A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

On the Complexity of Directed Intersection Representation of {DAGs}

Motivated by the study of networks of web-pages generated by their information content, Kostochka et al. [ISIT 2019] introduced a novel notion of directed intersection representation of a (acyclic) directed graph and studied the problem of determining the directed intersection number of a digraph D, henceforth denoted by DIN(D), defined as the minimum cardinality of a ground set such that it is possible to assign to each vertex a subset such that if and only if the following two conditions hold: (i); (ii). In this paper we show that determining DIN(D) is NP-hard. We also show a 2-approximation algorithm for arborescences

Hedging ship price risk using freight derivatives in the drybulk market

We show that a fixed-maturity time-weighted Forward Freight Agreement (FFA) portfolio should be used to proxy the expected future earnings of a vessel. We investigate the corresponding hedging efficiency when using a portfolio of FFA prices to hedge ship price risk of both static hedge ratios calculated using Ordinary Least Squares estimation and the dynamic hedge ratios generated from a dynamic conditional correlation GARCH (1,1) model. We find that the hedging efficiency is greater for newer vessels than older vessels and that the static hedge ratio outperforms the dynamic hedge ratio. Our work is an extension of earlier empirical work which has only considered the hedging efficiency of varying-maturity calendar FFA contracts for a single vessel age.publishedVersio