Localization of the Major NF-κB-activating Site and the Sole TRAF3 Binding Site of LMP-1 Defines Two Distinct Signaling Motifs

The TRAF3 molecule interacts with the cytoplasmic carboxyl terminus (COOH terminus) of the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded oncogene LMP-1. NF-κB activation is a downstream signaling event of tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor (TRAF) molecules in other signaling systems (CD40 for example) and is an event caused by LMP-1 expression. One region capable of TRAF3 interaction in LMP-1 is the membrane-proximal 45 amino acids (188–242) of the COOH terminus. We show that this region contains the only site for binding of TRAF3 in the 200-amino acid COOH terminus of LMP-1. The site also binds TRAF2 and TRAF5, but not TRAF6. TRAF3 binds to critical residues localized between amino acids 196 and 212 (HHDDSLPHPQQATDDSG), including the PXQX(T/S) motif, that share limited identity to the CD40 receptor TRAF binding site (TAAPVQETL). Mutation of critical residues in the TRAF3 binding site of LMP-1 that prevents binding of TRAF2, TRAF3, and TRAF5 does not affect NF-κB-activating potential. Deletion mapping localized the major NF-κB activating region of LMP-1 to critical residues in the distal 4 amino acids of the COOH terminus (383–386). Therefore, TRAF3 binding and NF-κB activation occur through two separate motifs at opposite ends of the LMP-1 COOH-terminal sequence

Ecology of Juvenile Walleye Pollock, Theragra chalcogramma: Papers from the workshop "The Importance of Prerecruit Walleye Pollock to the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ecosystems" Seattle, Washington, 28-30 October 1993

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), hosted an international workshop, 'The Importance of Prerecruit Walleye Pollock to the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ecosystems," from 28 to 30 October 1993. This workshop was held in conjunction with the annual International North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) meeting held in Seattle. Nearly 100 representatives from government agencies, universities, and the fishing industry in Canada, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Russia, and the United States took part in the workshop to review and discuss current knowledge on juvenile pollock from the postlarval period to the time they recruit to the fisheries. In addition to its importance to humans as a major commercial species, pollock also serves as a major forage species for many marine fishes, birds, and mammals in the North Pacific region. (PDF file contains 236 pages.

Control of the Onset of Filamentation in Condensed Media

Propagation of intense, ultrashort laser pulses through condensed media like crystals of BaF$_2$ and sapphire results in the formation of filaments. We demonstrate that the onset of filamentation may be controlled by rotating the plane of polarization of incident light. We directly visualize filamentation in BaF_2 via six-photon absorption-induced fluorescence and, concomitantly, by probing the spectral and spatial properties of white light that is generated.Comment: To appear in Phys. Rev.

Hanford 100-BC Reactor Area Cleanup

This review was conducted as a part of a review of the cleanup work at several DOE facilities, including Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The original intent of this multiple-site review was to assess whether the DOE’s current cleanup strategy will protect groundwater, and whether the DOE will restore the groundwater to its high- est beneficial use (in most cases, the Drinking Water Standard [DWS]). We sought to review and describe the groundwater contamination issues at these sites; assess the cleanup approach for the contamination; and critically examine, evaluate and explain the effectiveness of the cleanup, in- cluding a description of the contamination that is left behind and its potential impact or risk. Our intent was to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of DOE’s overall approach and compare it to the stated cleanup goals or remedial-action objectives that inherently consider the projected future land-use and end-states of the sites. During the review, we determined that to do an acceptably comprehensive job of reviewing the complex and multiple groundwater contamination plumes at each of the sites, we would require much more time and significantly greater effort than was budgeted. So, we changed the focus and scope of our study in order to perform a more comprehensive review of a few key facilities at each of the DOE sites. For the Hanford Site, the focus of our study is the cleanup work conducted along the Columbia River, including the 100 Areas and the 300 Area. For a more intensive investigation, we chose to review the cleanup of the 100-BC Area because it was the first remedial action area of the 100 Areas. It basically set the pattern for remediation of the rest of the 100 Areas. The following is a review of the principal documentation in the Administrative Record describ- ing the cleanup work of the 100-BC Area at Hanford. This documentation is reviewed with a critical eye on determining just what was cleaned up and what was left behind. This research was completed money allocated during Round 5 of the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund). Clark University was named conservator of these works. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at [email protected]://commons.clarku.edu/riverkeeper/1001/thumbnail.jp

Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities

Candidate sites for disposal of USDOE’s Mixed Wastes (MW), must be judged according to their hydrogeology over an appropriate time frame: up to 10,000 years. US Department of Energy (USDOE) has identified three options for disposal of vast quantities of Mixed Waste. Those three options include the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (alongside the Columbia River in Washington), Nevada Test Site (NTS) and at a private facility in Clive, Utah run by Envirocare of Utah (whose parent company was recently renamed “EnviroSolutions”). The quantities of wastes that might be added to the soils at these sites are enormous.1 All three are currently disposing of Mixed Waste or in the process of permitting for this purpose. In this report, for the first time, the alternative sites for disposal of Mixed Waste are independently compared in regard to their fundamental geologic and hyrodologic conditions, design, standards utilized, and actual monitoring. A fundamental conclusion of the report by John Brodeur, L.G.E, P.E., is that the hydrogeologic landscape determines the fundamental scale of impacts to the environment and human health – regardless of MLL Radioactive & Hazardous Waste Facilities 6 engineering efforts. In sum, the site matters. In addition to the site, the design and actual operation are shown to matter a great deal, and we find tremendous differences exist between alternative sites. This publication is a compilation of research and work products undertaken during the duration of a CitizensMonitoring and Technical Assistance Fund grant from 2004 through March 2006, to create a Cross-Site Review of Mixed Waste Disposal Facilities, and review Hanford specific landfill related documents and decisions. While comparing the three major alternative disposal sites (Hanford, NTS and Envirocare), four specific burial grounds were considered at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF); Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF); US Ecology Commercial Low-Level Waste landfill; and, USDOE’s Hanford Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLGB). This research was completed money allocated during Round 5 of the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund). Clark University was named conservator of these works. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at [email protected]://commons.clarku.edu/heartofam/1005/thumbnail.jp

Interactions of gelatinous zooplankton within marine food webs

Gelatinous zooplankton (GZ) comprise a taxonomically and functionally diverse group of marine organisms which includes ctenophores, cnidarians and pelagic tunicates, sharing a soft, mostly transparent body texture, a high body water content and a lack of exoskeleton. They range in size from less than a millimetre to nearly 2 m for the cnidarian jellyfish Nemopilema nomurai, and comprise some of the fastest growing metazoans on Earth (Hopcroft et al., 1998), sometimes surpassing crustacean zooplankton in their contribution to secondary production (i.e. in subtropical waters; Jaspers et al., 2009). They feed on a wide range of prey sizes, with predator–prey ratios comparable in some cases to those of baleen whales and krill (Deibel and Lee, 1992), and with prey removal rates which are similar to those of their non-gelatinous competitors (Acuña et al., 2011). In spite of early work pointing to gelatinous zooplankton as a trophic dead end (Verity and Smetacek, 1996), evidence is rapidly accumulating which shows that they may potentially channel energy from the picoplankton-sized, microbial loop organisms up to the higher trophic levels, including fish (Llopiz et al., 2010). However, this pathway is still largely neglected in most food web investigations even though it is now becoming clear that GZ represent a major fraction of the diet of several commercially important fish species such as bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) (Cardona et al., 2012)

A Review and Comparison of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities

In 2002, the Department of Energy (DOE) released the draft Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 2002). That draft called for the disposal of over 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) at Hanford in unlined near-surface disposal trenches. The draft EIS was withdrawn by USDOE following public comment, as urged by numerous official agency, advisory board and public commentators. In April, 2003, USDOE issued the Revised Draft Hanford Solid Waste EIS, which forecast that USDOE would dispose of up to 12.3 million cubic feet of LLRW in near-surface burial trenches.1 Sixty three percent (63%) of this LLRW would be imported to Hanford for burial. At an undefined future date, the Revised Draft EIS proposed that LLRW would be buried together in new trenches with up to 5 million cubic feet of Mixed Low-Level Waste, which is Low-Level Radioactive Waste mixed with hazardous chemical wastes.2 To develop a technical position on the proposal for use of Hanford newr- surface burial for Low-Level Wastes, Heart of America NW wanted to know if the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds meet the basic engineering requirements for such facilities and how they compare with other similar facilities and alternative potential disposal sites available to USDOE for these wastes. As such, this report represents the first independent, publicly available Cross-Site Comparison of USDOE Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Ground Alternatives. Performing a complete engineering review of multiple facilities was clearly beyond the potential budget capacity so a proposal was proffered to limit the investigation to the geotechnical aspects of representative LLRW disposal facilities. This type of focused review was accomplished by visiting the sites and reviewing documentation on the sites. Performance standards and review criteria were identified and the disposal facilities were evaluated to determine how well they meet the performance standards. This is the basis for a comparison of the facilities. This report presents the results of this study. This research was completed money allocated during Round 3 of the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund). Clark University was named conservator of these works. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at [email protected]://commons.clarku.edu/heartofam/1000/thumbnail.jp