An investigation into accelerated leaching for the purpose of ARD mitigation

World-wide, acid rock drainage (ARD) is one of the biggest environmental challenges facing environments with current or previously active mining activities. Formed from the exposure of sulphide mineral to both water and air, and catalyzed by naturally occurring iron- and sulphur-oxidizing micro-organisms, ARD pollution is predominantly associated with the mining of sulphidic ores and coal. Of particular concern are the large volumes of mining wastes from which the generation of ARD and the associated pollution effects often persist over tens to hundreds of years after mining operations have ceased. Current ARD management strategies focus on the prevention of ARD through mineral waste deposition or remediation options once ARD has formed. These strategies, however, do not remove the risk of ARD generation in the future. The aim of this study was to investigate the removal of the potential for ARD generation from a low-grade copper waste rock through the accelerated removal of the sulphur components via reaction. The three waste rock samples used in this investigation had total sulphur grades of between 2.20 and 3.20 % with the majority of the sulphide present as pyrite, chalcopyrite and galena. Significant quantities of non-sulphide associated iron minerals, predominantly magnetite, were also present in the three samples. The waste rock samples were sourced from mining operations in Chile and South Africa and had a D80 of approximately 0.8 cm. All three waste rock samples were potentially ARD generating

Ecosystem based modeling and indication of ecological integrity in the German North Sea - Case study offshore wind parks

Human exploitation and use of marine and coastal areas are apparent and growing in many regions of the world. For instance, fishery, shipping, military, raw material exploitation, nature protection and the rapidly expanding offshore wind power technology are competing for limited resources and space. The development and implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) strategies could help to solve these problems. Therefore, suitable spatial assessment, modeling, planning and management tools are urgently needed. These tools have to deal with data that include complex information on different spatial and temporal scales. A systematic approach based on the development of future scenarios which are assessed by combining different simulationmodels, GIS methods and an integrating set of ecological integrity indicators, was applied in a case study in the German North Sea. Here, the installation of huge offshore wind parks within the near future is planned. The aim was to model environmental effects of altered sea-use patterns on marine biota. Indicators of ecological integrity were used to assess altering conditions and possible ecosystem shifts ranging from systems' degradations to the development of highly productive and diverse artificial reef systems. The results showed that some ecosystem processes and properties and related indicators are sensitive to changes generated by offshore wind park installations while others did not react as hypothesized

Comparative Assessment of Quantification Methods for Tumor Tissue Phosphoproteomics

With increasing sensitivity and accuracy in mass spectrometry, the tumor phosphoproteome is getting into reach. However, the selection of quantitation techniques best-suited to the biomedical question and diagnostic requirements remains a trial and error decision as no study has directly compared their performance for tumor tissue phosphoproteomics. We compared label-free quantification (LFQ), spike-in-SILAC (stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture), and tandem mass tag (TMT) isobaric tandem mass tags technology for quantitative phosphosite profiling in tumor tissue. Compared to the classic SILAC method, spike-in-SILAC is not limited to cell culture analysis, making it suitable for quantitative analysis of tumor tissue samples. TMT offered the lowest accuracy and the highest precision and robustness toward different phosphosite abundances and matrices. Spike-in-SILAC offered the best compromise between these features but suffered from a low phosphosite coverage. LFQ offered the lowest precision but the highest number of identifications. Both spike-in-SILAC and LFQ presented susceptibility to matrix effects. Match between run (MBR)-based analysis enhanced the phosphosite coverage across technical replicates in LFQ and spike-in-SILAC but further reduced the precision and robustness of quantification. The choice of quantitative methodology is critical for both study design such as sample size in sample groups and quantified phosphosites and comparison of published cancer phosphoproteomes. Using ovarian cancer tissue as an example, our study builds a resource for the design and analysis of quantitative phosphoproteomic studies in cancer research and diagnostics

Open science in archaeology

No abstract available

Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With COPD : Results From the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA)

Funding Information: FUNDING/SUPPORT: This work was supported by the German Center of Lung Research (DZL). COMPERA is funded by unrestricted grants from Acceleron , Actelion Pharmaceuticals , Bayer , OMT , and GSK . Funding Information: Financial/nonfinancial disclosures: The authors have reported to CHEST the following: C. D. V. has received fees for serving as a speaker, consultant, and an advisory board member from the following companies: Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Dompè, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. M. M. H. has received speaker fees, honoraria, or both for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer. D. H. has received travel compensation from Actelion, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Shire. D. P. has received fees for consultations from Actelion, Aspen, Biogen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Pfizer. N. B. received speaker fees from Bayer/MSD and Actelion/Janssen. K. M. O. has received speaker fees from Actelion, Bayer, and Lilly. H. A. G. has received honorariums for consultations, speaking at conferences, or both from Bayer HealthCare AG, Actelion, Encysive, Pfizer, Ergonex, Lilly, and Novartis. He is member of advisory boards for Bayer HealthCare AG, Pfizer, GSK, Actelion, Lilly, Merck, Encysive, and Ergonex. He also has received governmental grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), Excellence Cluster Cardiopulmonary Research (ECCPS), State Government of Hessen (LOEWE), and the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). M. Held has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Encysive, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Nycomed, Roche, and Servier. H. K. has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics and research grants from Actelion. T. J. L. has received speaker fees, honoraria for consultations, and research funding from Actelion, Acceleron Pharma, Bayer, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, and Pfizer. S. R. has received honoraria for lectures, consultancy, or both from Actavis, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. D. D. declares honoraria for lectures, consultancy, or both from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier; participation in clinical trials for Actelion, Bayer, GSK, and Novartis; and research support to his institution from Actelion. R. B. has received fees from GSK, UT, Dompè, Bayer, Ferrer, MSD, and AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals. M. C. has received fees for consulting from GSK and speaker fees from Bayer and Pfizer. M. Halank has received speaker fees and/or honoraria for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BayerChemie, GSK, Janssen, MSD and Novartis. A. V.-N. reports receiving lecture fees from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and Pfizer; serves on the advisory board of Actelion and Bayer; and serves on steering committees for Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. D. S. received fees for lectures, consulting, research support, or a combination thereof to his institution from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, and Pfizer. R. E. has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. J. S. R. G. has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Complexa, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. M. D. has received investigator, speaker, consultant, or steering committee member fees from Actelion, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Encysive, Gilead (Myogen), GlaxoSmithKline, Nippon Shyniaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Schering, and United Therapeutics; educational grants from Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Therabel; and research grants from Actelion, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. She is holder of the Actelion Chair for Pulmonary Hypertension and of the GSK chair for research and education in pulmonary vascular pathology at the Catholic University of Leuven. J. C. has received fees for consultancies and lectures from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, United Therapeutics, and Pfizer as well as equipment and educational grants from Actelion. C. O. has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. H. K. has received honoraria for lectures, consultancy, or both from Actelion-Janssen, Amicus Therapeutics, and Bristol Meyers Squibb. O. D. has or had consultancy relationships, has received research funding (last 3 years), or both from AbbVie, Actelion, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Catenion, Competitive Corpus, Drug Development International Ltd, CSL Behring, ChemomAb, Ergonex, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, Italfarmaco, iQone, iQvia, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Target Bio Science, and UCB in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications including PH. In addition, he has a patent mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis issued (US8247389, EP2331143). E. G. has received honoraria for consultations, speaking at conferences, or both from Bayer/MSD, Actelion/Janssen, GWT-TUD, and OMT/United Therapeutics. None declared (A. S.). Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The AuthorsBackground: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition. Research Question: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD? Study Design and Methods: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH). Results: The population included incident patients with moderate PH in COPD (n = 68), with severe PH in COPD (n = 307), and with IPAH (n = 489). Patients with PH in COPD were older, predominantly male, and treated mainly with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Despite similar hemodynamic impairment, patients with PH in COPD achieved a worse 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and showed a more advanced World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC). Transplant-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in the IPAH group than in the PH in COPD group (IPAH: 94%, 75%, and 55% vs PH in COPD: 86%, 55%, and 38%; P = .004). Risk factors for poor outcomes in PH in COPD were male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). In patients with severe PH in COPD, improvements in 6MWD by ≥ 30 m or improvements in WHO FC after initiation of medical therapy were associated with better outcomes. Interpretation: Patients with PH in COPD were functionally more impaired and had a poorer outcome than patients with IPAH. Predictors of death in the PH in COPD group were sex, 6MWD, and PVR. Our data raise the hypothesis that some patients with severe PH in COPD may benefit from PH treatment. Randomized controlled studies are necessary to explore this hypothesis further. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01347216; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govpublishersversionPeer reviewe

Idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension phenotypes determined by cluster analysis from the COMPERA registry

Funding Information: Marius M. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, MSD, and Pfizer. Nicola Benjamin has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion. Ekkehard Grünig has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, United Therapeutics, and Pfizer. Karen M. Olsson has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, United Therapeutics, GSK, and Pfizer. C. Dario Vizza has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics Europe. Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf has received fees for lectures and/or consultation from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, and MSD. Oliver Distler has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from 4-D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, BMS, ChemoAb, EpiPharm, Ergonex, espeRare foundation, GSK, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva, Lilly, medac, MedImmune, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Serodapharm, and Sinoxa in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications including pulmonary arterial hypertension. In addition, Prof Distler has a patent for mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis licensed. Christian Opitz has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. J. Simon R. Gibbs has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Bellerophon, GSK, MSD, and Pfizer. Marion Delcroix has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, and MSD. H. Ardeschir Ghofrani has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Doerte Huscher has received fees for lectures and consultations from Actelion. David Pittrow has received fees for consultations from Actelion, Biogen, Aspen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi. Stephan Rosenkranz has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, MSD, and United Therapeutics. Martin Claussen reports honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Roche Pharma and for serving on advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Heinrike Wilkens reports personal fees from Boehringer and Roche during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Biotest, Actelion, GSK, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Juergen Behr received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and personal fees for consultation or lectures from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche. Hubert Wirtz reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche outside the submitted work. Hening Gall reports personal fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Elena Pfeuffer-Jovic reports personal fees from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and OMT outside the submitted work. Laura Scelsi reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, and MSD outside the submitted work. Siliva Ulrich reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation, Zurich Lung, Swiss Lung, and Orpha Swiss, and grants and personal fees from Actelion SA/Johnson & Johnson Switzerland and MSD Switzerland outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Funding Information: This work was supported by the German Centre of Lung Research (DZL). COMPERA is funded by unrestricted grants from Acceleron , Actelion Pharmaceuticals , Bayer , OMT , and GSK . These companies were not involved in data analysis or the writing of this manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Authors Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.The term idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) is used to categorize patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension of unknown origin. There is considerable variability in the clinical presentation of these patients. Using data from the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension, we performed a cluster analysis of 841 patients with IPAH based on age, sex, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO; <45% vs ≥45% predicted), smoking status, and presence of comorbidities (obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and diabetes mellitus). A hierarchical agglomerative clustering algorithm was performed using Ward's minimum variance method. The clusters were analyzed in terms of baseline characteristics; survival; and response to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy, expressed as changes from baseline to follow-up in functional class, 6-minute walking distance, cardiac biomarkers, and risk. Three clusters were identified: Cluster 1 (n = 106; 12.6%): median age 45 years, 76% females, no comorbidities, mostly never smokers, DLCO ≥45%; Cluster 2 (n = 301; 35.8%): median age 75 years, 98% females, frequent comorbidities, no smoking history, DLCO mostly ≥45%; and Cluster 3 (n = 434; 51.6%): median age 72 years, 72% males, frequent comorbidities, history of smoking, and low DLCO. Patients in Cluster 1 had a better response to PAH treatment than patients in the 2 other clusters. Survival over 5 years was 84.6% in Cluster 1, 59.2% in Cluster 2, and 42.2% in Cluster 3 (unadjusted p < 0.001 for comparison between all groups). The population of patients diagnosed with IPAH is heterogenous. This cluster analysis identified distinct phenotypes, which differed in clinical presentation, response to therapy, and survival.publishersversionPeer reviewe

A single dividing cell population with imbalanced fate drives oesophageal tumour growth.

Understanding the cellular mechanisms of tumour growth is key for designing rational anticancer treatment. Here we used genetic lineage tracing to quantify cell behaviour during neoplastic transformation in a model of oesophageal carcinogenesis. We found that cell behaviour was convergent across premalignant tumours, which contained a single proliferating cell population. The rate of cell division was not significantly different in the lesions and the surrounding epithelium. However, dividing tumour cells had a uniform, small bias in cell fate so that, on average, slightly more dividing than non-dividing daughter cells were generated at each round of cell division. In invasive cancers induced by Kras(G12D) expression, dividing cell fate became more strongly biased towards producing dividing over non-dividing cells in a subset of clones. These observations argue that agents that restore the balance of cell fate may prove effective in checking tumour growth, whereas those targeting cycling cells may show little selectivity.Cancer Research UK (Grant ID: C609/A17257), Medical Research Council (Grant-in-Aid), DFG (Research Fellowship), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Critical Mass Grant), Wellcome Trust (Grant ID: 098357/Z/12/Z)This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb340