Kepler-210: An active star with at least two planets

We report the detection and characterization of two short-period, Neptune-sized planets around the active host star Kepler-210. The host star's parameters derived from those planets are (a) mutually inconsistent and (b) do not conform to the expected host star parameters. We furthermore report the detection of transit timing variations (TTVs) in the O-C diagrams for both planets. We explore various scenarios that explain and resolve those discrepancies. A simple scenario consistent with all data appears to be one that attributes substantial eccentricities to the inner short-period planets and that interprets the TTVs as due to the action of another, somewhat longer period planet. To substantiate our suggestions, we present the results of N-body simulations that modeled the TTVs and that checked the stability of the Kepler-210 system.Comment: 8 pages, 8 Encapsulated Postscript figure

Coev-web: a web platform designed to simulate and evaluate coevolving positions along a phylogenetic tree.

BACKGROUND: Available methods to simulate nucleotide or amino acid data typically use Markov models to simulate each position independently. These approaches are not appropriate to assess the performance of combinatorial and probabilistic methods that look for coevolving positions in nucleotide or amino acid sequences. RESULTS: We have developed a web-based platform that gives a user-friendly access to two phylogenetic-based methods implementing the Coev model: the evaluation of coevolving scores and the simulation of coevolving positions. We have also extended the capabilities of the Coev model to allow for the generalization of the alphabet used in the Markov model, which can now analyse both nucleotide and amino acid data sets. The simulation of coevolving positions is novel and builds upon the developments of the Coev model. It allows user to simulate pairs of dependent nucleotide or amino acid positions. CONCLUSIONS: The main focus of our paper is the new simulation method we present for coevolving positions. The implementation of this method is embedded within the web platform Coev-web that is freely accessible at http://coev.vital-it.ch/, and was tested in most modern web browsers

PLA 3D Printing as a Straightforward and Versatile Fabrication Method for PDMS Molds

3D printing is gaining traction in research and development as a way to quickly, cheaply, and easily manufacture polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) molds. The most commonly used method is resin printing, which is relatively expensive and requires specialized printers. This study shows that polylactic acid (PLA) filament printing is a cheaper, more readily available alternative to resin printing, that does not inhibit the curing of PDMS. As a proof of concept, a PLA mold for PDMS-based wells was designed, and 3D printed. We introduce an effective method to smooth the printed PLA mold, based on chloroform vapor treatment. After this chemical post-processing step, the smoothened mold was used to cast a ring of PDMS prepolymer. The PDMS ring was attached to a glass coverslip after oxygen plasma treatment. The PDMS-glass well showed no leakage and was well suited to its intended use. When used for cell culturing, monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDCs) showed no morphological anomalies, as tested by confocal microscopy, nor did they show an increase in cytokines, as tested using ELISA. This underlines the versatility and strength of PLA filament printing and exemplifies how it can be valuable to a researcher's toolset.</p

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Digital Metastases of Giant Cell Rich Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma

Background. Metastatic spread of soft tissue sarcomas to the digits is extremely rare and metastasis of MFH to the fingers and toes has not been documented