| 1. |
- Bombarda, F., et al.
(author)
-
Runaway electron beam control
- 2019
-
In: Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1361-6587 .- 0741-3335. ; 61:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
-
- 2018
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 58:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
- Krasilnikov, A., et al.
(author)
-
Evidence of 9 Be + p nuclear reactions during 2ω CH and hydrogen minority ICRH in JET-ILW hydrogen and deuterium plasmas
- 2018
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 58:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The intensity of 9Be + p nuclear fusion reactions was experimentally studied during second harmonic (2ω CH) ion-cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) and further analyzed during fundamental hydrogen minority ICRH of JET-ILW hydrogen and deuterium plasmas. In relatively low-density plasmas with a high ICRH power, a population of fast H+ ions was created and measured by neutral particle analyzers. Primary and secondary nuclear reaction products, due to 9Be + p interaction, were observed with fast ion loss detectors, γ-ray spectrometers and neutron flux monitors and spectrometers. The possibility of using 9Be(p, d)2α and 9Be(p, α)6Li nuclear reactions to create a population of fast alpha particles and study their behaviour in non-active stage of ITER operation is discussed in the paper.
|
|
| 4. |
-
Overview of the JET results
- 2015
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 0029-5515 .- 1741-4326. ; 55:10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
-
- 2018
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 58:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 27. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
- Fresard, Laure, et al.
(author)
-
Identification of rare-disease genes using blood transcriptome sequencing and large control cohorts
- 2019
-
In: Nature Medicine. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1078-8956 .- 1546-170X. ; 25:6, s. 911-919
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is estimated that 350 million individuals worldwide suffer from rare diseases, which are predominantly caused by mutation in a single gene(1). The current molecular diagnostic rate is estimated at 50%, with whole-exome sequencing (WES) among the most successful approaches(2-5). For patients in whom WES is uninformative, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has shown diagnostic utility in specific tissues and diseases(6-8). This includes muscle biopsies from patients with undiagnosed rare muscle disorders(6,9), and cultured fibroblasts from patients with mitochondrial disorders(7). However, for many individuals, biopsies are not performed for clinical care, and tissues are difficult to access. We sought to assess the utility of RNA-seq from blood as a diagnostic tool for rare diseases of different pathophysiologies. We generated whole-blood RNA-seq from 94 individuals with undiagnosed rare diseases spanning 16 diverse disease categories. We developed a robust approach to compare data from these individuals with large sets of RNA-seq data for controls (n = 1,594 unrelated controls and n = 49 family members) and demonstrated the impacts of expression, splicing, gene and variant filtering strategies on disease gene identification. Across our cohort, we observed that RNA-seq yields a 7.5% diagnostic rate, and an additional 16.7% with improved candidate gene resolution.
|
|
| 31. |
- Bulman, Zackery P., et al.
(author)
-
Research priorities towards precision antibiotic therapy to improve patient care
- 2022
-
In: LANCET MICROBE. - : Elsevier. - 2666-5247. ; 3:10, s. e795-e802
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Antibiotic resistance presents an incessant threat to our drug armamentarium that necessitates novel approaches to therapy. Over the past several decades, investigation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PKPD) principles has substantially improved our understanding of the relationships between the antibiotic, pathogen, and infected patient. However, crucial gaps in our understanding of the pharmacology of antibacterials and their optimal use in the care of patients continue to exist; simply attaining antibiotic exposures that are considered adequate based on traditional targets can still result in treatment being unsuccessful and resistance proliferation for some infections. It is this salient paradox that points to key future directions for research in antibiotic therapeutics. This Personal View discusses six priority areas for antibiotic pharmacology research: (1) antibiotic-pathogen interactions, (2) antibiotic targets for combination therapy, (3) mechanistic models that describe the time-course of treatment response, (4) understanding and modelling of host response to infection, (5) personalised medicine through therapeutic drug management, and (6) application of these principles to support development of novel therapies. Innovative approaches that enhance our understanding of antibiotic pharmacology and facilitate more accurate predictions of treatment success, coupled with traditional pharmacology research, can be applied at the population level and to individual patients to improve outcomes.
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
