Institution
Van Andel Institute
Nonprofit•Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States•
About: Van Andel Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & DNA methylation. The organization has 1137 authors who have published 2046 publications receiving 141286 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Drexel University1, Yeshiva University2, Roswell Park Cancer Institute3, Virginia Commonwealth University4, Van Andel Institute5, Science Applications International Corporation6, Massachusetts Institute of Technology7, Harvard University8, University of Miami9, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai10, University of Chicago11, Howard Hughes Medical Institute12, University of Geneva13, Stanford University14, University of Oxford15, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill16, National Institutes of Health17
TL;DR: The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project is described, which will establish a resource database and associated tissue bank for the scientific community to study the relationship between genetic variation and gene expression in human tissues.
Abstract: Genome-wide association studies have identified thousands of loci for common diseases, but, for the majority of these, the mechanisms underlying disease susceptibility remain unknown. Most associated variants are not correlated with protein-coding changes, suggesting that polymorphisms in regulatory regions probably contribute to many disease phenotypes. Here we describe the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, which will establish a resource database and associated tissue bank for the scientific community to study the relationship between genetic variation and gene expression in human tissues.
6,545 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
••
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
••
Institute for Systems Biology1, BC Cancer Agency2, University of California, San Francisco3, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill4, Columbia University5, Discovery Institute6, Massachusetts Institute of Technology7, Arizona State University8, Sage Bionetworks9, Harvard University10, Johns Hopkins University11, Stanford University12, University of Calgary13, Université libre de Bruxelles14, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center15, Medical College of Wisconsin16, Qatar Airways17, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory18, University of São Paulo19, Henry Ford Hospital20, University of Alabama at Birmingham21, Van Andel Institute22, Stony Brook University23
TL;DR: An extensive immunogenomic analysis of more than 10,000 tumors comprising 33 diverse cancer types by utilizing data compiled by TCGA identifies six immune subtypes that encompass multiple cancer types and are hypothesized to define immune response patterns impacting prognosis.
3,246 citations
••
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute1, European Bioinformatics Institute2, Harvard University3, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research4, Erasmus University Rotterdam5, University of Pennsylvania6, University of Sydney7, Institute of Cancer Research8, University of Cambridge9, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute10, Van Andel Institute11, University of Hong Kong12
TL;DR: More than 1,000 somatic mutations found in 274 megabases of DNA corresponding to the coding exons of 518 protein kinase genes in 210 diverse human cancers reveal the evolutionary diversity of cancers and implicates a larger repertoire of cancer genes than previously anticipated.
Abstract: Cancers arise owing to mutations in a subset of genes that confer growth advantage. The availability of the human genome sequence led us to propose that systematic resequencing of cancer genomes for mutations would lead to the discovery of many additional cancer genes. Here we report more than 1,000 somatic mutations found in 274 megabases (Mb) of DNA corresponding to the coding exons of 518 protein kinase genes in 210 diverse human cancers. There was substantial variation in the number and pattern of mutations in individual cancers reflecting different exposures, DNA repair defects and cellular origins. Most somatic mutations are likely to be 'passengers' that do not contribute to oncogenesis. However, there was evidence for 'driver' mutations contributing to the development of the cancers studied in approximately 120 genes. Systematic sequencing of cancer genomes therefore reveals the evolutionary diversity of cancers and implicates a larger repertoire of cancer genes than previously anticipated.
2,732 citations
Authors
Showing all 1151 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Stephen B. Baylin | 168 | 548 | 188934 |
David A. Jackson | 136 | 1095 | 68352 |
Peter A. Jones | 130 | 513 | 81683 |
Peter W. Laird | 120 | 292 | 133318 |
Tomas Olsson | 105 | 677 | 39905 |
Jianfeng Xu | 97 | 579 | 44557 |
Jeffrey M. Trent | 96 | 342 | 48052 |
Jeffrey H. Kordower | 94 | 340 | 34270 |
Gerd P. Pfeifer | 93 | 315 | 29439 |
Bin Tean Teh | 92 | 471 | 33359 |
Timothy J. Triche | 88 | 332 | 82893 |
Yong Xu | 88 | 1391 | 39268 |
Robert C. Baxter | 87 | 381 | 27390 |
Lee W. Jones | 85 | 425 | 26044 |
Patrik Brundin | 77 | 232 | 24428 |