Comparison of two techniques for the morphometry study on gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) spermatozoa and evaluation of changes induced by cryopreservation

[EN] The development of powerful software has made possible spermatozoa morphology studies. However, some problems have emerged in relation to protocol standardization to compare results from different laboratories. This study was carried out to compare two techniques commonly used (staining vs phase contrast technique) for the morphometry study of gilthead sea bream spermatozoa using an integrated sperm analysis system (ISAS). Spermatozoa morphometry values were significantly affected by the technique used, and phase contrast technique was found to be the more accurate method, showing lower coefficients of variation on spermatozoa morphometry parameters measurements. Moreover, it has been shown that cryopreservation process produces damage in gilthead sea bream spermatozoa, causing negative effects in sperm parameters as spermatozoa morphometry (a decrease in cell volume), motility (from 95 to 68% motile cells) and viability (from 95 to 87% of live cells), being the addition of freezing medium containing cryoprotectant (DMSO) an important factor that caused the morphometry changes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.This work was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN; AGL2007-64040-C03-00, Project SELECTBREAM). V. Gallego and I. Mazzeo were supported by predoctoral scholarships financed by the Spanish MICINN and Generalitat Valenciana, respectively. D.S. Penaranda had a postdoctoral grant from UPV.Gallego Albiach, V.; Peñaranda, D.; Marco Jiménez, F.; Mazzeo, I.; Pérez Igualada, LM.; Asturiano Nemesio, JF. (2012). Comparison of two techniques for the morphometry study on gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) spermatozoa and evaluation of changes induced by cryopreservation. Theriogenology. 77(6):1078-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.10.010S1078108777

Standardization of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) sperm motility evaluation by CASA software

[EN] The development of powerful computer-assisted sperm analysis software has made kinetic studies of spermatozoa possible. This system has been used and validated for several species, but some technical questions have emerged regarding fish sample evaluations (i.e., frame rate, sperm dilution, chamber model, time of analysis, magnification lens, etc.). In the present study, we have evaluated the effects of different procedural and biological settings with the aim to correctly measure sperm quality parameters of the European eel. The use of different chambers did not affect the sperm motility parameters. However, regarding lens magnification, 10x was the most accurate lens, showing the least variation in the acquired data. Similarly, the frame rate setting resulted in a dramatic effect in some sperm kinetic parameters, primarily in terms of curvilinear velocity; we therefore recommend using the camera's highest available frame rate setting. Finally, the reduction in sperm motility over postactivation times suggests that sperm analysis should be performed within the first 60 seconds after activation of the European eel sperm. In conclusion, some protocol variables of sperm analysis by computer-assisted sperm analysis software can affect the measurement of eel sperm quality parameters, and should be considered before directly comparing results obtained by different laboratories. Moreover, because marine fish species show relatively similar features of sperm kinetic parameters, these results could be considered in the evaluation of the motility of sperm from other fish species. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.This study was funded from the European Community's 7th Framework Programme under the Theme 2 "Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology," grant agreement 245257 (Pro-Eel), and Generalitat Valenciana (ACOMP/2011/229). D.S.P. and P.C.F.C. have postdoctoral grants from UPV (CE-01-10) and PAC-EMBRAPA, respectively. I.M. and V.G. have predoctoral grants from Generalitat Valenciana and Spanish MICINN, respectively. The authors thank the Proiser R&D, S.L. team, who performed the task of fractioning the original sequences for the experiment described in section 3.2.Gallego Albiach, V.; Carneiro, PCF.; Mazzeo, I.; Vilchez Olivencia, MC.; Peñaranda, D.; Soler, C.; Pérez Igualada, LM.... (2013). Standardization of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) sperm motility evaluation by CASA software. Theriogenology. 79(7):1034-1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.01.019S1034104079

Search for the rare decays B0→J/ψγB^{0}\to J/\psi \gamma and Bs0→J/ψγB^{0}_{s} \to J/\psi \gamma

A search for the rare decay of a $B^{0}$ or $B^{0}_{s}$ meson into the final state $J/\psi\gamma$ is performed, using data collected by the LHCb experiment in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and $8$ TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3 fb$^{-1}$. The observed number of signal candidates is consistent with a background-only hypothesis. Branching fraction values larger than $1.7\times 10^{-6}$ for the $B^{0}\to J/\psi\gamma$ decay mode are excluded at 90% confidence level. For the $B^{0}_{s}\to J/\psi\gamma$ decay mode, branching fraction values larger than $7.4\times 10^{-6}$ are excluded at 90% confidence level, this is the first branching fraction limit for this decay.Comment: All figures and tables, along with any supplementary material and additional information, are available at https://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/lhcbproject/Publications/LHCbProjectPublic/LHCb-PAPER-2015-044.htm

La Cueva de El Sidrón (Piloña Asturias)

Estado de las excavaciones y estudios en la Cueva de El Sidrón (PIloña, Asturias)

Risk factors for non-diabetic renal disease in diabetic patients

Background. Diabetic patients with kidney disease have a high prevalence of non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD). Renal and patient survival regarding the diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy (DN) or NDRD have not been widely studied. The aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence of NDRD in patients with diabetes and to determine the capacity of clinical and analytical data in the prediction of NDRD. In addition, we will study renal and patient prognosis according to the renal biopsy findings in patients with diabetes. Methods. Retrospective multicentre observational study of renal biopsies performed in patients with diabetes from 2002 to 2014. Results. In total, 832 patients were included: 621 men (74.6%), mean age of 61.7 6 12.8 years, creatinine was 2.8 6 2.2 mg/dL and proteinuria 2.7 (interquartile range: 1.2–5.4) g/24 h. About 39.5% (n ¼ 329) of patients had DN, 49.6% (n ¼ 413) NDRD and 10.8% (n ¼ 90) mixed forms. The most frequent NDRD was nephroangiosclerosis (NAS) (n ¼ 87, 9.3%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, older age [odds ratio (OR) ¼ 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02–1.05, P < 0.001], microhaematuria (OR ¼ 1.51, 95% CI: 1.03–2.21, P ¼ 0.033) and absence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) (OR ¼ 0.28, 95% CI: 0.19–0.42, P < 0.001) were independently associated with NDRD. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that patients with DN or mixed forms presented worse renal prognosis than NDRD (P < 0.001) and higher mortality (P ¼ 0.029). In multivariate Cox analyses, older age (P < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (P < 0.001), higher proteinuria (P < 0.001), DR (P ¼ 0.007) and DN (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for renal replacement therapy. In addition, older age (P < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (P ¼ 0.002), higher creatinine (P ¼ 0.01) and DN (P ¼ 0.015) were independent risk factors for mortality. Conclusions. The most frequent cause of NDRD is NAS. Elderly patients with microhaematuria and the absence of DR are the ones at risk for NDRD. Patients with DN presented worse renal prognosis and higher mortality than those with NDRD. These results suggest that in some patients with diabetes, kidney biopsy may be useful for an accurate renal diagnosis and subsequently treatment and prognosis

Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?

[EN] Academic spin-offs (ASOs) help universities transfer knowledge or technology through business projects developed by academic staff. This investigation aims at analyzing the critical factors for spin-off creation at universities operating in crisis-raven, entrepreneurship-unfriendly environments. Such factors revolve around four types of resources: environmental, institutional, organizational, and personal. Focusing on a Southern European context, as an example of an unfriendly environment affected by economic crisis, an entrepreneurial university (the Technical University of Valencia in Spain, UPV) is our research setting. Through a case study approach, we examine the potential of UPV as a springboard for ASOs. Our results show an adverse local environment, a rather favorable influence of institutional and organizational drivers, and a mixed role of personal factors. Our findings illustrate that UPV consistently supports spin-off creation due to a greater (rather positive) reflexivity from its institutional, organizational and personal resources than the (negative) imprinting of the unfriendly environment. This helps counter-balance the structural unfriendliness for academic entrepreneurship, and trigger a crisis-led risk-taking attitude by academic staff. Hence, UPV should continue with its current strategy of supporting academic entrepreneurship, and might transfer best practices to other universities also affected by unfavorable environmental conditions. Generally speaking, we would advise universities facing adverse circumstances to develop rules and mechanisms for academic entrepreneurship, carefully revise and improve malfunctions, and become involved throughout the whole process of spin-off development. All in all, our study advances understanding of how the different drivers for ASO creation can be revamped by universities located in unfriendly environments, having in mind the key role that universities play in fostering social and economic development through academic entrepreneurship in such environments.The authors would like to thank the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant PAID-06-12-0916), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant ECO2011-29863), for their financial support for this research.Seguí-Mas, E.; Oltra, V.; Tormo-Carbó, G.; Sarrión Viñes, F. (2017). Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 1-42. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0478-zS142Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41, 757–774.Alemany, L. (2011). Libro blanco de la iniciativa emprendedora en España. Resource document. ISEAD. http://idl.isead.edu.es:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/859/1/658ALElib.pdf . Accessed 31 October 2015.Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017. Resource document. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html . Accesed 15 August 2017.Ashcroft, B., Holden, D., & Low, K. (2004). Potential entrepreneurs and the self employment choice decision. In Strathclyde Discussion papers in Economics, 4–16. Glasglow: University of Strathclyde.Autio, E., & Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus nonentrepreneurial technologists: Analysis of motivational triggering factors. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6, 315–328.Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.Bonnacorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41, 837–863.Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 943–959.CampusHabitat5U (2017). International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://campushabitat5u.es/?lang=en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The chase of academic spin-offs companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 329–339.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: IAU Press.Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.Cohen, M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications.De Cleyn, S. H., Braet, J., & Klofsten, M. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.Doutriaux, J., & Peterman, D. (1982). Technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Babson Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.European Commission (2017). Erasmus 2013–14. Top 500 higher education institutions receiving Erasmus students. Resource document. EC. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/statistics/2014/erasmus-receiving-institutions_en.pdf Accessed 5 October 2017.Eurovoc (2017). Mutilingual Thesaurus of the European Union. Resource document. http://eurovoc.europa.eu Accessed 03 February 2017.Franzoni, C. & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents and spinoffs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. CESPRI, Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi”. Working Paper No. 80.Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: An empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41, 865–885.Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706.Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: The merging European Evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “What” and “How” of the case Study Rigor: Three Strategies based on Published Work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.Gómez Gras, J. M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Mira Solves, I., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Sancho Azuar, J. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 187–198.Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.Güemes, J.J. (2011), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Informe GEM España 2010”. Resource document. GEM España. http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/616. Accessed 15 January 2015 .Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hülsbeck, M., & Pickavé, E. N. (2014). Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for Germany. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 121–138.INE (2016). INEbase: Operaciones estadísticas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National [Spanish] Statistical Institute). Resource document. INE. http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm . Accessed 2 July 2016.Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, 1–11.Kroll, H. (2009). Demonstrating the instrumentality of motivation oriented approaches for the explanation of academic spin-off formation—an application based on the Chinese case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 97–116.LAEI (2013). Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de Apoyo a Emprendedores y su Internacionalización (‘Act of Support to Entrepreneurs and their Internationalization’). Government of Spain, 27 September. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/09/28/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-10074.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.Lam, A., & De Campos, A. (2015). Content to be sad’ or ‘runaway apprentice’? The psychological contract and career agency of young scientists in the entrepreneurial university. Human Relations, 68(5), 811–841.LCTI (2011). Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (‘Science, Technology and Innovation Act’). Government of Spain, 1 June. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/06/02/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-9617.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.León-Darder, F. (2016). La internacionalització de l’empresa valenciana. In E. Seguí-Mas (Ed.), Una nova via per a l’empresa valenciana (pp. 61–80). Catarroja: Editorial Afers & Fundació Nexe.LES (2011). Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible (‘Sustainable Economy Act’). Government of Spain, 4 March, Resource document. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/03/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-4117.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016 .Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Environmental hostility and firm behavior – An empirical examination of new technology-based firms on science parks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 386–406.Link, N., & Scott, T. (2005). Opening the ivory’s tower door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.LOMLOU (2007). Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2011, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades (‘Act of Modification of the University Act’). Government of Spain, 12 April. Resource document. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/04/13/pdfs/A16241-16260.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).LOU (2001). Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de Universidades (‘University Act’). Government of Spain, 21 December. Resource document: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2001/12/24/pdfs/A49400-49425.pdf . Accessed 11 March 2016.Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.Martínez Carrascal, C. & Mulino Ríos, M. (2014). La evolución del crédito bancario a las empresas españolas según su tamaño. Un análisis basado en la explotación conjunta de la información de la CIR y de la CBI, Boletín Económico - Banco de España, Enero (January), pp. 117–125.Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Smith, A. R. (2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 11–28.MIET (Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism) (2012). Estadísticas Pyme. Evolución e indicadores. No. 10″, Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/ESTADISTICAS_PYME_N10_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016 .Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2008). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.Morales-Gualdrón, S. Y., Gutiérrez-Gracias, & Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: A multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, 301–317.Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur, 31, 909–936.Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The Medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 71–91.Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012a). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.Mosey, S., Noke, H., & Binks, M. (2012b). The influence of human and social capital upon the entrepreneurial intentions and destinations of academics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 893–910.Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171–197.Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001a). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of Bayle-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001b). Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characyeristics of US university Patents after the Bayle-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.O’Shea, R., Allen, J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Morse, K., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.Ortín, P., Salas, V., Trujillo, M.V., & Vendrell, F. (2007). El spin-off universitario en España como modelo de creación de empresas intensivas en tecnología. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Secretaría General de Industria. Dirección General de Política de la Pyme. Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/Informe spinnoff.pdf . Accessed 2 October 2016.Papaoikonomou, E., Segarra, P., & Li, X. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the context of crisis: Identifying barriers and proposing strategies. International Advances in Economic Research, 18, 111–119.Piperopoulos, P., & Piperopoulos, G. (2010). Is Greece finally on the right path toward entrepreneurship, innovation, and business clusters? International Journal of Public Administration, 33(1), 55–59.Powers, B., & McDougall, P. (2005). University startup formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.Red OTRI (2016). Informe de la Encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia 2014 de las universidades españolas. Resource document. http://www.redotriuniversidades.net/index.php/informa-encuesta/6-encuesta-redotri/informa-encuesta-2014/download . Accessed 22 June 2016.Redero San-Román, M. (2002). Origen y desarrollo de la universidad franquista. Studia Zamorensia, 6, 337–352.Rodríguez-Gulías, M. J., Rodeiro-Pazos, D., & Fernández-López, S. (2017). The effect of university and regional knowledge spillovers on firms’ performance: an analysis of the Spanish USOs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 191–209.Rodríguez-San Pedro, L.E. (2014). Las universidades españolas en su contexto historic. Resource document. Universia. http://universidades.universia.es/universidades-de-pais/historia-de-universidades/historia-universidad-espanola/pasado-reciente/pasado-reciente-multiplicidad-regimen-autonomico.html . Accessed 28 July 2015.Samsom, K., & Gurdon, M. (1990). Entrepreneurial scientist: Organizational performance in scientist-started high technology firms. Forest Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 519–543.Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 63–76.Soler i Marco, V. (2009). Creixement i canvi estructural. In V. Soler (Ed.), Economia espanyola i del País Valencià. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10.Tech Transfer UPV FCR (2016). Air Nostrum, Caixa Popular e IVI entran en el fondo de la UPV. Resource document. TTUPV FCR. http://www.techtransferupv.com/noticias/air-nostrum-caixa-popular-e-ivi-entran-en-el-fondo-de-la-upv/ (4 April) Accessed 10 July 2016.The Times Higher Education (2017). 100 Under 50 Ranking 2017. Resource document. THE. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/young-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats . Accessed 15 august 2017.UPV (2007). Instituto IDEAS 15 aniversario (1992–2007). Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/menu_urlv.html?http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/info/memoria15a%F1os.pdf . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2011). Corporación empresarial. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-4904-corporacion-emp-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2014). Plan de emprendimiento global. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-6846-plan-de-emprend-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2015). Jornadas de Puertas Abiertas 2015–16. Resource document. UPV. www.upv.es/contenidos/ORIENTA/info/jpa_ciclos_2015-16.ppt . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2017a). Spin-Off UPV. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/I2T/info/891434normalc.html . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017b). Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación. Parque Científico en Red de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Quienes Somos. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://cpi.upv.es/quienes-somos/presentacion . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017c). Servicio de Promoción y Apoyo a la Investigación, la Innovación y la Transferencia. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://i2t.webs.upv.es/i2t/presentacion.php. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV. (2017d). Tech Transfer UPV. UPV: Resource document http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-8355-tech-transfer-u-es.html. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV (2017e). Mission statement, vision and values. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/organizacion/la-institucion/misionvisionvalores-plan-upv-en.html Accessed 17 October 2017.Vargas Vasserot, C. (2012). Las spin-offs académicas y su posible configuración como empresas de economía social. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 107, 186–205.VLC/Campus (2017). VLC/Campus. Valencia, International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://www.vlc-campus.com/en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18–21.Willoughby, M., Talon, J., Millet, J., & Ayats, C. (2013). University services for fostering creativity in hi-tech firms. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 1103–1116.Wright, M., & Mosey, S. (2012). Strategic entrepreneurship, resource orchestration and growing spin-offs from universities. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 911–927.Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.Yusof, M., & Jain, K. J. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 81–86

Genome-Wide Identification of Alternative Splice Forms Down-Regulated by Nonsense-Mediated mRNA Decay in Drosophila

Alternative mRNA splicing adds a layer of regulation to the expression of thousands of genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Not all alternative splicing results in functional protein; it can also yield mRNA isoforms with premature stop codons that are degraded by the nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) pathway. This coupling of alternative splicing and NMD provides a mechanism for gene regulation that is highly conserved in mammals. NMD is also active in Drosophila, but its effect on the repertoire of alternative splice forms has been unknown, as has the mechanism by which it recognizes targets. Here, we have employed a custom splicing-sensitive microarray to globally measure the effect of alternative mRNA processing and NMD on Drosophila gene expression. We have developed a new algorithm to infer the expression change of each mRNA isoform of a gene based on the microarray measurements. This method is of general utility for interpreting splicing-sensitive microarrays and high-throughput sequence data. Using this approach, we have identified a high-confidence set of 45 genes where NMD has a differential effect on distinct alternative isoforms, including numerous RNA–binding and ribosomal proteins. Coupled alternative splicing and NMD decrease expression of these genes, which may in turn have a downstream effect on expression of other genes. The NMD–affected genes are enriched for roles in translation and mitosis, perhaps underlying the previously observed role of NMD factors in cell cycle progression. Our results have general implications for understanding the NMD mechanism in fly. Most notably, we found that the NMD–target mRNAs had significantly longer 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) than the nontarget isoforms of the same genes, supporting a role for 3′ UTR length in the recognition of NMD targets in fly

Variability of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease key epidemiological data in Europe: systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is predicted to become a major cause of death worldwide. Studies on the variability in the estimates of key epidemiological parameters of COPD may contribute to better assessment of the burden of this disease and to helpful guidance for future research and public policies. In the present study, we examined differences in the main epidemiological characteristics of COPD derived from studies across countries of the European Union, focusing on prevalence, severity, frequency of exacerbations and mortality, as well as on differences between the studies' methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This systematic review was based on a search for the relevant literature in the Science Citation Index database via the Web of Science and on COPD mortality rates issued from national statistics. Analysis was finally based on 65 articles and Eurostat COPD mortality data for 21 European countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Epidemiological characteristics of COPD varied widely from country to country. For example, prevalence estimates ranged between 2.1% and 26.1%, depending on the country, the age group and the methods used. Likewise, COPD mortality rates ranged from 7.2 to 36.1 per 10⁵inhabitants. The methods used to estimate these epidemiological parameters were highly variable in terms of the definition of COPD, severity scales, methods of investigation and target populations. Nevertheless, to a large extent, several recent international guidelines or research initiatives, such as GOLD, BOLD or PLATINO, have boosted a substantial standardization of methodology in data collection and have resulted in the availability of more comparable epidemiological estimates across countries. On the basis of such standardization, severity estimates as well as prevalence estimates present much less variation across countries. The contribution of these recent guidelines and initiatives is outlined, as are the problems remaining in arriving at more accurate COPD epidemiological estimates across European countries.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The accuracy of COPD epidemiological parameters is important for guiding decision making with regard to preventive measures, interventions and patient management in various health care systems. Therefore, the recent initiatives for standardizing data collection should be enhanced to result in COPD epidemiological estimates of improved quality. Moreover, establishing international guidelines for reporting research on COPD may also constitute a major contribution.</p

Study of ψ(2S) production and cold nuclear matter effects in pPb collisions at √ sNN = 5 TeV

The production of ψ(2S) mesons is studied in dimuon final states using proton-lead (pPb) collision data collected by the LHCb detector. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 1.6 nb−1. The nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy of the pPb collisions is (Formula presented.) TeV. The measurement is performed using ψ(2S) mesons with transverse momentum less than 14 GeV/c and rapidity y in the ranges 1.5 &lt; y &lt; 4.0 and −5.0 &lt; y &lt; −2.5 in the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass system. The forward-backward production ratio and the nuclear modification factor are determined for ψ(2S) mesons. Using the production cross-section results of ψ(2S) and J/ψ mesons from b-hadron decays, the (Formula presented.) cross-section in pPb collisions at (Formula presented.) TeV is obtained

Measurements of long-range near-side angular correlations in √sNN = 5 TeV proton-lead collisions in the forward region

Two-particle angular correlations are studied in proton-lead collisions at a nucleon–nucleon centre-of-mass energy of √sNN = 5 TeV , collected with the LHCb detector at the LHC. The analysis is based on data recorded in two beam configurations, in which either the direction of the proton or that of the lead ion is analysed. The correlations are measured in the laboratory system as a function of relative pseudorapidity, Δη, and relative azimuthal angle, Δϕ, for events in different classes of event activity and for different bins of particle transverse momentum. In high-activity events a long-range correlation on the near side, Δ ϕ ≈ 0 , is observed in the pseudorapidity range 2.0 &lt; η &lt; 4.9 . This measurement of long-range correlations on the near side in proton-lead collisions extends previous observations into the forward region up to η = 4.9 . The correlation increases with growing event activity and is found to be more pronounced in the direction of the lead beam. However, the correlation in the direction of the lead and proton beams are found to be compatible when comparing events with similar absolute activity in the direction analysed