Revision of the APGEMS Dose Conversion Factor File Using Revised Factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 and 13.

The Air Pollutant Graphical Environmental Monitoring System (APGEMS) is used by the Hanford Emergency Operation Center (EOC) to provide refined plume modeling of releases involving radionuclides. The dose conversion factors (DCFs) used by APGEMS to convert air concentration to dose are stored in a file called HUDUFACT.dat; the DCFs are based primarily on ICRP 30 compiled in the late 1980’s. This report updates the DCFs using more recent values reported in the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 12 and 13. FGR 12 provides external exposure (air submersion) DCFs for radionuclides in air; FGR 13 provides DCFs for radionuclides from inhalation. DCFs were updated for only those radionuclides listed in the original HUDUFACT.dat file. Since FGR 13 provides inhalation dose conversion factors as a function of age, revised DCF files were created for APGEMS for each age group. The “adult” DCF file is the most relevant to compare to the original DCF file being used in APGEMS; these DCF values are compared in this report

Significant benefits of AIP testing and clinical screening in familial isolated and young-onset pituitary tumors

Context Germline mutations in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) gene are responsible for a subset of familial isolated pituitary adenoma (FIPA) cases and sporadic pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). Objective To compare prospectively diagnosed AIP mutation-positive (AIPmut) PitNET patients with clinically presenting patients and to compare the clinical characteristics of AIPmut and AIPneg PitNET patients. Design 12-year prospective, observational study. Participants & Setting We studied probands and family members of FIPA kindreds and sporadic patients with disease onset ≤18 years or macroadenomas with onset ≤30 years (n = 1477). This was a collaborative study conducted at referral centers for pituitary diseases. Interventions & Outcome AIP testing and clinical screening for pituitary disease. Comparison of characteristics of prospectively diagnosed (n = 22) vs clinically presenting AIPmut PitNET patients (n = 145), and AIPmut (n = 167) vs AIPneg PitNET patients (n = 1310). Results Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut PitNET patients had smaller lesions with less suprasellar extension or cavernous sinus invasion and required fewer treatments with fewer operations and no radiotherapy compared with clinically presenting cases; there were fewer cases with active disease and hypopituitarism at last follow-up. When comparing AIPmut and AIPneg cases, AIPmut patients were more often males, younger, more often had GH excess, pituitary apoplexy, suprasellar extension, and more patients required multimodal therapy, including radiotherapy. AIPmut patients (n = 136) with GH excess were taller than AIPneg counterparts (n = 650). Conclusions Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut patients show better outcomes than clinically presenting cases, demonstrating the benefits of genetic and clinical screening. AIP-related pituitary disease has a wide spectrum ranging from aggressively growing lesions to stable or indolent disease course

Recommended Parameter Values for GENII Modeling of Radionuclides in Routine Air and Water Releases

The GENII v2 code is used to estimate dose to individuals or populations from the release of radioactive materials into air or water. Numerous parameter values are required for input into this code. User-defined parameters cover the spectrum from chemical data, meteorological data, agricultural data, and behavioral data. This document is a summary of parameter values that reflect conditions in the United States. Reasonable regional and age-dependent data is summarized. Data availability and quality varies. The set of parameters described address scenarios for chronic air emissions or chronic releases to public waterways. Considerations for the special tritium and carbon-14 models are briefly addressed. GENIIv2.10.0 is the current software version that this document supports

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

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