Additional file 1: Figure S1A–E. of Tuning Tribological Performance of Layered Zirconium Phosphate Nanoplatelets in Oil by Surface and Interlayer Modifications

Surface roughness of five metal balls examined by a 3D profiler. The average surface roughness is 155.0 ± 14.8 nm. Figure S2. FTIR of various surface modified-ZrP samples. The strong characteristic bands associated with the asymmetric and symmetric stretching of the C−H, between 2900 and 3000cm−1, and bending at ca. 1450 cm−1 are an indication of the attachments of alkyl chains from various silanes on ZrP nanoplatelets. Figure S3. SEM and EDS results for the original metal surface before testing. Figure S4. SEM and EDS results for the worn metal surface after testing with the C16-ZrP-N6 oil sample. Figure S5. SEM and EDS results for the worn metal surface after testing with the C16-ZrP oil sample. (DOCX 3672 kb

Light-Harvesting Nanoparticle Core–Shell Clusters with Controllable Optical Output

We used DNA self-assembly methods to fabricate a series of core–shell gold nanoparticle–DNA–colloidal quantum dot (AuNP–DNA–Qdot) nanoclusters with satellite-like architecture to modulate optical (photoluminescence) response. By varying the intercomponent distance through the DNA linker length designs, we demonstrate precise tuning of the plasmon–exciton interaction and the optical behavior of the nanoclusters from regimes characterized by photoluminescence quenching to photoluminescence enhancement. The combination of detailed X-ray scattering probing with photoluminescence intensity and lifetime studies revealed the relation between the cluster structure and its optical output. Compared to conventional light-harvesting systems like conjugated polymers and multichromophoric dendrimers, the proposed nanoclusters bring enhanced flexibility in controlling the optical behavior toward a desired application, and they can be regarded as controllable optical switches <i>via</i> the optically pumped color

Univariate analysis of the prognostic factors for gastric cancer patients using the Cox regression model.

<p>Univariate analysis of the prognostic factors for gastric cancer patients using the Cox regression model.</p

Demographic and baseline characteristics of the two patient groups.

<p>Demographic and baseline characteristics of the two patient groups.</p

Plasma D-dimer and OS.

<p>(A) Kaplan-Meier curve for OS for gastric cancer patients stratified by peritoneal dissemination. Log-rank test, P<0.001 vs patients without peritoneal dissemination. (B) Kaplan-Meier curve for OS for gastric cancer patients stratified by plasma D-dimer levels (<1.465 µg/ml). Log-rank test, P<0.001 vs patients with plasma D-dimer levels ≥1.465 µg/ml.</p

Correlation between the plasma D-dimer levels and the clinicopathologic factors of gastric cancer patients.

<p>Correlation between the plasma D-dimer levels and the clinicopathologic factors of gastric cancer patients.</p

Pathophysiology of D-dimer.

<p>Stage I was the process of blood coagulation, Stage II was the process of fibrinolysis, as the degradation product of fibrin, D-dimer can promote the growth and metastasis of tumors.</p

The diagnostic power of D-dimer in differentiating peritoneal dissemination from the non-peritoneal dissemination in the Prospective Training Group.

<p>Abbreviations: PD, peritoneal dissemination; +, positive; −, negative; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value;.</p

ROC curve analysis for the prediction of peritoneal dissemination.

<p>The Area under the ROC curve (AUC) indicates the diagnostic power of D-dimer levels (AUC = 0.833).</p

The differences of D-dimer levels.

<p>(A) Plasma levels of D-dimer in patients with gastric cancer (1.25±1.08 µg/mL) were significantly higher than the values determined for control subjects (0.37±0.20 µg/mL) (P<0.001). (B) The mean plasma D-dimer level of patients with peritoneal dissemination was 2.20±1.51 µg/mL, a value that was significantly higher than the measured amount for patients without peritoneal dissemination (1.01±0.79 µg/mL) (P<0.001). (C) The mean plasma D-dimer level in surviving patients was 0.79±0.720 µg/mL, a value that was significantly lower than the amount determined for the deceased patients (1.36±1.13 µg/mL) (P<0.001).</p