Towards drop your thesis 2018: 4.7 seconds of microgravity conditions to enable future CubeSat landings on asteroids

An increasing number of interplanetary missions are aiming at visiting asteroids and other small bodies, since these may provide clues to understand the formation and evolution of our Solar System. CubeSats allow a low-cost solution to land on these objects, as opposed to risking a much more expensive mothership. The weak gravitational field on these small bodies may also enable the possibility of simply dropping a CubeSat from afar (i.e. ballistic landing). However, ballistic landing of an unpowered spacecraft may be feasible solely within certain asteroid locations, and only if sufficient energy can be dissipated at touchdown. If such conditions are not met, the spacecraft will rebound off the surface. It is likely that the necessary energy dissipation may already occur naturally due to energy loss expected through the deformation of the regolith during touchdown. Indeed, previous low-velocity impact experiments in microgravity seem to indicate that this is exactly the case. However, data from past asteroid touchdowns, Hayabusa and Philae, indicate the contrary. This paper describes the development of an experiment which aims to bridge the aforementioned disagreement between mission data and microgravity experiment; to understand the behaviour of CubeSat landing on asteroids. The experiment will also test a novel damping system made by origami paper that should increase the dissipated energy at touchdown. The experiment will take place at the ZARM Drop Tower in Bremen in November 2018. With the constraint of 5 drops, the experiment will measure the coefficient of restitution during an available time window of 4.74 seconds of microgravity conditions. A 1UCubeSat mock-up will be used to represent a future asteroid lander. In order to mimic the landing of actual missions, the mock-up will have a mass of about 4 kg and it will be given a velocity of 15 cm/s with minimal rotation. This will be achieved by an automated spring-based release mechanism. An asteroid simulant, ESA03-A KM Bentonite Granules will be used to replicate an asteroid mechanical properties at the surface. This paper reviews the final design and the engineering challenges of the experiment

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

Epigallocatechin activates haem oxygenase-1 expression via protein kinase Cδ and Nrf2

The Nrf2/anti-oxidant response element (ARE) pathway plays an important role in regulating cellular anti-oxidants, including haem oxygenase-1 (HO-1). Various kinases have been implicated in the pathways leading to Nrf2 activation. Here, we investigated the effect of epigallocatechin (EGC) on ARE-mediated gene expression in human monocytic cells. EGC time and dose dependently increased HO-1 mRNA and protein expression but had minimal effect on expression of other ARE-regulated genes, including NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1, glutathione cysteine ligase and ferritin. siRNA knock down of Nrf2 significantly inhibited EGC-induced HO-1 expression. Furthermore, inhibition of PKC by Ro-31-8220 dose dependently decreased EGC-induced HO-1 mRNA expression, whereas MAP kinase and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase pathway inhibitors had no significant effect. EGC stimulated phosphorylation of PKCaß and d in THP-1 cells. PKCd inhibition significantly decreased EGC-induced HO-1 mRNA expression, whereas PKCa- and ß-specific inhibitors had no significant effect. These results demonstrate for the first time that EGC-induced HO-1 expression occurs via PKCd and Nrf2

The Role of Nrf2 and Cytoprotection in Regulating Chemotherapy Resistance of Human Leukemia Cells

The Nrf2 anti-oxidant response element (ARE) pathway plays an important role in regulating cellular anti-oxidants. Under normal cellular conditions Nrf2 can be described as an anti-tumor molecule due to its induction of cytoprotective genes which protect cells from electrophile and oxidative damage. However in cancerous cells, Nrf2 takes on a pro-tumoral identity as the same cytoprotective genes can enhance resistance of those cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs. Such Nrf2-regulated cytoprotective genes include heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), which has been shown to protect human leukemia cells from apoptotic signals. Moreover, a relationship between Nrf2 and the nuclear factor-?B (NF-?B) signaling pathway has been recently identified, and is now recognized as an important cross-talk mechanism by which Nrf2 can overcome apoptosis and provide cells with reduced sensitivity towards chemotherapeutic agents. In recent years a number of important research papers have highlighted the role of Nrf2 in providing protection against both current and new chemotherapeutic drugs in blood cancer. This review will provide a synopsis of these research papers with an aim to carefully consider if targeting Nrf2 in combination with current or new chemotherapeutics is a viable strategy in the more effective treatment of blood cancers