Histological evidence for a supraspinous ligament in sauropod dinosaurs

Supraspinous ossified rods have been reported in the sacra of some derived sauropod dinosaurs. Although different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin ofthis structure, histological evidence has never been provided to support or reject any of them. In order to establish its origin, we analyse and characterize the microstructure of thesupraspinous rod of two sauropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina. The supraspinous ossified rod is almost entirely formed by dense Haversian bone. Remains ofprimary bone consist entirely of an avascular tissue composed of two types of fibre-like structures, which are coarse and longitudinally (parallel to the main axis of the element) oriented. These structures are differentiated on the basis of their optical properties under polarized light. Very thin fibrous strands are also observed in some regions. These small fibres are all oriented parallel to one another but perpendicular to the element main axis. Histological features of the primary bone tissue indicate that the sacral supraspinous rod corresponds to an ossified supraspinous ligament. The formation of this structure appears to have been a non-pathological metaplastic ossification, possibly induced by the continuous tensile forces applied to the element.Fil: Cerda, Ignacio Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Paleobiología y Geología; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro; ArgentinaFil: Casal, Gabriel. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia; ArgentinaFil: Martínez, Rubén Darío. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia ; ArgentinaFil: Ibiricu, Lucio Manuel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; Argentin

Report from the EPAA workshop: In vitro ADME in safety testing used by EPAA industry sectors

AbstractThere are now numerous in vitro and in silico ADME alternatives to in vivo assays but how do different industries incorporate them into their decision tree approaches for risk assessment, bearing in mind that the chemicals tested are intended for widely varying purposes? The extent of the use of animal tests is mainly driven by regulations or by the lack of a suitable in vitro model. Therefore, what considerations are needed for alternative models and how can they be improved so that they can be used as part of the risk assessment process? To address these issues, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) working group on prioritisation, promotion and implementation of the 3Rs research held a workshop in November, 2008 in Duesseldorf, Germany. Participants included different industry sectors such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, industrial- and agro-chemicals. This report describes the outcome of the discussions and recommendations (a) to reduce the number of animals used for determining the ADME properties of chemicals and (b) for considerations and actions regarding in vitro and in silico assays. These included: standardisation and promotion of in vitro assays so that they may become accepted by regulators; increased availability of industry in vivo kinetic data for a central database to increase the power of in silico predictions; expansion of the applicability domains of in vitro and in silico tools (which are not necessarily more applicable or even exclusive to one particular sector) and continued collaborations between regulators, academia and industry. A recommended immediate course of action was to establish an expert panel of users, developers and regulators to define the testing scope of models for different chemical classes. It was agreed by all participants that improvement and harmonization of alternative approaches is needed for all sectors and this will most effectively be achieved by stakeholders from different sectors sharing data

Evaluation of a computer program ('disect') to consolidate anatomy knowledge: a randomised-controlled trial

Students can adequately use a computer program to see major anatomical structures derived from CT scans. Students reported that learning anatomy can be aided by the imaging-based resource. Learning anatomy is a multi-modal activity and packages like 'disect' can enhance learning by supplementing current teaching methods

A multi-laboratory evaluation of a common in vitro pepsin digestion assay protocol used in assessing the safety of novel proteins

Rationale. Evaluation of the potential allergenicity of proteins derived from genetically modified foods has involved a weight of evidence approach that incorporates an evaluation of protein digestibility in pepsin. Currently, there is no standardized protocol to assess the digestibility of proteins using simulated gastric fluid. Potential variations in assay parameters include: pH, pepsin purity, pepsin to target protein ratio, target protein purity, and method of detection. The objective was to assess the digestibility of a common set of proteins in nine independent laboratories to determine the reproducibility of the assay when performed using a common protocol. Methods. A single lot of each test protein and pepsin was obtained and distributed to each laboratory. The test proteins consisted of Ara h 2 (a peanut conglutin-like protein), beta-lactoglobulin, bovine serum albumin, concanavalin A, horseradish peroxidase, ovalbumin, ovomucoid, phosphinothricin acetyltransferase, ribulose diphosphate carboxylase, and soybean trypsin inhibitor. A ratio of 10U of pepsin activity/microg test protein was selected for all tests (3:1 pepsin to protein, w:w). Digestions were performed at pH 1.2 and 2.0, with sampling at 0.5, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 60min. Protein digestibility was assessed from stained gels following SDS-PAGE of digestion samples and controls. Results. Results were relatively consistent across laboratories for the full-length proteins. The identification of proteolytic fragments was less consistent, being affected by different fixation and staining methods. Overall, assay pH did not influence the time to disappearance of the full-length protein or protein fragments, however, results across laboratories were more consistent at pH 1.2 (91% agreement) than pH 2.0 (77%). Conclusions. These data demonstrate that this common protocol for evaluating the in vitro digestibility of proteins is reproducible and yields consistent results when performed using the same proteins at different laboratorie

A multi-laboratory evaluation of a common in vitro pepsin digestion assay protocol used in assessing the safety of novel proteins

Rationale. Evaluation of the potential allergenicity of proteins derived from genetically modified foods has involved a weight of evidence approach that incorporates an evaluation of protein digestibility in pepsin. Currently, there is no standardized protocol to assess the digestibility of proteins using simulated gastric fluid. Potential variations in assay parameters include: pH, pepsin purity, pepsin to target protein ratio, target protein purity, and method of detection. The objective was to assess the digestibility of a common set of proteins in nine independent laboratories to determine the reproducibility of the assay when performed using a common protocol. Methods. A single lot of each test protein and pepsin was obtained and distributed to each laboratory. The test proteins consisted of Ara h 2 (a peanut conglutin-like protein), beta-lactoglobulin, bovine serum albumin, concanavalin A, horseradish peroxidase, ovalbumin, ovomucoid, phosphinothricin acetyltransferase, ribulose diphosphate carboxylase, and soybean trypsin inhibitor. A ratio of 10U of pepsin activity/microg test protein was selected for all tests (3:1 pepsin to protein, w:w). Digestions were performed at pH 1.2 and 2.0, with sampling at 0.5, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 60min. Protein digestibility was assessed from stained gels following SDS-PAGE of digestion samples and controls. Results. Results were relatively consistent across laboratories for the full-length proteins. The identification of proteolytic fragments was less consistent, being affected by different fixation and staining methods. Overall, assay pH did not influence the time to disappearance of the full-length protein or protein fragments, however, results across laboratories were more consistent at pH 1.2 (91% agreement) than pH 2.0 (77%). Conclusions. These data demonstrate that this common protocol for evaluating the in vitro digestibility of proteins is reproducible and yields consistent results when performed using the same proteins at different laboratorie