Quantum Communication with Phantom Photons

We show that quantum information may be transferred between atoms in different locations by using ``phantom photons'': the atoms are coupled through electromagnetic fields, but the corresponding field modes do not have to be fully populated. In the case where atoms are placed inside optical cavities, errors in quantum information processing due to photon absorption inside the cavity are diminished in this way. This effect persists up to intercavity distances of about a meter for the current levels of cavity losses, and may be useful for distributed quantum computing.Comment: 6 pages RevTex, 4 eps figures included. Revised calculation with more details about mode structure calculation and the introduction of losse

Driver Fusions and Their Implications in the Development and Treatment of Human Cancers.

Gene fusions represent an important class of somatic alterations in cancer. We systematically investigated fusions in 9,624 tumors across 33 cancer types using multiple fusion calling tools. We identified a total of 25,664 fusions, with a 63% validation rate. Integration of gene expression, copy number, and fusion annotation data revealed that fusions involving oncogenes tend to exhibit increased expression, whereas fusions involving tumor suppressors have the opposite effect. For fusions involving kinases, we found 1,275 with an intact kinase domain, the proportion of which varied significantly across cancer types. Our study suggests that fusions drive the development of 16.5% of cancer cases and function as the sole driver in more than 1% of them. Finally, we identified druggable fusions involving genes such as TMPRSS2, RET, FGFR3, ALK, and ESR1 in 6.0% of cases, and we predicted immunogenic peptides, suggesting that fusions may provide leads for targeted drug and immune therapy

Comparison of a double-textured prototype manual toothbrush with 3 branded products: A professional brushing study

Background: The consensus has been that there is no one superior design of manual toothbrush for plaque removal, despite, in some cases, encouraging findings from laboratory studies. The user appears the major variable and may mask differences in brush efficacy. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare 2 new double‐filament texture brushes with 3 established brands for plaque removal, under standardised conditions of professional brushing. Method: The study was a blind, randomised crossover design, balanced for residual effects. A panel of 15 subjects suspended tooth cleaning for 3 days. On day 4, plaque was scored from 6 sites per tooth before and after a 2‐min professional toothbrushing. A washout period of at least 3 days was allowed between study periods. Results: Overall plaque removal was 50% with no significant differences between brushes, a 3% absolute difference in average total mouth plaque separating brushes. However, at upper‐ and mid‐buccal sites, a not significant 8% and a significant 9% difference, respectively, in plaque removal were recorded in favour of one of the prototype brushes, and at the mid‐lingual site, there was a non‐significant 10% difference in favour of one branded brush. Other sites were cleaned similarly by all brushes except for reduced plaque removal from buccal compared to lingual surfaces and interproximal compared to mid‐surface sites. Highly significant subject differences in plaque removal were noted which may be relevant to inherent anatomical difficulties in tooth cleaning for some individuals. Period effects were not significant, supporting the consistency in brushing by the professional brusher. Conclusion: The method appeared capable of detecting small benefits of brush design. However, the benefits reported must be taken within the context of an overall lack of difference between brushes. The method could be used to set and record a minimum level of efficacy for toothbrushes

The use of professional brushing to compare 3 toothbrushes for plaque removal from individuals with gingival recession

Background: Toothbrush filament configuration now varies considerably, usually with the intention of improving plaque removal overall or from specific sites. Aims: The aim of the study was to compare 2 branded toothbrushes with a brush designed with a convex filament head arrangement to improve plaque removal from teeth with buccal gingival recession. Methods: The study was a randomised, 3‐treatment, double‐blind crossover design balanced for residual effects and involving 18 healthy volunteers. On day 1, subjects suspended toothcleaning and returned to the clinic on day 4. Plaque was scored by area and index before and after 2 min of toothbrushing with the allocated brush. Brushing was performed by a hygienist allocating a timed 15 s to each of the 8 buccal and lingual quadrants. 3 days was allowed between treatment periods. Results: Plaque accumulation differed considerably by site as did plaque removal. Overall plaque removal was 40%. Analysis showed significant subject differences but, no significant period or treatment differences. Conclusions: Consistent with other reports, it must be concluded that brush design is not a major variable in plaque removal. However using this “robot”‐like model, the dentition of some individuals and specific dental surfaces are inherently more difficult to clean than others