| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Abbasi, Rasha, et al.
(författare)
-
IceCube search for neutrinos from GRB 221009A
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference - PoS(ICRC 2023). - : Sissa Medialab. ; , s. 1511-
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- GRB 221009A is the brightest Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) ever observed. The observed extremelyhigh flux of high and very-high-energy photons provide a unique opportunity to probe the predictedneutrino counterpart to the electromagnetic emission. We have used a variety of methods to searchfor neutrinos in coincidence with the GRB over several time windows during the precursor, promptand afterglow phases of the GRB. MeV scale neutrinos are studied using photo-multiplier ratescalers which are normally used to search for galactic core-collapse supernovae neutrinos. GeVneutrinos are searched starting with DeepCore triggers. These events don’t have directionallocalization, but instead can indicate an excess in the rate of events. 10 GeV - 1 TeV and >TeVneutrinos are searched using traditional neutrino point source methods which take into accountthe direction and time of events with DeepCore and the entire IceCube detector respectively. The>TeV results include both a fast-response analysis conducted by IceCube in real-time with timewindows of T0 − 1 to T0 + 2 hours and T0 ± 1 day around the time of GRB 221009A, as well asan offline analysis with 3 new time windows up to a time window of T0 − 1 to T0 + 14 days, thelongest time period we consider. The combination of observations by IceCube covers 9 ordersof magnitude in neutrino energy, from MeV to PeV, placing upper limits across the range forpredicted neutrino emission.
|
|
| 11. |
- Abelev, Betty, et al.
(författare)
-
Underlying Event measurements in pp collisions at root s=0.9 and 7 TeV with the ALICE experiment at the LHC
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of High Energy Physics. - 1029-8479. ; :7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We present measurements of Underlying Event observables in pp collisions at root s = 0 : 9 and 7 TeV. The analysis is performed as a function of the highest charged-particle transverse momentum p(T),L-T in the event. Different regions are defined with respect to the azimuthal direction of the leading (highest transverse momentum) track: Toward, Transverse and Away. The Toward and Away regions collect the fragmentation products of the hardest partonic interaction. The Transverse region is expected to be most sensitive to the Underlying Event activity. The study is performed with charged particles above three different p(T) thresholds: 0.15, 0.5 and 1.0 GeV/c. In the Transverse region we observe an increase in the multiplicity of a factor 2-3 between the lower and higher collision energies, depending on the track p(T) threshold considered. Data are compared to PYTHIA 6.4, PYTHIA 8.1 and PHOJET. On average, all models considered underestimate the multiplicity and summed p(T) in the Transverse region by about 10-30%.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Mastrángelo, Matías E., et al.
(författare)
-
Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nature Sustainability. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2398-9629. ; 2:12, s. 1115-1121
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Regional and global assessments periodically update what we know, and highlight what remains to be known, about the linkages between people and nature that both define and depend upon the state of the environment. To guide research that better informs policy and practice, we systematically synthesize knowledge gaps from recent assessments of four regions of the globe and three key themes by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. We assess their relevance to global sustainability goals and trace their evolution relative to those identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We found that global sustainability goals cannot be achieved without improved knowledge on feedbacks between social and ecological systems, effectiveness of governance systems and the influence of institutions on the social distribution of ecosystem services. These top research priorities have persisted for the 14 years since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Our analysis also reveals limited understanding of the role of indigenous and local knowledge in sustaining nature’s benefits to people. Our findings contribute to a policy-relevant and solution-oriented agenda for global, long-term social-ecological research.
|
|
| 21. |
- Menkveld, Albert J., et al.
(författare)
-
Nonstandard Errors
- 2024
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF FINANCE. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 0022-1082 .- 1540-6261. ; 79:3, s. 2339-2390
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty-nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants.
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
