Analytical Verification of the IDS-iSYS Intact Amino-terminal Propeptide of Type 1 Procollagen (P1NP)

Peer reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

A note on the stationarity of a threshold first-order bilinear process.

In the present note we study the threshold first-order bilinear model X(t) = aX(t - 1) + (b(1) 1({x(t-1)<c}) + b(2) 1({x(t-1)greater than or equal to c}))X(t-1) e(t - 1) + e(t), t is an element of N, where {e(t), t is an element of N} is a sequence of i.i.d, absolutely continuous random variables, X(0) is a given random variable and a, b(1), b(2) and c are real numbers. Under suitable conditions on the coefficients and lower semicontinuity of the densities of the noise sequence, we provide sufficient conditions for the existence of a stationary solution process to the present model and of its finite moments of order p

A note on the stationarity of a threshold first-order bilinear process

In the present note we study the threshold first-order bilinear model X(t)=aX(t-1)+(b11{X(t-1)Threshold bilinear processes Stationary processes

Numerical simulations of one-dimensional infiltration into layered soils with the Richards equation using different estimates of the interlayer conductivity.

Transient water flow processes in unsaturated soils are usually modeled using the Richards equation. This paper compares several numerical approximations to this equation for vertical infiltration in layered soil profiles. Three formulations of the governing flow equation (i.e., the h-based, q-based, and mixed forms) are compared for the critical test problem of infiltration into a layered soil profile with initially relatively low soil water contents. An efficient, yet relatively simple weighting algorithm is employed that improves the estimation of the interlayer hydraulic conductivity in a h-based finite-difference formulation. Results highlight improvements in the mass conservative properties of this model, which is termed the H-IL model. A comparison is then carried out between the finite-difference H-IL model and a finite-element model for infiltration toward a water table. The H-IL model was found to be computationally very efficient also for this test problem. For both illustrative flow examples, the different numerical models were evaluated in terms of their ability to reproduce an exact solution developed by Srivastava and Yeh (1991)