73 research outputs found

    Brueckner-Hartree-Fock study of circular quantum dots

    Get PDF
    We calculate ground state energies in the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory for NN electrons (with N≀20N\le 20) confined to a circular quantum dot and in presence of a static magnetic field. Comparison with the predictions of Hartree-Fock, local-spin-density and exact configuration-interaction theories is made. We find that the correlations taken into account in Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations give an important contribution to the ground state energies, specially in strongly confined dots. In this high-density range, corresponding in practice to self-assembled quantum dots, the results of Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations are close to the exact values and better than those obtained in the local-spin-density approximation.Comment: Regular articl

    Magnetoplasmons in quantum rings

    Get PDF
    We have studied the structure and dipole charge density response of nanorings as a function of the magnetic field using local-spin density functional theory. Two small rings consisting of 12 and 22 electrons confined by a positively charged background are used to represent the cases of a narrow and a wide ring. The results are qualitatively compared with experimental data existing on microrings and on antidots. A smaller ring containing 5 electrons is also analyzed to allow for a closer comparison with a recent experiment on a two electron quantum ring.Comment: Typeset using Revtex, 13 pages and 11 Postscript figure

    Influence of shape of quantum dots on their far-infrared absorption

    Full text link
    We investigate the effects of the shape of quantum dots on their far-infrared absorption in an external magnetic field by a model calculation. We focus our attention on dots with a parabolic confinement potential deviating from the common circular symmetry, and dots having circular doughnut shape. For a confinement where the generalized Kohn theorem does not hold we are able to interprete the results in terms of a mixture of a center-of-mass mode and collective modes reflecting an excitation of relative motion of the electrons. The calculations are performed within the time-dependent Hartree approximation and the results are compared to available experimental results.Comment: RevTeX, 16 pages with 10 postscript figures included. Submitted to Phys. Rev.

    Dissociation of vertical semiconductor diatomic artificial molecules

    Get PDF
    We investigate the dissociation of few-electron circular vertical semiconductor double quantum dot artificial molecules at 0 T as a function of interdot distance. Slight mismatch introduced in the fabrication of the artificial molecules from nominally identical constituent quantum wells induces localization by offsetting the energy levels in the quantum dots by up to 2 meV, and this plays a crucial role in the appearance of the addition energy spectra as a function of coupling strength particularly in the weak coupling limit.Comment: Accepted for publication in Phys. Rev. Let

    Current-spin-density functional study of persistent currents in quantum rings

    Full text link
    We present a numerical study of persistent currents in quantum rings using current spin density functional theory (CSDFT). This formalism allows for a systematic study of the joint effects of both spin, interactions and impurities for realistic systems. It is illustrated that CSDFT is suitable for describing the physical effects related to Aharonov-Bohm phases by comparing energy spectra of impurity-free rings to existing exact diagonalization and experimental results. Further, we examine the effects of a symmetry-breaking impurity potential on the density and current characteristics of the system and propose that narrowing the confining potential at fixed impurity potential will suppress the persistent current in a characteristic way.Comment: 7 pages REVTeX, including 8 postscript figure

    Current Density Functional approach to large quantum dots in intense magnetic fields

    Get PDF
    Within Current Density Functional Theory, we have studied a quantum dot made of 210 electrons confined in a disk geometry. The ground state of this large dot exhibits some features as a function of the magnetic field (B) that can be attributed in a clear way to the formation of compressible and incompressible states of the system. The orbital and spin angular momenta, the total energy, ionization and electron chemical potentials of the ground state, as well as the frequencies of far-infrared edge modes are calculated as a function of B, and compared with available experimental and theoretical results.Comment: Typeset using Revtex, 17 pages and 13 Postscript figure

    Molecular characterization of new FBXL4 mutations in patients with mtDNA depletion syndrome

    Get PDF
    Encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) depletion syndrome 13 (MTDPS13) is a rare genetic disorder caused by defects in F-box leucine-rich repeat protein 4 (FBXL4). Although FBXL4 is essential for the bioenergetic homeostasis of the cell, the precise role of the protein remains unknown. In this study, we report two cases of unrelated patients presenting in the neonatal period with hyperlactacidemia and generalized hypotonia. Severe mtDNA depletion was detected in muscle biopsy in both patients. Genetic analysis showed one patient as having in compound heterozygosis a splice site variant c.858+5G>C and a missense variant c.1510T>C (p.Cys504Arg) in FBXL4. The second patient harbored a frameshift novel variant c.851delC (p.Pro284LeufsTer7) in homozygosis. To validate the pathogenicity of these variants, molecular and biochemical analyses were performed using skin-derived fibroblasts. We observed that the mtDNA depletion was less severe in fibroblasts than in muscle. Interestingly, the cells harboring a nonsense variant in homozygosis showed normal mtDNA copy number. Both patient fibroblasts, however, demonstrated reduced mitochondrial transcript quantity leading to diminished steady state levels of respiratory complex subunits, decreased respiratory complex IV (CIV) activity, and finally, low mitochondrial ATP levels. Both patients also revealed citrate synthase deficiency. Genetic complementation assays established that the deficient phenotype was rescued by the canonical version of FBXL4, confirming the pathological nature of the variants. Further analysis of fibroblasts allowed to establish that increased mitochondrial mass, mitochondrial fragmentation, and augmented autophagy are associated with FBXL4 deficiency in cells, but are probably secondary to a primary metabolic defect affecting oxidative phosphorylation

    A Didactic Model of Macromolecular Crowding Effects on Protein Folding

    Get PDF
    A didactic model is presented to illustrate how the effect of macromolecular crowding on protein folding and association is modeled using current analytical theory and discrete molecular dynamics. While analytical treatments of crowding may consider the effect as a potential of average force acting to compress a polypeptide chain into a compact state, the use of simulations enables the presence of crowding reagents to be treated explicitly. Using an analytically solvable toy model for protein folding, an approximate statistical thermodynamic method is directly compared to simulation in order to gauge the effectiveness of current analytical crowding descriptions. Both methodologies are in quantitative agreement under most conditions, indication that both current theory and simulation methods are capable of recapitulating aspects of protein folding even by utilizing a simplistic protein model

    Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

    Get PDF
    Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≀25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≄ 80% and specificity ≄ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required

    Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

    Get PDF
    Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain
    • 

    corecore