In-vitro-Analyse zur Wirkung ionisierender Strahlung auf Adipose-derived stem cells der weiblichen Brust

Within breast tissue, adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) are responsible for maintaining cellular homeostasis. However, this potential can also contributed to the undesirable effect of tumor promotion. Therefore, this work deals with the effect of ionizing radiation on these interactions. In summary, the promoting effects of ADSCs on MCF-7 breast cancer cells were neutralized or reversed by a radiation treatment. Furthermore, ADSCs exhibit a medium radiation sensitivity associated with a functional DNA repair system.Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) des Brustgewebes sind für die Aufrechterhaltung der zellulären Homöostase verantwortlich. Dieses Potenzial kann jedoch auch zum unerwünschten Effekt der Tumorförderung beitragen. Diese Arbeit befasst sich daher mit der Wirkung ionisierender Strahlung auf diese Wechselwirkungen. Hierbei wurden die fördernden Effekte von ADSCs auf MCF-7-Brustkrebszellen durch eine Bestrahlung neutralisiert oder umgekehrt. Im Weiteren weisen ADSCs eine mittlere Strahlungsempfindlichkeit auf, verbunden mit einem funktionierenden DNS Reparatursystem

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

PURPOSE To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. METHODS In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a~broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. RESULTS A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a~high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A~double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal's articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. CONCLUSION The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a~high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a~double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process

Porträt und soziale Distinktion / Portrait et Distinction Sociale

Für die bildliche Darstellung bestimmter sozialer Gruppen wurden im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit spezifische Darstellungsweisen entwickelt. Die zwölf Beiträge dieses Bandes untersuchen, wie exklusive Trachtmotive, signifikante Attribute und charakteristische Posen genutzt wurden, um den prominenten Rang von Individuen oder Personenverbänden deutlich zu machen

Modulation of enrofloxacin binding in OmpF by Mg2+ as revealed by the analysis of fast flickering single-porin current

One major determinant of the efficacy of antibiotics on Gram-negative bacteria is the passage through the outer membrane. During transport of the fluoroquinolone enrofloxacin through the trimeric outer membrane protein OmpF of Escherichia coli, the antibiotic interacts with two binding sites within the pore, thus partially blocking the ionic current. The modulation of one affinity site by Mg2+ reveals further details of binding sites and binding kinetics. At positive membrane potentials, the slow blocking events induced by enrofloxacin in Mg2+-free media are converted to flickery sojourns at the highest apparent current level (all three pores flickering). This indicates weaker binding in the presence of Mg2+. Analysis of the resulting amplitude histograms with beta distributions revealed the rate constants of blocking (k(OB)) and unblocking (k(BO)) in the range of 1,000 to 120,000 s(-1). As expected for a bimolecular reaction, k(OB) was proportional to blocker concentration and k(BO) independent of it. k(OB) was approximately three times lower for enrofloxacin coming from the cis side than from the trans side. The block was not complete, leading to a residual conductivity of the blocked state being similar to 25% of that of the open state. Interpretation of the results has led to the following model: fast flickering as caused by interaction of Mg2+ and enrofloxacin is related to the binding site at the trans side, whereas the cis site mediates slow blocking events which are also found without Mg2+. The difference in the accessibility of the binding sites also explains the dependency of k(OB) on the side of enrofloxacin addition and yields a means of determining the most plausible orientation of OmpF in the bilayer. The voltage dependence suggests that the dipole of the antibiotic has to be adequately oriented to facilitate binding

First Insights into the Effect of Low-Dose X-Ray Irradiation in Adipose-Derived Stem Cells

(1) Background: Emerging interest of physicians to use adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) for regenerative therapies and the fact that low-dose irradiation (LD-IR ≤ 0.1 Gy) has been reported to enhance the proliferation of several human normal and bone-marrow stem cells, but not that of tumor cells, lead to the idea of improving stem cell therapies via low-dose radiation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate unwanted side effects, as well as proliferation-stimulating mechanisms of LD-IR on ADSCs. (2) Methods: To avoid donor specific effects, ADSCs isolated from mamma reductions of 10 donors were pooled and used for the radiobiological analysis. The clonogenic survival assay was used to classify the long-term effects of low-dose radiation in ADSCs. Afterwards, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity, as well as the effect of irradiation on proliferation of ADSCs were investigated. (3) Results: LD (≤ 0.1 Gy) of ionizing radiation promoted the proliferation and survival of ADSCs. Within this dose range neither geno- nor cytotoxic effects were detectable. In contrast, greater doses within the dose range of >0.1–2.0 Gy induced residual double-strand breaks and reduced the long-term survival, as well as the proliferation rate of ADSCs. (4) Conclusions: Our data suggest that ADSCs are resistant to LD-IR. Furthermore, LD-IR could be a possible mediator to improve approaches of stem cells in the field of regenerative medicine