Acoustic guiding and subwavelength imaging with sharp bending by sonic crystal

A sharp bending scheme for the self-collimation of acoustic waves is proposed by simply truncating the sonic crystals. An all-angle and wide-band 90{\deg}-bending wave guide is demonstrated with nearly perfect transmissions for Gaussian beams at a wide range of incident angles. A 90{\deg}-bended imaging for a point source with a subwavelength resolution of 0 0.37{\lambda} is also realized by the proposed structure. These results will find applicability in the manipulation of acoustic waves by sonic crystals.Comment: 8 pages, 5 figure

日本の熱関連健康リスクとその評価手法に関する研究－地球温暖化と新型コロナウイルスの影響を踏まえて－

学位プログラム名: 京都大学大学院思修館京都大学新制・課程博士博士(総合学術)甲第25460号総総博第36号京都大学大学院総合生存学館総合生存学専攻(主査)教授 IALNAZOVDimiter Savov, 教授 山敷 庸亮, 准教授 関山 健, 寶 馨 (防災科学技術研究所)学位規則第4条第1項該当Doctor of PhilosophyKyoto UniversityDFA

Protecting exons from deleterious R-loops: a potential advantage of having introns

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that the nascent RNA can invade and pair with one strand of DNA, forming an R-loop structure that threatens the stability of the genome. In addition, the cost and benefit of introns are still in debate. RESULTS: At least three factors are likely required for the R-loop formation: 1) sequence complementarity between the nascent RNA and the target DNA, 2) spatial juxtaposition between the nascent RNA and the template DNA, and 3) accessibility of the template DNA and the nascent RNA. The removal of introns from pre-mRNA reduces the complementarity between RNA and the template DNA and avoids the spatial juxtaposition between the nascent RNA and the template DNA. In addition, the secondary structures of group I and group II introns may act as spatial obstacles for the formation of R-loops between nearby exons and the genomic DNA. CONCLUSION: Organisms may benefit from introns by avoiding deleterious R-loops. The potential contribution of this benefit in driving intron evolution is discussed. I propose that additional RNA polymerases may inhibit R-loop formation between preceding nascent RNA and the template DNA. This idea leads to a testable prediction: intermittently transcribed genes and genes with frequently prolonged transcription should have higher intron density. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by Dr. Eugene V. Koonin, Dr. Alexei Fedorov (nominated by Dr. Laura F Landweber), and Dr. Scott W. Roy (nominated by Dr. Arcady Mushegian)

Exon definition as a potential negative force against intron losses in evolution

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies have indicated that the wide variation in intron density (the number of introns per gene) among different eukaryotes largely reflects varying degrees of intron loss during evolution. The most popular model, which suggests that organisms lose introns through a mechanism in which reverse-transcribed cDNA recombines with the genomic DNA, concerns only one mutational force.</p> <p>Hypothesis</p> <p>Using exons as the units of splicing-site recognition, exon definition constrains the length of exons. An intron-loss event results in fusion of flanking exons and thus a larger exon. The large size of the newborn exon may cause splicing errors, i.e., exon skipping, if the splicing of pre-mRNAs is initiated by exon definition. By contrast, if the splicing of pre-mRNAs is initiated by intron definition, intron loss does not matter. Exon definition may thus be a selective force against intron loss. An organism with a high frequency of exon definition is expected to experience a low rate of intron loss throughout evolution and have a high density of spliceosomal introns.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of spliceosomal introns in vertebrates may be maintained during evolution not because of potential functions, but because of their splicing mechanism (i.e., exon definition). Further research is required to determine whether exon definition is a negative force in maintaining the high intron density of vertebrates.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>This article was reviewed by Dr. Scott W. Roy (nominated by Dr. John Logsdon), Dr. Eugene V. Koonin, and Dr. Igor B. Rogozin (nominated by Dr. Mikhail Gelfand). For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers' comments section.</p