Measurement of the Bottom-Strange Meson Mixing Phase in the Full CDF Data Set

We report a measurement of the bottom-strange meson mixing phase \beta_s using the time evolution of B0_s -> J/\psi (->\mu+\mu-) \phi (-> K+ K-) decays in which the quark-flavor content of the bottom-strange meson is identified at production. This measurement uses the full data set of proton-antiproton collisions at sqrt(s)= 1.96 TeV collected by the Collider Detector experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron, corresponding to 9.6 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. We report confidence regions in the two-dimensional space of \beta_s and the B0_s decay-width difference \Delta\Gamma_s, and measure \beta_s in [-\pi/2, -1.51] U [-0.06, 0.30] U [1.26, \pi/2] at the 68% confidence level, in agreement with the standard model expectation. Assuming the standard model value of \beta_s, we also determine \Delta\Gamma_s = 0.068 +- 0.026 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps-1 and the mean B0_s lifetime, \tau_s = 1.528 +- 0.019 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps, which are consistent and competitive with determinations by other experiments.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 171802 (2012

How to perform Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)

"How to perform contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)" provides general advice on the use of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) for clinical decision-making and reviews technical parameters for optimal CEUS performance. CEUS techniques vary between centers, therefore, experts from EFSUMB, WFUMB and from the CEUS LI-RADS working group created a discussion forum to standardize the CEUS examination technique according to published evidence and best personal experience. The goal is to standardise the use and administration of UCAs to facilitate correct diagnoses and ultimately to improve the management and outcomes of patients

Physiological aspects of the determination of comprehensive arterial inflows in the lower abdomen assessed by Doppler ultrasound

Non-invasive measurement of splanchnic hemodynamics has been utilized in the clinical setting for diagnosis of gastro-intestinal disease, and for determining reserve blood flow (BF) distribution. However, previous studies that measured BF in a "single vessel with small size volume", such as the superior mesenteric and coeliac arteries, were concerned solely with the target organ in the gastrointestinal area, and therefore evaluation of alterations in these single arterial BFs under various states was sometimes limited to "small blood volumes", even though there was a relatively large change in flow. BF in the lower abdomen (BFAb) is potentially a useful indicator of the influence of comprehensive BF redistribution in cardiovascular and hepato-gastrointestinal disease, in the postprandial period, and in relation to physical exercise. BFAb can be determined theoretically using Doppler ultrasound by subtracting BF in the bilateral proximal femoral arteries (FAs) from BF in the upper abdominal aorta (Ao) above the coeliac trunk. Prior to acceptance of this method of determining a true BFAb value, it is necessary to obtain validated normal physiological data that represent the hemodynamic relationship between the three arteries. In determining BFAb, relative reliability was acceptably high (range in intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.85-0.97) for three arterial hemodynamic parameters (blood velocity, vessel diameter, and BF) in three repeated measurements obtained over three different days. Bland-Altman analysis of the three repeated measurements revealed that day-to-day physiological variation (potentially including measurement error) was within the acceptable minimum range (95% of confidence interval), calculated as the difference in hemodynamics between two measurements. Mean BF (ml/min) was 2951 ± 767 in Ao, 316 ± 97 in left FA, 313 ± 83 in right FA, and 2323 ± 703 in BFAb, which is in agreement with a previous study that measured the sum of BF in the major part of the coeliac, mesenteric, and renal arteries. This review presents the methodological concept that underlies BFAb, and aspects of its day-to-day relative reliability in terms of the hemodynamics of the three target arteries, relationship with body surface area, respiratory effects, and potential clinical usefulness and application, in relation to data previously reported in original dedicated research

Fine-scale Explosive Energy Release at Sites of Prospective Magnetic Flux Cancellation in the Core of the Solar Active Region Observed by Hi-C 2.1, IRIS, and SDO

The second Hi-C flight (Hi-C 2.1) provided unprecedentedly high spatial and temporal resolution (~250 km, 4.4 s) coronal EUV images of Fe ix/x emission at 172 Å of AR 12712 on 2018 May 29, during 18:56:21–19:01:56 UT. Three morphologically different types (I: dot-like; II: loop-like; III: surge/jet-like) of fine-scale sudden-brightening events (tiny microflares) are seen within and at the ends of an arch filament system in the core of the AR. Although type Is (not reported before) resemble IRIS bombs (in size, and brightness with respect to surroundings), our dot-like events are apparently much hotter and shorter in span (70 s). We complement the 5 minute duration Hi-C 2.1 data with SDO/HMI magnetograms, SDO/AIA EUV images, and IRIS UV spectra and slit-jaw images to examine, at the sites of these events, brightenings and flows in the transition region and corona and evolution of magnetic flux in the photosphere. Most, if not all, of the events are seated at sites of opposite-polarity magnetic flux convergence (sometimes driven by adjacent flux emergence), implying likely flux cancellation at the microflare's polarity inversion line. In the IRIS spectra and images, we find confirming evidence of field-aligned outflow from brightenings at the ends of loops of the arch filament system. In types I and II the explosion is confined, while in type III the explosion is ejective and drives jet-like outflow. The light curves from Hi-C, AIA, and IRIS peak nearly simultaneously for many of these events, and none of the events display a systematic cooling sequence as seen in typical coronal flares, suggesting that these tiny brightening events have chromospheric/transition region origin

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 (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