University10, Argonne National Laboratory11, ETH Zurich12, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research13, Hillsdale College14, Spanish National Research Council15, Ohio State University16, University of Notre Dame17, Kent State University18, University of California, San Diego19, University of California, Berkeley20, University of Minnesota21, University of Alabama22, University of Helsinki23, Los Alamos National Laboratory24, California Institute of Technology25, George Washington University26, Syracuse University27, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory28, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater29, University of Washington30, Max Planck Society31, Boston University32, University of California, Los Angeles33, Royal Holloway, University of London34, Université Paris-Saclay35, University of Pennsylvania36, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign37, University of Bristol38, University of Tokyo39, University of Delaware40, Carnegie Mellon University41, University of California, Santa Cruz42, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology43, Heidelberg University44, Florida State University45, University of Mainz46, University of Edinburgh47, Brookhaven National Laboratory48, Durham University49, University of Lausanne50, Massachusetts Institute of Technology51, University of Southampton52, Nagoya University53, University of Oxford54, Northwestern University55, University of British Columbia56, Columbia University57, Lund University58, University of Sheffield59, University of California, Santa Barbara60, Iowa State University61, University of Alberta62, University of Cambridge63
TL;DR: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, and features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also 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. This edition features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations. For the first time we cover searches for evidence of extra dimensions (both in the particle listings and in a new review). Another new review is on Grand Unified Theories. 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.
5,143 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
Authors
Showing all 2068 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kjell Fuxe | 142 | 1479 | 89846 |
| G. T. Jones | 131 | 864 | 75491 |
| R. Frey | 117 | 1132 | 88215 |
| Jan Harms | 108 | 447 | 76132 |
| Chad Hanna | 105 | 370 | 68761 |
| Daniele Piomelli | 104 | 505 | 49009 |
| Nicholas J. Turro | 104 | 1131 | 53827 |
| Gianpietro Cagnoli | 103 | 349 | 68406 |
| M. Granata | 100 | 358 | 69006 |
| Andrea Bizzeti | 99 | 1168 | 46880 |
| Alessio Sarti | 99 | 1236 | 48356 |
| G. Losurdo | 96 | 435 | 67448 |
| Bruno Dallapiccola | 94 | 935 | 43208 |
| F. Piergiovanni | 93 | 341 | 62323 |
| Tristan Briant | 91 | 321 | 63347 |