138 research outputs found

    Arterial elasticity imaging: comparison of finite-element analysis models with high-resolution ultrasound speckle tracking

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The nonlinear mechanical properties of internal organs and tissues may be measured with unparalleled precision using ultrasound imaging with phase-sensitive speckle tracking. The many potential applications of this important noninvasive diagnostic approach include measurement of arterial stiffness, which is associated with numerous major disease processes. The accuracy of previous ultrasound measurements of arterial stiffness and vascular elasticity has been limited by the relatively low strain of nonlinear structures under normal physiologic pressure and the measurement assumption that the effect of the surrounding tissue modulus might be ignored in both physiologic and pressure equalized conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study performed high-resolution ultrasound imaging of the brachial artery in a healthy adult subject under normal physiologic pressure and the use of external pressure (pressure equalization) to increase strain. These ultrasound results were compared to measurements of arterial strain as determined by finite-element analysis models with and without a surrounding tissue, which was represented by homogenous material with fixed elastic modulus.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Use of the pressure equalization technique during imaging resulted in average strain values of 26% and 18% at the top and sides, respectively, compared to 5% and 2%, at the top and sides, respectively, under physiologic pressure. In the artery model that included surrounding tissue, strain was 19% and 16% under pressure equalization versus 9% and 13% at the top and sides, respectively, under physiologic pressure. The model without surrounding tissue had slightly higher levels of strain under physiologic pressure compared to the other model, but the resulting strain values under pressure equalization were > 60% and did not correspond to experimental values.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Since pressure equalization may increase the dynamic range of strain imaging, the effect of the surrounding tissue on strain should be incorporated into models of arterial strain, particularly when the pressure equalization technique is used.</p

    Present Status of Inclusive Rare B Decays

    Get PDF
    We give a status report on inclusive rare B decays, highlighting recent developments and open problems. We focus on the decay modes BXs,dγB \to X_{s,d} \gamma, BXs+ B \to X_s \ell^+\ell^- and BXsννˉB \to X_s \nu \bar \nu and on their role in the search for new physics. Most of the inclusive rare B decays are important modes of flavour physics due to the small hadronic uncertainties. They can be regarded as laboratories to search for new physics. We collect the experimental data already available from CLEO and the BB factories BABAR and BELLE. We review the NLL and NNLL QCD calculations of the inclusive decay rates that were recently completed, and discuss future prospects, especially the issue of the charm mass scheme ambiguity. Finally, we analyse the phenomenological impact of these decay modes, in particular on the CKM phenomenology and on the indirect search for supersymmetry. We also briefly discuss direct CP violation in inclusive rare B decays, as well as the rare kaon decays K+π+ννˉK^+\to \pi^+\nu\bar{\nu} and KLπ0ννˉK_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}, which offer complementary theoretically clean information.Comment: 80 pages, 37 figures, latex, references added Invited contribution to Reviews of Modern Physic

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field
    corecore