C10 and 11B+ 12C reactions from 4 to 9 MeV/nucleon

Reaction products arising from the interaction of 11B+ 12C and 10B+ 13C have been studied in the energy range 4<Elab(B)<9 MeV/nucleon. From the total fusion cross sections for the two entrance channels, the critical angular momenta have been extracted and then compared as a function of compound nucleus excitation energy. Even though a limitation in the fusion cross section was observed, no common limitation was found in the critical angular momenta for these two systems up to at least a Na23 excitation energy of 60 MeV. Above this excitation energy, the experimental uncertainties make this point less clear. Up to an excitation energy of 60 MeV in Na23, a fusion limitation based on reaching a critical density of compound nucleus states like the yrast or ''statistical'' yrast line cannot be responsible for the fusion cross section limitations observed for these entrance channels. The present data suggest that competing entrance channel processes are responsible for the observed fusion cross section limitations

Velocity and angular distributions of evaporation residues from induced32 reactions

Velocity distributions of mass-resolved evaporation residues from reactions of S32 with C12, Mg24, Al27, Si28, and Ca40 have been measured at bombarding energies of 194, 239, and 278 MeV using time-of-flight techniques. In all cases, the observed shifts in the velocity centroids relative to the values expected for complete fusion are consistent with a previously reported parametrization of a threshold for onset of incomplete fusion. Angular distributions were measured and total cross sections extracted for the Mg32 system at all three energies. A comparison with existing results for Mg32 at lower energies, and with other systems leading to the Ni56 compound nucleus, suggests two different types of compound-nuclear limitations to complete fusion at higher energies

Size Doesn't Matter: Towards a More Inclusive Philosophy of Biology

notes: As the primary author, O’Malley drafted the paper, and gathered and analysed data (scientific papers and talks). Conceptual analysis was conducted by both authors.publication-status: Publishedtypes: ArticlePhilosophers of biology, along with everyone else, generally perceive life to fall into two broad categories, the microbes and macrobes, and then pay most of their attention to the latter. ‘Macrobe’ is the word we propose for larger life forms, and we use it as part of an argument for microbial equality. We suggest that taking more notice of microbes – the dominant life form on the planet, both now and throughout evolutionary history – will transform some of the philosophy of biology’s standard ideas on ontology, evolution, taxonomy and biodiversity. We set out a number of recent developments in microbiology – including biofilm formation, chemotaxis, quorum sensing and gene transfer – that highlight microbial capacities for cooperation and communication and break down conventional thinking that microbes are solely or primarily single-celled organisms. These insights also bring new perspectives to the levels of selection debate, as well as to discussions of the evolution and nature of multicellularity, and to neo-Darwinian understandings of evolutionary mechanisms. We show how these revisions lead to further complications for microbial classification and the philosophies of systematics and biodiversity. Incorporating microbial insights into the philosophy of biology will challenge many of its assumptions, but also give greater scope and depth to its investigations

Search for flavour-changing neutral currents in processes with one top quark and a photon using 81 fb⁻¹ of pp collisions at \sqrts = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment

A search for flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) events via the coupling of a top quark, a photon, and an up or charm quark is presented using 81 fb−1 of proton–proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Events with a photon, an electron or muon, a b-tagged jet, and missing transverse momentum are selected. A neural network based on kinematic variables differentiates between events from signal and background processes. The data are consistent with the background-only hypothesis, and limits are set on the strength of the tqγ coupling in an effective field theory. These are also interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for FCNC tγ production via a left-handed (right-handed) tuγ coupling of 36 fb (78 fb) and on the branching ratio for t→γu of 2.8×10−5 (6.1×10−5). In addition, they are interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for FCNC tγ production via a left-handed (right-handed) tcγ coupling of 40 fb (33 fb) and on the branching ratio for t→γc of 22×10−5 (18×10−5). © 2019 The Author(s

Measurement of prompt photon production in sNN√=8.16 TeV p+Pb collisions with ATLAS

The inclusive production rates of isolated, prompt photons in p+Pb collisions at sNN√=8.16 TeV are studied with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider using a dataset with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb−1 recorded in 2016. The cross-section and nuclear modification factor RpPb are measured as a function of photon transverse energy from 20 GeV to 550 GeV and in three nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass pseudorapidity regions, (-2.83,-2.02), (-1.84,0.91), and (1.09,1.90). The cross-section and RpPb values are compared with the results of a next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD calculation, with and without nuclear parton distribution function modifications, and with expectations based on a model of the energy loss of partons prior to the hard scattering. The data disfavour a large amount of energy loss and provide new constraints on the parton densities in nuclei.We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Ar-menia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azer-baijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DRF/IRFU, France; SRNSFG, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF and Benoziyo Center, Is-rael; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portu-gal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Fed-eration; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallen-berg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, in-dividual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, Canarie, CRC and Compute Canada, Canada; COST, ERC, ERDF, Hori-zon 2020, and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d’ Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia pro-grammes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF, Greece; BSF-NSF and GIF, Israel; CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain; The Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research