N.A.W. van Riel
University of Amsterdam
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by N.A.W. van Riel.
Bellman Prize in Mathematical Biosciences | 2013
J Joep Vanlier; Ca Christian Tiemann; Peter A. J. Hilbers; N.A.W. van Riel
Improved mechanistic understanding of biochemical networks is one of the driving ambitions of Systems Biology. Computational modeling allows the integration of various sources of experimental data in order to put this conceptual understanding to the test in a quantitative manner. The aim of computational modeling is to obtain both predictive as well as explanatory models for complex phenomena, hereby providing useful approximations of reality with varying levels of detail. As the complexity required to describe different system increases, so does the need for determining how well such predictions can be made. Despite efforts to make tools for uncertainty analysis available to the field, these methods have not yet found widespread use in the field of Systems Biology. Additionally, the suitability of the different methods strongly depends on the problem and system under investigation. This review provides an introduction to some of the techniques available as well as gives an overview of the state-of-the-art methods for parameter uncertainty analysis.
CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology | 2017
B Ribba; Hp Grimm; Balaji Agoram; Davies; K Gadkar; Steven Niederer; N.A.W. van Riel; Jon Timmis; Ph van der Graaf
With the increased interest in the application of quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models within medicine research and development, there is an increasing need to formalize model development and verification aspects. In February 2016, a workshop was held at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development to focus discussions on two critical methodological aspects of QSP model development: optimal structural granularity and parameter estimation. We here report in a perspective article a summary of presentations and discussions.
Current Medicinal Chemistry | 2017
Z.C. Felix Garza; Matthias Born; Peter A. J. Hilbers; N.A.W. van Riel; J. Liebmann
BACKGROUND Visible light is absorbed by photoacceptors in pigmented and non-pigmented mammalian cells, activating signaling cascades and downstream mechanisms that lead to the modulation of cellular processes. Most studies have investigated the molecular mechanisms and therapeutic applications of UV and the red to near infrared regions of the visible spectrum. Considerably less effort has been dedicated to the blue, UV-free part of the spectrum. OBJECTIVE In this review, we discuss the current advances in the understanding of the molecular photoacceptors, signaling mechanisms, and corresponding therapeutic opportunities of blue light photoreception in non-visual mammalian cells in the context of inflammatory skin conditions. METHODS The literature was scanned for peer-reviewed articles focusing on the molecular mechanisms, cellular effects, and therapeutic applications of blue light. RESULTS At a molecular level, blue light is absorbed by flavins, porphyrins, nitrosated proteins, and opsins; inducing the generation of ROS, nitric oxide release, and the activation of G protein coupled signaling. Limited and contrasting results have been reported on the cellular effects of blue light induced signaling. Some investigations describe a regulation of proliferation and differentiation or a modulation of inflammatory parameters; others show growth inhibition and apoptosis. Regardless of the elusive underlying mechanism, clinical studies show that blue light is beneficial in the treatment of inflammatory skin conditions. CONCLUSION To strengthen the use of blue light for therapeutic purposes, further in depth studies are clearly needed with regard to its underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms, and their translation into clinical applications.
Nature | 2018
Ilaria Bellantuono; R. DeCabo; D. Ehninger; Adelaide Fernandes; Susan E. Howlett; Ralph Müller; P. Potter; Tamar Tchkonia; Anne-Ulrike Trendelenburg; José Luis Trejo; R. Vandenbroucke; R. van Os; N.A.W. van Riel
Simply extending lifespan is not enough. We need treatments that boost resilience to multiple age-related diseases, argue Ilaria Bellantuono and 12 co-signatories. Simply extending lifespan is not enough. We need treatments that boost resilience to multiple age-related diseases, argue Ilaria Bellantuono and 12 co-signatories.
Clinical and translational gastroenterology | 2018
Kec Bouter; Gj Bakker; Evgeni Levin; Av Hartstra; Rs Kootte; Sd Udayappan; S. Katiraei; L. Bahler; P. W. Gilijamse; Valentina Tremaroli; Marcus Ståhlman; F. Holleman; N.A.W. van Riel; Hj Verberne; Johannes A. Romijn; Gm Dallinga-Thie; Mireille J. Serlie; Mt Ackermans; Em Kemper; K. Willems van Dijk; Fredrik Bäckhed; Albert K. Groen; Max Nieuwdorp
Background: Gut microbiota‐derived short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs) have been associated with beneficial metabolic effects. However, the direct effect of oral butyrate on metabolic parameters in humans has never been studied. In this first in men pilot study, we thus treated both lean and metabolic syndrome male subjects with oral sodium butyrate and investigated the effect on metabolism. Methods: Healthy lean males (n = 9) and metabolic syndrome males (n = 10) were treated with oral 4 g of sodium butyrate daily for 4 weeks. Before and after treatment, insulin sensitivity was determined by a two‐step hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp using [6,6‐2H2]‐glucose. Brown adipose tissue (BAT) uptake of glucose was visualized using 18F‐FDG PET‐CT. Fecal SCFA and bile acid concentrations as well as microbiota composition were determined before and after treatment. Results: Oral butyrate had no effect on plasma and fecal butyrate levels after treatment, but did alter other SCFAs in both plasma and feces. Moreover, only in healthy lean subjects a significant improvement was observed in both peripheral (median Rd: from 71 to 82 &mgr;mol/kg min, p < 0.05) and hepatic insulin sensitivity (EGP suppression from 75 to 82% p < 0.05). Although BAT activity was significantly higher at baseline in lean (SUVmax: 12.4 ± 1.8) compared with metabolic syndrome subjects (SUVmax: 0.3 ± 0.8, p < 0.01), no significant effect following butyrate treatment on BAT was observed in either group (SUVmax lean to 13.3 ± 2.4 versus metabolic syndrome subjects to 1.2 ± 4.1). Conclusions: Oral butyrate treatment beneficially affects glucose metabolism in lean but not metabolic syndrome subjects, presumably due to an altered SCFA handling in insulin‐resistant subjects. Although preliminary, these first in men findings argue against oral butyrate supplementation as treatment for glucose regulation in human subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Archive | 2018
H.H.M.H. van Beers; N.A.W. van Riel
Archive | 2018
Z.C. Felix Garza; J. Liebmann; Matthias Born; Peter A. J. Hilbers; N.A.W. van Riel
Archive | 2018
J.A. van der Stam; Andrei Prodan; Annieke van Baar; Peter A. J. Hilbers; B. Groen; Max Nieuwdorp; Evgeni Levin; N.A.W. van Riel
Archive | 2018
Bart van Sloun; Michael Lenz; N.A.W. van Riel; Ilja C. W. Arts
Archive | 2017
A. Cabbia; N.A.W. van Riel