Constraints on Astro-unparticle Physics from SN 1987A

SN 1987A observations have been used to place constraints on the interactions between standard model particles and unparticles. In this study we calculate the energy loss from the supernovae core through scalar, pseudo scalar, vector, pseudo vector unparticle emission from nuclear bremsstrahlung for degenerate nuclear matter interacting through one pion exchange. In order to examine the constraints on $d_{\cal U}=1$ we considered the emission of scalar, pseudo scalar, vector, pseudo vector and tensor through the pair annihilation process $e^+e^-\to {\cal U} \gamma$. In addition we have re-examined other pair annihilation processes. The most stringent bounds on the dimensionless coupling constants for $d_{\cal U} =1$ and $\Lambda_{\cal U}= m_Z$ are obtained from nuclear bremsstrahlung process for the pseudo scalar and pseudo-vector couplings $\bigl|\lambda^{\cal P}_{0,1}\bigr|\leq 4\times 10^{-11}$ and for tensor interaction, the best limit on dimensionless coupling is obtained from $e^+ e^-\to {\cal U} \gamma$ and we get $\bigl|\lambda^{\cal T}\bigr| \leq 6\times 10^{-6}$.Comment: 12 pages, 2 postscript figure

Effects of histocompatibility and host immune responses on the tumorigenicity of pluripotent stem cells

Pluripotent stem cells hold great promises for regenerative medicine. They might become useful as a universal source for a battery of new cell replacement therapies. Among the major concerns for the clinical application of stem cell-derived grafts are the risks of immune rejection and tumor formation. Pluripotency and tumorigenicity are closely linked features of pluripotent stem cells. However, the capacity to form teratomas or other tumors is not sufficiently described by inherited features of a stem cell line or a stem cell-derived graft. The tumorigenicity always depends on the inability of the recipient to reject the tumorigenic cells. This review summarizes recent data on the tumorigenicity of pluripotent stem cells in immunodeficient, syngeneic, allogeneic, and xenogeneic hosts. The effects of immunosuppressive treatment and cell differentiation are discussed. Different immune effector mechanisms appear to be involved in the rejection of undifferentiated and differentiated cell populations. Elements of the innate immune system, such as natural killer cells and the complement system, which are active also in syngeneic recipients, appear to preferentially reject undifferentiated cells. This effect could reduce the risk of tumor formation in immunocompetent recipients. Cell differentiation apparently increases susceptibility to rejection by the adaptive immune system in allogeneic hosts. The current data suggest that the immune system of the recipient has a major impact on the outcome of pluripotent stem cell transplantation, whether it is rejection, engraftment, or tumor development. This has to be considered when the results of experimental transplantation models are interpreted and even more when translation into clinics is planned

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

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available