XPI: The Xanadu Parameter Interface

XPI is a table driven parameter interface which greatly simplifies both command driven programs such as BROWSE and XIMAGE as well as stand alone single-task programs. It moves all of the syntax and semantic parsing of commands and parameters out of the users code into common code and externally defined tables. This allows the programmer to concentrate on writing the code unique to the application rather than reinventing the user interface and for external graphical interfaces to interface with no changes to the command driven program. XPI also includes a compatibility library which allows programs written using the IRAF host interface (Mandel and Roll) to use XPI in place of the IRAF host interface

The HEASARC graphical user interface

An OSF/Motif-based graphical user interface has been developed to facilitate the use of the database and data analysis software packages available from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC). It can also be used as an interface to other, similar, routines. A small number of tables are constructed to specify the possible commands and command parameters for a given set of analysis routines. These tables can be modified by a designer to affect the appearance of the interface screens. They can also be dynamically changed in response to parameter adjustments made while the underlying program is running. Additionally, a communication protocol has been designed so that the interface can operate locally or across a network. It is intended that this software be able to run on a variety of workstations and X terminals

Patient characteristics for the groups with Gleason score ≤7 or >7 and differences in HIF1α expression between the groups.

<p>The group with Gleason score ≤7 was comprised of Gleason score <6 (6), 6 (28) and 7 (4) and the group with Gleason score >7 was comprised of scores 8 (8), 9 (52) and 10 (2).</p>†<p>There were 17 patients with missing data for tumor stage in the group with Gleason score >7 and 16 of these patients were HIF1α positive.</p>¥<p>There was no significant association with HIF1α expression and Gleason scores when analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test using two-by-two tables.</p>*<p>Pre-interventional PSA was defined as PSA immediately prior to obtaining the tissue sample.</p

Knockdown of HIF1α expression in PC3 cells reduced both survival after cytotoxic treatments and migration rate.

<p>(A) HIF1α concentrations were reduced in 2 separate clones of PC3 cells following stable expression of HIF1α shRNA as assessed by Western blot. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate experiments and are expressed as a percentage of wild-type PC3 cells. *, P<0.05 versus wild-type PC3 cells. (B) The survival of PC3 cells after exposure to oxidative stress (hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)) or chemotoxicity (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for 24 hours was reduced following HIF1α knockdown compared to scrambled control vector-transfected PC3 cells. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate experiments and are expressed as a percentage of untreated scrambled control vector-transfected PC3 cells. #, P<0.05 versus control. (C) HIF1α protein expression in PC3 cells transfected with control shRNA after treatment with 1% O₂, 300 µM CoCl₂, 100 µM H₂O₂, and 15 µM 5-FU. Cell lysates were electrophoresed on SDS-polyacrylamide gels and blotted with HIF1α antibody. GAPDH expression was used as loading control. The Western blots shown are representative of at least three separate experiments. Band densities were determined by densitometric analysis of HIF1α/GAPDH and are presented relative to the value for untreated cells. Data represent mean ± SEM; * p<0.05 vs. untreated PC3 cells. (D) Rates of migration/invasion in the HIF1α knockdown PC3 cells were reduced compared to the scrambled control vector-transfected PC3 cells as assessed by Transwell assay. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate experiments and are expressed as a percentage of untreated scrambled control vector transfected PC3 cells. *, P<0.05 versus control. (E) Induction of HIF1α in LNCaP cells by hypoxia (dark grey bars) or by cobalt chloride (light grey bars) increased survival after exposure to oxidative stress with H₂O₂ or chemotoxicity with 5-FU for 24 hours when compared to control LNCaP cells (black bars). Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate treatments and are expressed as a percentage of the untreated LNCaP control. #, P<0.05 versus treated LNCaP cells. *, P<0.05 versus LNCaP cells treated with 1% O₂ and 5-FU. (F) HIF1α protein expression in LNCaP cells treated with 1% O₂ and 300 µM CoCl₂ in combination with either 100 µM H₂O₂ or 15 µM 5-FU. Cell lysates were electrophoresed on SDS-polyacrylamide gels and blotted with HIF1α antibody. GAPDH expression was used as loading control. The Western blots shown are representative of at least three separate experiments. Band densities were determined by densitometric analysis of HIF1α/GAPDH and are presented relative to the value for normoxic cells undergoing the same treatment. Data represent mean ± SEM; * p<0.05 vs. untreated control, 100 µM H₂O₂ or 15 µM 5-FU treated LNCaP cells.</p

Univariate and Multivariate Cox Regression analysis of the development of metastatic PC from the time of surgery and CRPC, prostate cancer specific death after starting androgen deprivation therapy.

a<p>13 patients excluded due to incomplete metastasis related data.</p>†<p>Cox regression with Firth’s penalized maximum likelihood method. CI denotes confidence interval.</p>‡<p>This group served as the reference group in the Cox regression analysis.</p>*<p>Pre-interventional PSA was defined as PSA immediately prior to obtaining the tissue sample.</p

Basal HIF1α protein expression, proliferation rates and migration/invasion rates in human PC cell lines. (

<p>A) Basal HIF1α protein concentrations in the human PC cell lines LNCaP, DU145 and PC3 under normoxic conditions were analyzed by Western blot. (B) Proliferation was assayed by cell counting after 24 and 48 hours. (C) Migration/invasion rates were measured by Transwell assays at 24 hours. Values in (A) and (C) are expressed as the fold increase compared to LNCaP cells, while the values in (B) are expressed as a percentage of the time 0 value. All values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate treatments. (D) Survival rates of PC cells exposed to cytotoxic conditions. The survival of PC3 cells (which have higher basal HIF1α protein) when exposed to oxidative stress with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) or chemotoxicity with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was compared to the survival of LNCaP cells (which have lower HIF1α expression). Survival was assessed by counting cell numbers at 24 hours. Values are expressed as a percentage of the untreated control and are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate treatments. #, P<0.05 versus treated LNCaP cells.</p

The translation efficiency of the HIF1α 5′UTR-luciferase reporter in prostate cancer cells.

<p>(A) <i>Firefly</i> and <i>Renilla</i> luciferase activities in prostate cancer cells following transfection of a HIF1α 5′UTR-luciferase construct and the pTK-Renilla control reporter vector were determined using a dual luciferase assay. (B) Real-time PCR (RT-PCR) analysis of luciferase mRNA in PC cells transfected with the HIF1α 5′UTR-luciferase construct. Following transfection, RNA was isolated, and luciferase mRNA expression detected by real time RT-PCR and normalized by 18S mRNA expression. (C) Translational efficiency represents the ratio of <i>Firefly</i>/<i>Renilla</i> luciferase activity, divided by the relative luciferase mRNA concentration in PC cells. The translational efficiency of luciferase mRNA driven by the 5′UTR region of HIF1α in PC3 cells is higher than in LNCaP cells. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three separate experiments. *, P<0.05 versus treated LNCaP cells.</p