Low-power Renewable Possibilities for Geothermal IoT Monitoring Systems

Nowadays, humanity is facing a difficult challenge, because of sustainable energy use and production. One of the major ways to solve this problem is the usage of renewable energy as a sustainable and reliable source of electric power and heat. This trend is also obvious in the field of the Internet of Things (IoT), where research teams are increasingly focusing on renewable energy and its monitoring with IoT. This paper aims to map current research on the use of the Internet of Things with a special focus on use in geothermal applications. Information concerning renewable geothermal energy sources and individual IoT communication technologies is summarized. A basic Bluetooth iBeacon test case is also presented.©2022 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

Distinct phosphatases antagonize the p53 response in different phases of the cell cycle

The basic machinery that detects DNA damage is the same throughout the cell cycle. Here, we show, in contrast, that reversal of DNA damage responses (DDRs) and recovery are fundamentally different in G1 and G2 phases of the cell cycle. We find that distinct phosphatases are required to counteract the checkpoint response in G1 vs. G2. Whereas WT p53-induced phosphatase 1 (Wip1) promotes recovery in G2-arrested cells by antagonizing p53, it is dispensable for recovery from a G1 arrest. Instead, we identify phosphoprotein phosphatase 4 catalytic subunit (PP4) to be specifically required for cell cycle restart after DNA damage in G1. PP4 dephosphorylates Krüppel-associated box domain-associated protein 1-S473 to repress p53-dependent transcriptional activation of p21 when the DDR is silenced. Taken together, our results show that PP4 and Wip1 are differentially required to counteract the p53-dependent cell cycle arrest in G1 and G2, by antagonizing early or late p53-mediated responses, respectively

Medulloblastomas overexpress the p53-inactivating oncogene WIP1/PPM1D

Medulloblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor of childhood. Despite numerous advances, clinical challenges range from recurrent and progressive disease to long-term toxicities in survivors. The lack of more effective, less toxic therapies results from our limited understanding of medulloblastoma growth. Although TP53 is the most commonly altered gene in cancers, it is rarely mutated in medulloblastoma. Accumulating evidence, however, indicates that TP53 pathways are disrupted in medulloblastoma. Wild-typep53-induced phosphatase 1 (WIP1 or PPM1D) encodes a negative regulator of p53. WIP1 amplification (17q22-q23) and its overexpression have been reported in diverse cancer types. We examined primary medulloblastoma specimens and cell lines, and detected WIP1 copy gain and amplification prevalent among but not exclusively in the tumors with 17q gain and isochromosome 17q (i17q), which are among the most common cytogenetic lesions in medulloblastoma. WIP1 RNA levels were significantly higher in the tumors with 17q gain or i17q. Immunoblots confirmed significant WIP1 protein in primary tumors, generally higher in those with 17q gain or i17q. Under basal growth conditions and in response to the chemotherapeutic agent, etoposide, WIP1 antagonized p53-mediated apoptosis in medulloblastoma cell lines. These results indicate that medulloblastoma express significant levels of WIP1 that modulate genotoxic responsiveness by negatively regulating p53

The type 2C phosphatase Wip1: An oncogenic regulator of tumor suppressor and DNA damage response pathways

The Wild-type p53-induced phosphatase 1, Wip1 (or PPM1D), is unusual in that it is a serine/threonine phosphatase with oncogenic activity. A member of the type 2C phosphatases (PP2Cδ), Wip1 has been shown to be amplified and overexpressed in multiple human cancer types, including breast and ovarian carcinomas. In rodent primary fibroblast transformation assays, Wip1 cooperates with known oncogenes to induce transformed foci. The recent identification of target proteins that are dephosphorylated by Wip1 has provided mechanistic insights into its oncogenic functions. Wip1 acts as a homeostatic regulator of the DNA damage response by dephosphorylating proteins that are substrates of both ATM and ATR, important DNA damage sensor kinases. Wip1 also suppresses the activity of multiple tumor suppressors, including p53, ATM, p16INK4a and ARF. We present evidence that the suppression of p53, p38 MAP kinase, and ATM/ATR signaling pathways by Wip1 are important components of its oncogenicity when it is amplified and overexpressed in human cancers

Towards a typology of non-state actors in ‘hybrid warfare’: proxy, auxiliary, surrogate and affiliated forces

This article presents a typology of armed non-state actors in hybrid warfare: proxy, auxiliary, surrogate and affiliated forces. By focusing on the kinetic domain of hybrid warfare, the article offers a corrective to a debate that has so far ignored variation in roles and functions of non-state actors and their relationships with states and their regular forces. As a denominator, ‘hybrid’ identifies a combination of battlespaces, types of operations—military or non-kinetic—and a blurring of actors with the scope of achieving strategic objectives by creating exploitable ambiguity. However, there has been a disproportionate focus on what hybrid war supposedly combines across battlespaces and domains (socio-political, economic, informational), at the expense of who and how. Using the Ukrainian crisis as a theory-building exercise, the article suggests a four-category schema that identifies non-state actor functions as a tool to better represent the complex franchise of violence that is found nested next to non-military operations in hybrid activity. In so doing, the article speaks to a call for better conceptualization the role of non-state violent actors in civil war, in general, and in hybrid warfare, in particular