@article{GalluzziBravoSanPedroVitaleetal.2015,
  author    = {Galluzzi, L. and Bravo-San Pedro, J. M. and Vitale, I. and Aaronson, S. A. and Abrams, J. M. and Adam, D. and Alnemri, E. S. and Altucci, L. and Andrews, D. and Annicchiarico-Petruzelli, M. and Baehrecke, E. H. and Bazan, N. G. and Bertrand, M. J. and Bianchi, K. and Blagosklonny, M. V. and Blomgren, K. and Borner, C. and Bredesen, D. E. and Brenner, C. and Campanella, M. and Candi, E. and Cecconi, F. and Chan, F. K. and Chandel, N. S. and Cheng, E. H. and Chipuk, J. E. and Cidlowski, J. A. and Ciechanover, A. and Dawson, T. M. and Dawson, V. L. and De Laurenzi, V. and De Maria, R. and Debatin, K. M. and Di Daniele, N. and Dixit, V. M. and Dynlacht, B. D. and El-Deiry, W. S. and Fimia, G. M. and Flavell, R. A. and Fulda, S. and Garrido, C. and Gougeon, M. L. and Green, D. R. and Gronemeyer, H. and Hajnoczky, G. and Hardwick, J. M. and Hengartner, M. O. and Ichijo, H. and Joseph, B. and Jost, P. J. and Kaufmann, T. and Kepp, O. and Klionsky, D. J. and Knight, R. A. and Kumar, S. and Lemasters, J. J. and Levine, B. and Linkermann, A. and Lipton, S. A. and Lockshin, R. A. and L{\´o}pez-Ot{\´i}n, C. and Lugli, E. and Madeo, F. and Malorni, W. and Marine, J. C. and Martin, S. J. and Martinou, J. C. and Medema, J. P. and Meier, P. and Melino, S. and Mizushima, N. and Moll, U. and Mu{\~n}oz-Pinedo, C. and Nu{\~n}ez, G. and Oberst, A. and Panaretakis, T. and Penninger, J. M. and Peter, M. E. and Piacentini, M. and Pinton, P. and Prehn, J. H. and Puthalakath, H. and Rabinovich, G. A. and Ravichandran, K. S. and Rizzuto, R. and Rodrigues, C. M. and Rubinsztein, D. C. and Rudel, T. and Shi, Y. and Simon, H. U. and Stockwell, B. R. and Szabadkai, G. and Tait, S. W. and Tang, H. L. and Tavernarakis, N. and Tsujimoto, Y. and Vanden Berghe, T. and Vandenabeele, P. and Villunger, A. and Wagner, E. F. and Walczak, H. and White, E. and Wood, W. G. and Yuan, J. and Zakeri, Z. and Zhivotovsky, B. and Melino, G. and Kroemer, G.},
  title     = {Essential versus accessory aspects of cell death: recommendations of the NCCD 2015},
  series = {Cell Death and Differentiation},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Cell Death and Differentiation},
  doi       = {10.1038/cdd.2014.137},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-121207},
  pages     = {58-73},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Cells exposed to extreme physicochemical or mechanical stimuli die in an uncontrollable manner, as a result of their immediate structural breakdown. Such an unavoidable variant of cellular demise is generally referred to as 'accidental cell death' (ACD). In most settings, however, cell death is initiated by a genetically encoded apparatus, correlating with the fact that its course can be altered by pharmacologic or genetic interventions. 'Regulated cell death' (RCD) can occur as part of physiologic programs or can be activated once adaptive responses to perturbations of the extracellular or intracellular microenvironment fail. The biochemical phenomena that accompany RCD may be harnessed to classify it into a few subtypes, which often (but not always) exhibit stereotyped morphologic features. Nonetheless, efficiently inhibiting the processes that are commonly thought to cause RCD, such as the activation of executioner caspases in the course of apoptosis, does not exert true cytoprotective effects in the mammalian system, but simply alters the kinetics of cellular demise as it shifts its morphologic and biochemical correlates. Conversely, bona fide cytoprotection can be achieved by inhibiting the transduction of lethal signals in the early phases of the process, when adaptive responses are still operational. Thus, the mechanisms that truly execute RCD may be less understood, less inhibitable and perhaps more homogeneous than previously thought. Here, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JiangOronClarketal.2016,
  author    = {Jiang, Yuxiang and Oron, Tal Ronnen and Clark, Wyatt T. and Bankapur, Asma R. and D'Andrea, Daniel and Lepore, Rosalba and Funk, Christopher S. and Kahanda, Indika and Verspoor, Karin M. and Ben-Hur, Asa and Koo, Da Chen Emily and Penfold-Brown, Duncan and Shasha, Dennis and Youngs, Noah and Bonneau, Richard and Lin, Alexandra and Sahraeian, Sayed M. E. and Martelli, Pier Luigi and Profiti, Giuseppe and Casadio, Rita and Cao, Renzhi and Zhong, Zhaolong and Cheng, Jianlin and Altenhoff, Adrian and Skunca, Nives and Dessimoz, Christophe and Dogan, Tunca and Hakala, Kai and Kaewphan, Suwisa and Mehryary, Farrokh and Salakoski, Tapio and Ginter, Filip and Fang, Hai and Smithers, Ben and Oates, Matt and Gough, Julian and T{\"o}r{\"o}nen, Petri and Koskinen, Patrik and Holm, Liisa and Chen, Ching-Tai and Hsu, Wen-Lian and Bryson, Kevin and Cozzetto, Domenico and Minneci, Federico and Jones, David T. and Chapman, Samuel and BKC, Dukka and Khan, Ishita K. and Kihara, Daisuke and Ofer, Dan and Rappoport, Nadav and Stern, Amos and Cibrian-Uhalte, Elena and Denny, Paul and Foulger, Rebecca E. and Hieta, Reija and Legge, Duncan and Lovering, Ruth C. and Magrane, Michele and Melidoni, Anna N. and Mutowo-Meullenet, Prudence and Pichler, Klemens and Shypitsyna, Aleksandra and Li, Biao and Zakeri, Pooya and ElShal, Sarah and Tranchevent, L{\´e}on-Charles and Das, Sayoni and Dawson, Natalie L. and Lee, David and Lees, Jonathan G. and Sillitoe, Ian and Bhat, Prajwal and Nepusz, Tam{\´a}s and Romero, Alfonso E. and Sasidharan, Rajkumar and Yang, Haixuan and Paccanaro, Alberto and Gillis, Jesse and Sede{\~n}o-Cort{\´e}s, Adriana E. and Pavlidis, Paul and Feng, Shou and Cejuela, Juan M. and Goldberg, Tatyana and Hamp, Tobias and Richter, Lothar and Salamov, Asaf and Gabaldon, Toni and Marcet-Houben, Marina and Supek, Fran and Gong, Qingtian and Ning, Wei and Zhou, Yuanpeng and Tian, Weidong and Falda, Marco and Fontana, Paolo and Lavezzo, Enrico and Toppo, Stefano and Ferrari, Carlo and Giollo, Manuel and Piovesan, Damiano and Tosatto, Silvio C. E. and del Pozo, Angela and Fern{\´a}ndez, Jos{\´e} M. and Maietta, Paolo and Valencia, Alfonso and Tress, Michael L. and Benso, Alfredo and Di Carlo, Stefano and Politano, Gianfranco and Savino, Alessandro and Rehman, Hafeez Ur and Re, Matteo and Mesiti, Marco and Valentini, Giorgio and Bargsten, Joachim W. and van Dijk, Aalt D. J. and Gemovic, Branislava and Glisic, Sanja and Perovic, Vladmir and Veljkovic, Veljko and Almeida-e-Silva, Danillo C. and Vencio, Ricardo Z. N. and Sharan, Malvika and Vogel, J{\"o}rg and Kansakar, Lakesh and Zhang, Shanshan and Vucetic, Slobodan and Wang, Zheng and Sternberg, Michael J. E. and Wass, Mark N. and Huntley, Rachael P. and Martin, Maria J. and O'Donovan, Claire and Robinson, Peter N. and Moreau, Yves and Tramontano, Anna and Babbitt, Patricia C. and Brenner, Steven E. and Linial, Michal and Orengo, Christine A. and Rost, Burkhard and Greene, Casey S. and Mooney, Sean D. and Friedberg, Iddo and Radivojac, Predrag and Veljkovic, Nevena},
  title     = {An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy},
  series = {Genome Biology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Genome Biology},
  number    = {184},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13059-016-1037-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-166293},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background A major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Results We conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions The top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KingslakeDiasDawsonetal.2017,
  author    = {Kingslake, Jonathan and Dias, Rebecca and Dawson, Gerard R. and Simon, Judit and Goodwin, Guy M. and Harmer, Catherine J. and Morriss, Richard and Brown, Susan and Guo, Boliang and Dourish, Colin T. and Ruh{\´e}, Henricus G. and Lever, Anne G. and Veltman, Dick J. and van Schaik, Anneke and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Reif, Andreas and St{\"a}blein, Michael and Menke, Andreas and Gorwood, Philip and Voegeli, G{\´e}raldine and Perez, Victor and Browning, Michael},
  title     = {The effects of using the PReDicT Test to guide the antidepressant treatment of depressed patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial},
  series = {Trials},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Trials},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13063-017-2247-2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-173012},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background Antidepressant medication is commonly used to treat depression. However, many patients do not respond to the first medication prescribed and improvements in symptoms are generally only detectable by clinicians 4-6 weeks after the medication has been initiated. As a result, there is often a long delay between the decision to initiate an antidepressant medication and the identification of an effective treatment regimen. Previous work has demonstrated that antidepressant medications alter subtle measures of affective cognition in depressed patients, such as the appraisal of facial expression. Furthermore, these cognitive effects of antidepressants are apparent early in the course of treatment and can also predict later clinical response. This trial will assess whether an electronic test of affective cognition and symptoms (the Predicting Response to Depression Treatment Test; PReDicT Test) can be used to guide antidepressant treatment in depressed patients and, therefore, hasten treatment response compared to a control group of patients treated as usual. Methods/design The study is a randomised, two-arm, multi-centre, open-label, clinical investigation of a medical device, the PReDicT Test. It will be conducted in five European countries (UK, France, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands) in depressed patients who are commencing antidepressant medication. Patients will be randomised to treatment guided by the PReDicT Test (PReDicT arm) or to Treatment as Usual (TaU arm). Patients in the TaU arm will be treated as per current standard guidelines in their particular country. Patients in the PReDicT arm will complete the PReDicT Test after 1 (and if necessary, 2) weeks of treatment. If the test indicates non-response to the treatment, physicians will be advised to immediately alter the patient's antidepressant therapy by dose escalation or switching to another compound. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of patients showing a clinical response (defined as 50\% or greater decrease in baseline scores of depressionmeasured using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms - Self-Rated questionnaire) at week 8. Health economic and acceptability data will also be collected and analysed. Discussion This trial will test the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of using the novel PReDicT Test to guide antidepressant treatment selection in depressed patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02790970. Registered on 30 March 2016.},
  language  = {en}
}