@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{VogtmannHuaZelleretal.2016,
  author    = {Vogtmann, Emily and Hua, Xing and Zeller, Georg and Sunagawa, Shinichi and Voigt, Anita Y. and Hercog, Rajna and Goedert, James J. and Shi, Jianxin and Bork, Peer and Sinha, Rashmi},
  title     = {Colorectal Cancer and the Human Gut Microbiome: Reproducibility with Whole-Genome Shotgun Sequencing},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0155362},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-166904},
  pages     = {e0155362},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Accumulating evidence indicates that the gut microbiota affects colorectal cancer development, but previous studies have varied in population, technical methods, and associations with cancer. Understanding these variations is needed for comparisons and for potential pooling across studies. Therefore, we performed whole-genome shotgun sequencing on fecal samples from 52 pre-treatment colorectal cancer cases and 52 matched controls from Washington, DC. We compared findings from a previously published 16S rRNA study to the metagenomics-derived taxonomy within the same population. In addition, metagenome-predicted genes, modules, and pathways in the Washington, DC cases and controls were compared to cases and controls recruited in France whose specimens were processed using the same platform. Associations between the presence of fecal Fusobacteria, Fusobacterium, and Porphyromonas with colorectal cancer detected by 16S rRNA were reproduced by metagenomics, whereas higher relative abundance of Clostridia in cancer cases based on 16S rRNA was merely borderline based on metagenomics. This demonstrated that within the same sample set, most, but not all taxonomic associations were seen with both methods. Considering significant cancer associations with the relative abundance of genes, modules, and pathways in a recently published French metagenomics dataset, statistically significant associations in the Washington, DC population were detected for four out of 10 genes, three out of nine modules, and seven out of 17 pathways. In total, colorectal cancer status in the Washington, DC study was associated with 39\% of the metagenome-predicted genes, modules, and pathways identified in the French study. More within and between population comparisons are needed to identify sources of variation and disease associations that can be reproduced despite these variations. Future studies should have larger sample sizes or pool data across studies to have sufficient power to detect associations that are reproducible and significant after correction for multiple testing.},
  language  = {en}
}