Revolutions of the Heart: 8 LMU Leaders in Service, Action, and Community Healing - VIDEO

Directed by Judith Royer, C.S.J. Script Edited by playwright Doris BaizleyVisual and Sound Design by Jim Holmes The lives of 8 members of the LMU community who have effected social change through service and action were dramatized. These stories arose from challenged regions of the world, such as El Salvador, as well as the work these leaders do on behalf of populations such as the undocumented, homeless, trafficked, and persons in the criminal system here at home. Actors performed a dramatization of the lives of community leaders in health who have effected social change through service and action. The stories portrayed were from amongst the faculty, staff, and students of Loyola Marymount University who have become models for their commendable service and action. Writers and actors for this event include: Linda Bannister, Doris Baizley, Jami Brandli, Catharine Christof, Julianne Homokay, James E. Hurd, Jr., Jeremiah Munsey, Nenad Pervan, Sofya Weitz. Storytellers for this event included: Franky Carrillo (Student, work with the Criminal System) Lorena Chavez (Community Engagement, Student Affairs, Service and Action) Antonia Darder, Ph.D. (Educational Leadership, Artist, Poet, Activist) Jodi Finkel, Ph.D. (Political Science, work with Sex Workers and Human Trafficking) Cecilia Gonzalez-Andrieu, Ph.D. (Theological Studies, work with The Undocumented) Debra B. Linesch, Ph.D. (Marital and Family Therapy) Herbert A. Medina, Ph.D. (Mathematics, International and Domestic Service and Academic Enrichment Programs for Students) Marty D. Roers (Minister of Social Justice, President\u27s Office, and Campus Ministry) A reception followed the program in Dunning Courtyar

Functional movement disorder gender, age and phenotype study: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis of 4905 cases

: Functional movement disorder (FMD) is a common manifestation of functional neurological disorder presenting with diverse phenotypes such as tremor, weakness and gait disorder. Our current understanding of the basic epidemiological features of this condition is unclear. We aimed to describe and examine the relationship between age at onset, phenotype and gender in FMD in a large meta-analysis of published and unpublished individual patient cases. An electronic search of PubMed was conducted for studies from 1968 to 2019 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Individual patient data were collected through a research network. We described the distribution of age of onset and how this varied by gender and motor phenotype. A one-stage meta-analysis was performed using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression, including random intercepts for country and data source. A total of 4905 individual cases were analysed (72.6% woman). The mean age at onset was 39.6 years (SD 16.1). Women had a significantly earlier age of onset than men (39.1 years vs 41.0 years). Mixed FMD (23.1%), tremor (21.6%) and weakness (18.1%) were the most common phenotypes. Compared with tremor (40.7 years), the mean ages at onset of dystonia (34.5 years) and weakness (36.4 years) were significantly younger, while gait disorders (43.2 years) had a significantly later age at onset. The interaction between gender and phenotype was not significant. FMD peaks in midlife with varying effects of gender on age at onset and phenotype. The data gives some support to 'lumping' FMD as a unitary disorder but also highlights the value in 'splitting' into individual phenotypes where relevant

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics

The preponderance of matter over antimatter in the early universe, the dynamics of the supernovae that produced the heavy elements necessary for life, and whether protons eventually decay -- these mysteries at the forefront of particle physics and astrophysics are key to understanding the early evolution of our universe, its current state, and its eventual fate. DUNE is an international world-class experiment dedicated to addressing these questions as it searches for leptonic charge-parity symmetry violation, stands ready to capture supernova neutrino bursts, and seeks to observe nucleon decay as a signature of a grand unified theory underlying the standard model. The DUNE far detector technical design report (TDR) describes the DUNE physics program and the technical designs of the single- and dual-phase DUNE liquid argon TPC far detector modules. Volume II of this TDR, DUNE Physics, describes the array of identified scientific opportunities and key goals. Crucially, we also report our best current understanding of the capability of DUNE to realize these goals, along with the detailed arguments and investigations on which this understanding is based. This TDR volume documents the scientific basis underlying the conception and design of the LBNF/DUNE experimental configurations. As a result, the description of DUNE's experimental capabilities constitutes the bulk of the document. Key linkages between requirements for successful execution of the physics program and primary specifications of the experimental configurations are drawn and summarized. This document also serves a wider purpose as a statement on the scientific potential of DUNE as a central component within a global program of frontier theoretical and experimental particle physics research. Thus, the presentation also aims to serve as a resource for the particle physics community at large

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field