PENALTIES AS AFFECTED BY GOOD FAITH LITIGATION

There are many state laws, as well as the so-called National Emergency Acts and other federal laws, providing for the imposition of penalties for the violation of a statute, or an order or regulation of a board, commission, or executive officer. Under, the National Industrial Recovery Act, sec. 3 (f), penalties are fixed for the violation of codes promulgated thereunder. In many instances the penalties are cumulative, each day\u27s violation being a separate offense. The primary question here to be discussed is whether good faith litigation as to the validity of such a law, code, order or similar regulation gives immunity against the imposition of any penalty whatsoever with respect to violations taking place during such litigation

Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: a cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice

Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique). We assessed policies (Study One) and practice (Study Two) related to post-publication critique at 15 top-ranked journals in each of 22 scientific disciplines (N = 330 journals). Two-hundred and seven (63%) journals accepted post-publication critique and often imposed limits on length (median 1000, interquartile range (IQR) 500–1200 words) and time-to-submit (median 12, IQR 4–26 weeks). The most restrictive limits were 175 words and two weeks; some policies imposed no limits. Of 2066 randomly sampled research articles published in 2018 by journals accepting post-publication critique, 39 (1.9%, 95% confidence interval [1.4, 2.6]) were linked to at least one post-publication critique (there were 58 post-publication critiques in total). Of the 58 post-publication critiques, 44 received an author reply, of which 41 asserted that original conclusions were unchanged. Clinical Medicine had the most active culture of post-publication critique: all journals accepted post-publication critique and published the most post-publication critique overall, but also imposed the strictest limits on length (median 400, IQR 400–550 words) and time-to-submit (median 4, IQR 4–6 weeks). Our findings suggest that top-ranked academic journals often pose serious barriers to the cultivation, documentation and dissemination of post-publication critique

Safety and efficacy of low-dose sirolimus in the PIK3CA-Related Overgrowth Spectrum

Purpose PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum (PROS) encompasses a range of debilitating conditions defined by asymmetric overgrowth caused by mosaic activating PIK3CA variants. PIK3CA encodes the p110α catalytic subunit of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K), a critical transducer of growth factor signaling. As mTOR mediates the growth-promoting actions of PI3K, we hypothesized that the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus would slow pathological overgrowth. Methods Thirty-nine participants with PROS and progressive overgrowth were enrolled into open-label studies across three centers, and results were pooled. For the primary outcome, tissue volumes at affected and unaffected sites were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry during 26 weeks of untreated run-in and 26 weeks of sirolimus therapy. Results Thirty participants completed the study. Sirolimus led to a change in mean percentage total tissue volume of –7.2% (SD 16.0, p = 0.04) at affected sites, but not at unaffected sites (+1.7%, SD 11.5, p = 0.48) (n = 23 evaluable). Twenty-eight of 39 (72%) participants had ≥1 adverse event related to sirolimus of which 37% were grade 3 or 4 in severity and 7/39 (18%) participants were withdrawn consequently. Conclusion This study suggests that low-dose sirolimus can modestly reduce overgrowth, but cautions that the side-effect profile is significant, mandating individualized risk–benefit evaluations for sirolimus treatment in PROS

Cell-based screen for altered nuclear phenotypes reveals senescence progression in polyploid cells after Aurora kinase B inhibition.

Cellular senescence is a widespread stress response and is widely considered to be an alternative cancer therapeutic goal. Unlike apoptosis, senescence is composed of a diverse set of subphenotypes, depending on which of its associated effector programs are engaged. Here we establish a simple and sensitive cell-based prosenescence screen with detailed validation assays. We characterize the screen using a focused tool compound kinase inhibitor library. We identify a series of compounds that induce different types of senescence, including a unique phenotype associated with irregularly shaped nuclei and the progressive accumulation of G1 tetraploidy in human diploid fibroblasts. Downstream analyses show that all of the compounds that induce tetraploid senescence inhibit Aurora kinase B (AURKB). AURKB is the catalytic component of the chromosome passenger complex, which is involved in correct chromosome alignment and segregation, the spindle assembly checkpoint, and cytokinesis. Although aberrant mitosis and senescence have been linked, a specific characterization of AURKB in the context of senescence is still required. This proof-of-principle study suggests that our protocol is capable of amplifying tetraploid senescence, which can be observed in only a small population of oncogenic RAS-induced senescence, and provides additional justification for AURKB as a cancer therapeutic target.This work was supported by the University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, Hutchison Whampoa; Cancer Research UK grants A6691 and A9892 (M.N., N.K., C.J.T., D.C.B., C.J.C., L.S.G, and M.S.); a fellowship from the Uehara Memorial Foundation (M.S.).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Society for Cell Biology via http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E15-01-000

PENALTIES AS AFFECTED BY GOOD FAITH LITIGATION

There are many state laws, as well as the so-called National Emergency Acts and other federal laws, providing for the imposition of penalties for the violation of a statute, or an order or regulation of a board, commission, or executive officer. Under, the National Industrial Recovery Act, sec. 3 (f), penalties are fixed for the violation of codes promulgated thereunder. In many instances the penalties are cumulative, each day\u27s violation being a separate offense. The primary question here to be discussed is whether good faith litigation as to the validity of such a law, code, order or similar regulation gives immunity against the imposition of any penalty whatsoever with respect to violations taking place during such litigation