The National Protective Inventory and Malta scheduled property register : Malta’s baseline for cultural heritage protection and more

Chapter 4Statutory heritage protection in the Maltese Islands first started in 1925 with the publication of the Antiquities (Protection) Act, which was followed by the Antiquities (Protection) List of 1932, amended in 1936 and 1939. Th e Antiquities (Protection) List was essentially a “shopping list” of properties meriting protection however the list was extremely basic and generic. The information provided varied depending on the familiarity with the sites by the people compiling the list at the time. No site plans were published with the list, indeed in certain cases a feature of a house in a street was the only feature being protected within a single locality which made locating the site in question difficult let alone its protection. Apart from this, little was done however to protect heritage in Malta between 1939 and 1992 when the (then) Planning Authority was set up. Indeed, heritage protection by MEPA commenced in 1994 with the identification of the most important archaeological sites and areas, delineation of Urban Conservation Areas for the fortified cities around the harbour and the identification of specific sites then under study through the Marsaxlokk Bay and North Harbours Local Plans. Protection of individual sites and buildings continued somewhat sporadically until 2006 when a thematic scheduling agenda was drawn up. Although a few groups of thematic scheduling had been carried out by then, most scheduling was undertaken depending on the studies being conducted at the time. The NPI and MSPR, originally referred to as the List of Scheduled Property started off as little more than a list similar to the Antiquities List with the addition of pertinent information such as the proper address, images, a site plan denoting the extent and site curtilage if necessary, and other information required for planning purposes. In the late 2000s, the need was felt for better organisation of the information available and with it the better organisation of the NPI and creation of the MSPR.peer-reviewe

Ecological drivers of eggshell wettability in birds

Complex and at times extreme environments have pushed many bird species to develop unique eggshell surface properties to protect the embryo from external threats. Because microbes are usually transmitted into eggs by moisture, some species have evolved hydrophobic shell surfaces that resist water absorption, while also regulating heat loss and the exchange of gases. Here, we investigate the relationship between wettability of eggshells from 441 bird species and their life-history traits. We measured the initial contact angle between sessile water droplets and the shell surface, and how far the droplet spread. Using phylogenetic comparative methods, we show that body mass, annual temperature and eggshell maculation primarily explained variance in water contact angle across eggshells. Species nesting in warm climates were more likely to exhibit highly hydrophobic eggshells than those nesting in cold climates, potentially to reduce microbial colonisation. In non-passerines, immaculate eggs were found to have more hydrophobic surfaces than maculate eggshells. Droplets spread more quickly on eggshells incubated in open nests compared to domed nests, likely to decrease heat transfer from the egg. Here, we identify clear adaptations of eggshell wettability across a diverse range of nesting environments, driven by the need to retain heat and prevent microbial adhesion

Quick and Simple Detection Technique to Assess the Binding of Antimicrotubule Agents to the Colchicine-Binding Site

Development of antimitotic binding to the colchicine-binding site for the treatment of cancer is rapidly expanding. Numerous antimicrotubule agents are prepared every year, and the determination of their binding affinity to tubulin requires the use of purified tubulins and radiolabeled ligands. Such a procedure is costly and time-consuming and therefore is limited to the most promising candidates. Here, we report a quick and inexpensive method that requires only usual laboratory resources to assess the binding of antimicrotubules to colchicine-binding site. The method is based on the ability of N,N'-ethylene-bis(iodoacetamide) (EBI) to crosslink in living cells the cysteine residues at position 239 and 354 of β-tubulin, residues which are involved in the colchicine-binding site. The β-tubulin adduct formed by EBI is easily detectable by Western blot as a second immunoreacting band of β-tubulin that migrates faster than β-tubulin. The occupancy of colchicine-binding site by pertinent antimitotics inhibits the formation of the EBI: β-tubulin adduct, resulting in an assay that allows the screening of new molecules targeting this binding site

Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations