@article{WuttkeLiLietal.2019,
  author    = {Wuttke, Matthias and Li, Yong and Li, Man and Sieber, Karsten B. and Feitosa, Mary F. and Gorski, Mathias and Tin, Adrienne and Wang, Lihua and Chu, Audrey Y. and Hoppmann, Anselm and Kirsten, Holger and Giri, Ayush and Chai, Jin-Fang and Sveinbjornsson, Gardar and Tayo, Bamidele O. and Nutile, Teresa and Fuchsberger, Christian and Marten, Jonathan and Cocca, Massimiliano and Ghasemi, Sahar and Xu, Yizhe and Horn, Katrin and Noce, Damia and Van der Most, Peter J. and Sedaghat, Sanaz and Yu, Zhi and Akiyama, Masato and Afaq, Saima and Ahluwalia, Tarunveer Singh and Almgren, Peter and Amin, Najaf and Arnlov, Johan and Bakker, Stephan J. L. and Bansal, Nisha and Baptista, Daniela and Bergmann, Sven and Biggs, Mary L. and Biino, Ginevra and Boehnke, Michael and Boerwinkle, Eric and Boissel, Mathilde and B{\"o}ttinger, Erwin and Boutin, Thibaud S. and Brenner, Hermann and Brumat, Marco and Burkhardt, Ralph and Butterworth, Adam S. and Campana, Eric and Campbell, Archie and Campbell, Harry and Canouil, Mickael and Carroll, Robert J. and Catamo, Eulalia and Chambers, John C. and Chee, Miao-Ling and Chee, Miao-Li and Chen, Xu and Cheng, Ching-Yu and Cheng, Yurong and Christensen, Kaare and Cifkova, Renata and Ciullo, Marina and Concas, Maria Pina and Cook, James P. and Coresh, Josef and Corre, Tanguy and Sala, Cinzia Felicita and Cusi, Daniele and Danesh, John and Daw, E. Warwick and De Borst, Martin H. and De Grandi, Alessandro and De Mutsert, Renee and De Vries, Aiko P. J. and Degenhardt, Frauke and Delgado, Graciela and Demirkan, Ayse and Di Angelantonio, Emanuele and Dittrich, Katalin and Divers, Jasmin and Dorajoo, Rajkumar and Eckardt, Kai-Uwe and Ehret, Georg and Elliott, Paul and Endlich, Karlhans and Evans, Michele K. and Felix, Janine F. and Foo, Valencia Hui Xian and Franco, Oscar H. and Franke, Andre and Freedman, Barry I. and Freitag-Wolf, Sandra and Friedlander, Yechiel and Froguel, Philippe and Gansevoort, Ron T. and Gao, He and Gasparini, Paolo and Gaziano, J. Michael and Giedraitis, Vilmantas and Gieger, Christian and Girotto, Giorgia and Giulianini, Franco and Gogele, Martin and Gordon, Scott D. and Gudbjartsson, Daniel F. and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Haller, Toomas and Hamet, Pavel and Harris, Tamara B. and Hartman, Catharina A. and Hayward, Caroline and Hellwege, Jacklyn N. and Heng, Chew-Kiat and Hicks, Andrew A. and Hofer, Edith and Huang, Wei and Hutri-Kahonen, Nina and Hwang, Shih-Jen and Ikram, M. Arfan and Indridason, Olafur S. and Ingelsson, Erik and Ising, Marcus and Jaddoe, Vincent W. V. and Jakobsdottir, Johanna and Jonas, Jost B. and Joshi, Peter K. and Josyula, Navya Shilpa and Jung, Bettina and Kahonen, Mika and Kamatani, Yoichiro and Kammerer, Candace M. and Kanai, Masahiro and Kastarinen, Mika and Kerr, Shona M. and Khor, Chiea-Chuen and Kiess, Wieland and Kleber, Marcus E. and Koenig, Wolfgang and Kooner, Jaspal S. and Korner, Antje and Kovacs, Peter and Kraja, Aldi T. and Krajcoviechova, Alena and Kramer, Holly and Kramer, Bernhard K. and Kronenberg, Florian and Kubo, Michiaki and Kuhnel, Brigitte and Kuokkanen, Mikko and Kuusisto, Johanna and La Bianca, Martina and Laakso, Markku and Lange, Leslie A. and Langefeld, Carl D. and Lee, Jeannette Jen-Mai and Lehne, Benjamin and Lehtimaki, Terho and Lieb, Wolfgang and Lim, Su-Chi and Lind, Lars and Lindgren, Cecilia M. and Liu, Jun and Liu, Jianjun and Loeffler, Markus and Loos, Ruth J. F. and Lucae, Susanne and Lukas, Mary Ann and Lyytikainen, Leo-Pekka and Magi, Reedik and Magnusson, Patrik K. E. and Mahajan, Anubha and Martin, Nicholas G. and Martins, Jade and Marz, Winfried and Mascalzoni, Deborah and Matsuda, Koichi and Meisinger, Christa and Meitinger, Thomas and Melander, Olle and Metspalu, Andres and Mikaelsdottir, Evgenia K. and Milaneschi, Yuri and Miliku, Kozeta and Mishra, Pashupati P. and Program, V. A. Million Veteran and Mohlke, Karen L. and Mononen, Nina and Montgomery, Grant W. and Mook-Kanamori, Dennis O. and Mychaleckyj, Josyf C. and Nadkarni, Girish N. and Nalls, Mike A. and Nauck, Matthias and Nikus, Kjell and Ning, Boting and Nolte, Ilja M. and Noordam, Raymond and Olafsson, Isleifur and Oldehinkel, Albertine J. and Orho-Melander, Marju and Ouwehand, Willem H. and Padmanabhan, Sandosh and Palmer, Nicholette D. and Palsson, Runolfur and Penninx, Brenda W. J. H. and Perls, Thomas and Perola, Markus and Pirastu, Mario and Pirastu, Nicola and Pistis, Giorgio and Podgornaia, Anna I. and Polasek, Ozren and Ponte, Belen and Porteous, David J. and Poulain, Tanja and Pramstaller, Peter P. and Preuss, Michael H. and Prins, Bram P. and Province, Michael A. and Rabelink, Ton J. and Raffield, Laura M. and Raitakari, Olli T. and Reilly, Dermot F. and Rettig, Rainer and Rheinberger, Myriam and Rice, Kenneth M. and Ridker, Paul M. and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Rizzi, Federica and Roberts, David J. and Robino, Antonietta and Rossing, Peter and Rudan, Igor and Rueedi, Rico and Ruggiero, Daniela and Ryan, Kathleen A. and Saba, Yasaman and Sabanayagam, Charumathi and Salomaa, Veikko and Salvi, Erika and Saum, Kai-Uwe and Schmidt, Helena and Schmidt, Reinhold and Ben Schottker, and Schulz, Christina-Alexandra and Schupf, Nicole and Shaffer, Christian M. and Shi, Yuan and Smith, Albert V. and Smith, Blair H. and Soranzo, Nicole and Spracklen, Cassandra N. and Strauch, Konstantin and Stringham, Heather M. and Stumvoll, Michael and Svensson, Per O. and Szymczak, Silke and Tai, E-Shyong and Tajuddin, Salman M. and Tan, Nicholas Y. Q. and Taylor, Kent D. and Teren, Andrej and Tham, Yih-Chung and Thiery, Joachim and Thio, Chris H. L. and Thomsen, Hauke and Thorleifsson, Gudmar and Toniolo, Daniela and Tonjes, Anke and Tremblay, Johanne and Tzoulaki, Ioanna and Uitterlinden, Andre G. and Vaccargiu, Simona and Van Dam, Rob M. and Van der Harst, Pim and Van Duijn, Cornelia M. and Edward, Digna R. Velez and Verweij, Niek and Vogelezang, Suzanne and Volker, Uwe and Vollenweider, Peter and Waeber, Gerard and Waldenberger, Melanie and Wallentin, Lars and Wang, Ya Xing and Wang, Chaolong and Waterworth, Dawn M. and Bin Wei, Wen and White, Harvey and Whitfield, John B. and Wild, Sarah H. and Wilson, James F. and Wojczynski, Mary K. and Wong, Charlene and Wong, Tien-Yin and Xu, Liang and Yang, Qiong and Yasuda, Masayuki and Yerges-Armstrong, Laura M. and Zhang, Weihua and Zonderman, Alan B. and Rotter, Jerome I. and Bochud, Murielle and Psaty, Bruce M. and Vitart, Veronique and Wilson, James G. and Dehghan, Abbas and Parsa, Afshin and Chasman, Daniel I. and Ho, Kevin and Morris, Andrew P. and Devuyst, Olivier and Akilesh, Shreeram and Pendergrass, Sarah A. and Sim, Xueling and Boger, Carsten A. and Okada, Yukinori and Edwards, Todd L. and Snieder, Harold and Stefansson, Kari and Hung, Adriana M. and Heid, Iris M. and Scholz, Markus and Teumer, Alexander and Kottgen, Anna and Pattaro, Cristian},
  title     = {A catalog of genetic loci associated with kidney function from analyses of a million individuals},
  series = {Nature genetics},
  volume    = {51},
  journal   = {Nature genetics},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Nature Publ. Group},
  address   = {New York},
  organization    = {Lifelines COHort Study},
  issn      = {1061-4036},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41588-019-0407-x},
  pages     = {957 -- +},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is responsible for a public health burden with multi-systemic complications. Through transancestry meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and independent replication (n = 1,046,070), we identified 264 associated loci (166 new). Of these,147 were likely to be relevant for kidney function on the basis of associations with the alternative kidney function marker blood urea nitrogen (n = 416,178). Pathway and enrichment analyses, including mouse models with renal phenotypes, support the kidney as the main target organ. A genetic risk score for lower eGFR was associated with clinically diagnosed CKD in 452,264 independent individuals. Colocalization analyses of associations with eGFR among 783,978 European-ancestry individuals and gene expression across 46 human tissues, including tubulo-interstitial and glomerular kidney compartments, identified 17 genes differentially expressed in kidney. Fine-mapping highlighted missense driver variants in 11 genes and kidney-specific regulatory variants. These results provide a comprehensive priority list of molecular targets for translational research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SennemavandeVijverCarrolletal.2005,
  author    = {Sennema, Anke and van de Vijver, Ruben and Carroll, Susanne E. and Zimmer-Stahl, Anne},
  title     = {Focus accent, word lenght and position as cues to L1 and L2 word recognition},
  isbn      = {3-937786-01-5},
  year      = {2005},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Carroll2005,
  author    = {Carroll, Susanne E.},
  title     = {Input and SLA : Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender},
  issn      = {0023-8333},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {All second language (L2) learning theories presuppose that learners learn the target language from the speech signal (or written material, when learners are reading), so an understanding of learners' ability to detect and represent novel patterns in linguistic stimuli will constitute a major building block in an adequate theory of second language acquisition (SLA) input. Pattern detection, a mainstay of current connectionist modeling of language learning, presupposes a sensitivity to particular properties of the signal. Learning abstract grammatical knowledge from the signal presupposes, as well, the capacity to map phonetic properties of the signal onto properties of another type (segments and syllables, morpheme categories, and so on). Thus, even seemingly "simple" grammatical phenomena may embody complex structural knowledge and be instantiated by a plethora of diverse cues. Moreover, cues have no a priori status; a phenomenon of a given sort takes on a value as a cue when acquisition of the grammatical system reveals it to be useful. My study deals with initial sensitivity to cues to gender attribution in French. Andersen (1984) asked: "What's gender good for anyway?" One answer comes from a number of studies, done mostly in the last 20 years, of gender processing by both monolingual and bilingual speakers (among many others, Bates, Devescovi, Hernandez, \& Pizzamiglio, 1996; Bates \& Liu, 1997; Friederici \& Jacobsen, 1990; Grosjean, Dommergues, Cornu, Guillemon, \& Besson, 1994; Guillemon \& Grosjean, 2001; Taft \& Meunier, 1998). These studies provide evidence that in monolinguals and early (but not late) L2 learners, prenominal morphosyntactic exponents of gender prime noun activation and speed up noun recognition. Over the same period, a growing number of studies detailing the course of L2 gender acquisition for a variety of different target languages and learner types (e.g., Bartning, 2000; Chini, 1995; Dewaele \& Veronique, 2000; Granfeldt, 2003; Hawkins \& Franceschina, 2004) have provided support for the hypothesis that developmental paths differ for early and later learners of gender. Yet despite its obvious importance to SLA theorizing, few studies have dealt directly with adult learners' ability to detect and analyze potential cues to gender at the initial stage of exposure to the L2 (and this despite considerable discussion in recent years of the nature of the "initial state" of L2 learning). The study reported on in this article, which was actually conducted in the late 1980s, was an attempt to shed some light on what the beginning learner can do with the gender attribution problem. This study was, at that time, and is even now, an anomaly; most research dealing with "input" provided descriptions of what people say to learners, not what learners can perceive and represent. Indeed, most studies that shed light on the initial analytical capacities of absolute beginners were concerned with "perceptual" learning, that is, with the acquisition of phonetic or phonological distinctions (e.g., Broselow, Hurtig, \& Ringen's [19871 study of tone learning or various studies on the perception of the /r/ vs. /l/ phonemes in American English by Ja},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Carroll2004,
  author    = {Carroll, Susanne E.},
  title     = {Segmentation : Learning how to 'hear words' in the L2 speech stream},
  issn      = {0079-1636},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {We 'hear words' when we can segment prosodic units from the speech stream and activate associated lexical entries. Segmentation is sometimes regarded in SLA as a perceptual problem, not a grammatical one. I argue here that this view is wrong: segmenting formatives results when we construct prosodic units on the basis of phonetic cues to their edges. The learner's first task is to acquire the relevant cues to these edges. The problem of segmentation is discussed within the framework provided by the Autonomous Induction Theory},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SennemavandeVijverCarrolletal.2005,
  author    = {Sennema, Anke and van de Vijver, Ruben and Carroll, Susanne E. and Zimmer-Stahl, Anne},
  title     = {Focus accent, word length and position as cues to L1 and L2 word recognition},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8769},
  pages     = {183 -- 198},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {The present study examines native and nonnative perceptual processing of semantic information conveyed by prosodic prominence. Five groups of German learners of English each listened to one of 5 experimental conditions. Three conditions differed in place of focus accent in the sentence and two conditions were with spliced stimuli. The experiment condition was presented first in the learners' L1 (German) and then in a similar set in the L2 (English). The effect of the accent condition and of the length and position of the target in the sentence was evaluated in a probe recognition task. In both the L1 and L2 tasks there was no significant effect in any of the five focus conditions. Target position and target word length had an effect in the L1 task. Word length did not affect accuracy rates in the L2 task. For probe recognition in the L2, word length and the position of the target interacted with the focus condition.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Carroll2006,
  author    = {Carroll, Susanne E.},
  title     = {Shallow processing : a consequence of bilingualism or second language learning?},
  issn      = {0142-7164},
  doi       = {10.1017/S0142716406060061},
  year      = {2006},
  language  = {en}
}