Aberrations of TACC1 and TACC3 are associated with ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of the human Transforming Acidic Coiled Coil (TACC) genes is thought to be important in the development and progression of multiple myeloma, breast and gastric cancer. Recent, large-scale genomic analysis and Serial Analysis of Gene Expression data suggest that TACC1 and TACC3 may also be involved in the etiology of ovarian tumors from both familial and sporadic cases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of alterations of these TACCs in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Detection and scoring of TACC1 and TACC3 expression was performed by immunohistochemical analysis of the T-BO-1 tissue/tumor microarray slide from the Cooperative Human Tissue Network, Tissue Array Research Program (TARP) of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Tumors were categorized as either positive (greater than 10% of cells staining) or negative. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and p < 0.05 (single comparisons), and p < 0.02 (multiple comparisons) were considered to be significant. Transgenomics WAVE high performance liquid chromatography (dHPLC) was used to pre-screen the TACC3 gene in constitutional DNA from ovarian cancer patients and their unaffected relatives from 76 families from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. All variant patterns were then sequenced. RESULTS: This study demonstrated absence of at least one or both TACC proteins in 78.5% (51/65) of ovarian tumors tested, with TACC3 loss observed in 67.7% of tumors. The distribution pattern of expression of the two TACC proteins was different, with TACC3 loss being more common in serous papillary carcinoma compared with clear cell carcinomas, while TACC1 staining was less frequent in endometroid than in serous papillary tumor cores. In addition, we identified two constitutional mutations in the TACC3 gene in patients with ovarian cancer from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. These patients had previously tested negative for mutations in known ovarian cancer predisposing genes. CONCLUSION: When combined, our data suggest that aberrations of TACC genes, and TACC3 in particular, underlie a significant proportion of ovarian cancers. Thus, TACC3 could be a hitherto unknown endogenous factor that contributes to ovarian tumorigenesis

A mass of less than 15 solar masses for the black hole in an ultraluminous X-ray source

Most ultraluminous X-ray sources have a typical set of properties not seen in Galactic stellar-mass black holes. They have luminosities of more than 3 × 10 39 ergs per second, unusually soft X-ray components (with a typical temperature of less than about 0.3 kiloelectronvolts) and a characteristic downturn in their spectra above about 5 kiloelectronvolts. Such puzzling properties have been interpreted either as evidence of intermediate-mass black holes or as emission from stellar-mass black holes accreting above their Eddington limit, analogous to some Galactic black holes at peak luminosity. Recently, a very soft X-ray spectrum was observed in a rare and transient stellar-mass black hole. Here we report that the X-ray source P13 in the galaxy NGC 7793 is in a binary system with a period of about 64 days and exhibits all three canonical properties of ultraluminous sources. By modelling the strong optical and ultraviolet modulations arising from X-ray heating of the B9Ia donor star, we constrain the black hole mass to be less than 15 solar masses. Our results demonstrate that in P13, soft thermal emission and spectral curvature are indeed signatures of supercritical accretion. By analogy, ultraluminous X-ray sources with similar X-ray spectra and luminosities of up to a few times 10 40 ergs per second can be explained by supercritical accretion onto massive stellar-mass black holes

Measurements of neutrino oscillation in appearance and disappearance channels by the T2K experiment with 6.6 x 10(20) protons on target

111 pages, 45 figures, submitted to Physical Review D. Minor revisions to text following referee comments111 pages, 45 figures, submitted to Physical Review D. Minor revisions to text following referee comments111 pages, 45 figures, submitted to Physical Review D. Minor revisions to text following referee commentsWe thank the J-PARC staff for superb accelerator performance and the CERN NA61/SHINE Collaboration for providing valuable particle production data. We acknowledge the support of MEXT, Japan; NSERC, NRC, and CFI, Canada; CEA and CNRS/IN2P3, France; DFG, Germany; INFN, Italy; National Science Centre (NCN), Poland; RSF, RFBR and MES, Russia; MINECO and ERDF funds, Spain; SNSF and SER, Switzerland; STFC, UK; and the U. S. Deparment of Energy, USA. We also thank CERN for the UA1/NOMAD magnet, DESY for the HERA-B magnet mover system, NII for SINET4, the WestGrid and SciNet consortia in Compute Canada, GridPP, UK, and the Emerald High Performance Computing facility in the Centre for Innovation, UK. In addition, participation of individual researchers and institutions has been further supported by funds from ERC (FP7), EU; JSPS, Japan; Royal Society, UK; and DOE Early Career program, USA

Progressive dry-core-wet-rim hydration trend in a nested-ring topology of protein binding interfaces

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Water is an integral part of protein complexes. It shapes protein binding sites by filling cavities and it bridges local contacts by hydrogen bonds. However, water molecules are usually not included in protein interface models in the past, and few distribution profiles of water molecules in protein binding interfaces are known.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this work, we use a tripartite protein-water-protein interface model and a nested-ring atom re-organization method to detect hydration trends and patterns from an interface data set which involves immobilized interfacial water molecules. This data set consists of 206 obligate interfaces, 160 non-obligate interfaces, and 522 crystal packing contacts. The two types of biological interfaces are found to be drier than the crystal packing interfaces in our data, agreeable to a hydration pattern reported earlier although the previous definition of immobilized water is pure distance-based. The biological interfaces in our data set are also found to be subject to stronger water exclusion in their formation. To study the overall hydration trend in protein binding interfaces, atoms at the same burial level in each tripartite protein-water-protein interface are organized into a ring. The rings of an interface are then ordered with the core atoms placed at the middle of the structure to form a nested-ring topology. We find that water molecules on the rings of an interface are generally configured in a dry-core-wet-rim pattern with a progressive level-wise solvation towards to the rim of the interface. This solvation trend becomes even sharper when counterexamples are separated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Immobilized water molecules are regularly organized in protein binding interfaces and they should be carefully considered in the studies of protein hydration mechanisms.</p

Biodiversity, traditional medicine and public health: where do they meet?

Given the increased use of traditional medicines, possibilities that would ensure its successful integration into a public health framework should be explored. This paper discusses some of the links between biodiversity and traditional medicine, and addresses their implications to public health. We explore the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to global and human health, the risks which human impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity present to human health and welfare

T2K neutrino flux prediction

cited By 15 art_number: 012001 affiliation: Centre for Particle Physics, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics (LHEP), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States; IRFU, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea; Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Dongshin University, Naju, South Korea; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Section de Physique, DPNC, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; IFIC (CSIC and University of Valencia), Valencia, Spain; Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; INFN Sezione di Bari, Dipartimento Interuniversitario di Fisica, Università e Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy; INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; INFN Sezione di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy; INFN Sezione di Roma, Università di Roma la Sapienza, Roma, Italy; Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation; Kobe University, Kobe, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States; Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IPN Lyon (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France; Department of Physics, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai, Japan; National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Osaka City University, Department of Physics, Osaka, Japan; Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; UPMC, Université Paris Diderot, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), Paris, France; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; School of Physics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Silesia, Institute of Physics, Katowice, Poland; STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Warrington, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Research Center for Cosmic Neutrinos, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan; Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Radioelectronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada references: Astier, P., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 515, p. 800. , (NOMAD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.054; Ahn, M., (2006) Phys. Rev. D, 74, p. 072003. , (K2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003; Adamson, P., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 77, p. 072002. , (MINOS Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.072002; Aguilar-Arevalo, A., (2009) Phys. Rev. D, 79, p. 072002. , (MiniBooNE Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002; (2003) Letter of Intent: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment at JHF, , http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/loi/loi_JHFcor.pdf, T2K Collaboration; Abe, K., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 659, p. 106. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067; Abe, K., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 041801. , (T2K Collaboration), PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801; Abe, K., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 85, p. 031103. , (T2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031103; Fukuda, Y., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 501, p. 418. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X; Beavis, D., Carroll, A., Chiang, I., (1995), Physics Design Report, BNL 52459Abgrall, N., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 034604. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034604; Abgrall, N., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 035210. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035210; Bhadra, S., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 703, p. 45. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.044; Van Der Meer, S., Report No. CERN-61-07Palmer, R., Report No. CERN-65-32, 141Ichikawa, A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 690, p. 27. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.045; Matsuoka, K., (2010) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 624, p. 591. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.074; Abe, K., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 694, p. 211. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.03.023; Abgrall, N., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 637, p. 25. , (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.02. 036; Amaudruz, P.-A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 696, p. 1. , (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08. 020; Battistoni, G., Cerutti, F., Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Muraro, S., Ranft, J., Roesler, S., Sala, P.R., (2007) AIP Conf. Proc., 896, p. 31. , APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2720455; A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. SLAC-R-773A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. INFN-TC-05-11R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN-W5013Zeitnitz, C., Gabriel, T.A., (1993) Proceedings of International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, , in Elsevier Science B.V., Tallahassee, FL; Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., Sala, P.R., Proceedings of the International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, 1994, , in; Beringer, J., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 86, p. 010001. , (Particle Data Group), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001; Eichten, T., (1972) Nucl. Phys. B, 44, p. 333. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90120-4; Allaby, J.V., Tech. Rep. 70-12 (CERN, 1970)Chemakin, I., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 015209. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015209; Abrams, R.J., Cool, R., Giacomelli, G., Kycia, T., Leontic, B., Li, K., Michael, D., (1970) Phys. Rev. D, 1, p. 1917. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1917; Allaby, J.V., (1970) Yad. Fiz., 12, p. 538. , IDFZA7 0044-0027; Allaby, J.V., (1969) Phys. Lett. B, 30, p. 500. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(69)90184-1; Allardyce, B.W., (1973) Nucl. Phys. A, 209, p. 1. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90049-3; Bellettini, G., Cocconi, G., Diddens, A.N., Lillethun, E., Matthiae, G., Scanlon, J.P., Wetherell, A.M., (1966) Nucl. Phys., 79, p. 609. , NUPHA7 0029-5582 10.1016/0029-5582(66)90267-7; Bobchenko, B.M., (1979) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, p. 805. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Carroll, A.S., (1979) Phys. Lett. B, 80, p. 319. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90226-0; Cronin, J.W., Cool, R., Abashian, A., (1957) Phys. Rev., 107, p. 1121. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121; Chen, F.F., Leavitt, C., Shapiro, A., (1955) Phys. Rev., 99, p. 857. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.99.857; Denisov, S.P., Donskov, S.V., Gorin, Yu.P., Krasnokutsky, R.N., Petrukhin, A.I., Prokoshkin, Yu.D., Stoyanova, D.A., (1973) Nucl. Phys. B, 61, p. 62. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90351-9; Longo, M.J., Moyer, B.J., (1962) Phys. Rev., 125, p. 701. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701; Vlasov, A.V., (1978) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27, p. 222. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Feynman, R., (1969) Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, p. 1415. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415; Bonesini, M., Marchionni, A., Pietropaolo, F., Tabarelli De Fatis, T., (2001) Eur. Phys. J. C, 20, p. 13. , EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1007/s100520100656; Barton, D.S., (1983) Phys. Rev. D, 27, p. 2580. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2580; Skubic, P., (1978) Phys. Rev. D, 18, p. 3115. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3115; Feynman, R.P., (1972) Photon-Hadron Interactions, , Benjamin, New York; Bjorken, J.D., Paschos, E.A., (1969) Phys. Rev., 185, p. 1975. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.185.1975; Taylor, F.E., Carey, D., Johnson, J., Kammerud, R., Ritchie, D., Roberts, A., Sauer, J., Walker, J., (1976) Phys. Rev. D, 14, p. 1217. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1217; Abgrall, N., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 701, p. 99. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.079; Hayato, Y., (2002) Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 112, p. 171. , NPBSE7 0920-5632 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01759-0 correspondence_address1: Abe, K.; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan coden: PRVDA abbrev_source_title: Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol document_type: Article source: Scopu

Precise Measurement of the Neutrino Mixing Parameter theta(23) from Muon Neutrino Disappearance in an Off-Axis Beam

New data from the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment produce the most precise measurement of the neutrino mixing parameter theta_{23}. Using an off-axis neutrino beam with a peak energy of 0.6 GeV and a data set corresponding to 6.57 x 10^{20} protons on target, T2K has fit the energy-dependent nu_mu oscillation probability to determine oscillation parameters. Marginalizing over the values of other oscillation parameters yields sin^2 (theta_{23}) = 0.514 +0.055/-0.056 (0.511 +- 0.055), assuming normal (inverted) mass hierarchy. The best-fit mass-squared splitting for normal hierarchy is Delta m^2_{32} = (2.51 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4 (inverted hierarchy: Delta m^2_{13} = (2.48 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4). Adding a model of multinucleon interactions that affect neutrino energy reconstruction is found to produce only small biases in neutrino oscillation parameter extraction at current levels of statistical uncertainty

Measurement of the intrinsic electron neutrino component in the T2K neutrino beam with the ND280 detector

The T2K experiment has reported the first observation of the appearance of electron neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam. The main and irreducible background to the appearance signal comes from the presence in the neutrino beam of a small intrinsic component of electron neutrinos originating from muon and kaon decays. In T2K, this component is expected to represent 1.2% of the total neutrino flux. A measurement of this component using the near detector (ND280), located 280 m from the target, is presented. The charged current interactions of electron neutrinos are selected by combining the particle identification capabilities of both the time projection chambers and electromagnetic calorimeters of ND280. The measured ratio between the observed electron neutrino beam component and the prediction is 1.01 +/- 0.10 providing a direct confirmation of the neutrino fluxes and neutrino cross section modeling used for T2K neutrino oscillation analyses. Electron neutrinos coming from muons and kaons decay are also separately measured, resulting in a ratio with respect to the prediction of 0.68 +/- 0.30 and 1.10 +/- 0.14, respectively

Measurement of the nu(mu) charged-current quasielastic cross section on carbon with the ND280 detector at T2K

This paper reports a measurement by the T2K experiment of the νμ charged current quasielastic (CCQE) cross section on a carbon target with the off-axis detector based on the observed distribution of muon momentum (pμ) and angle with respect to the incident neutrino beam (θμ). The flux-integrated CCQE cross section was measured to be ⟨σ⟩=(0.83±0.12)×10−38  cm2. The energy dependence of the CCQE cross section is also reported. The axial mass, MQEA, of the dipole axial form factor was extracted assuming the Smith-Moniz CCQE model with a relativistic Fermi gas nuclear model. Using the absolute (shape-only) pμ−cosθμ distribution, the effective MQEA parameter was measured to be 1.26+0.21−0.18  GeV/c2 (1.43+0.28−0.22  GeV/c2)