A comprehensive overview of genomic imprinting in breast and its deregulation in cancer

Genomic imprinting plays an important role in growth and development. Loss of imprinting (LOI) has been found in cancer, yet systematic studies are impeded by data-analytical challenges. We developed a methodology to detect monoallelically expressed loci without requiring genotyping data, and applied it on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, discovery) and Genotype-Tissue expression project (GTEx, validation) breast tissue RNA-seq data. Here, we report the identification of 30 putatively imprinted genes in breast. In breast cancer (TCGA), HM13 is featured by LOI and expression upregulation, which is linked to DNA demethylation. Other imprinted genes typically demonstrate lower expression in cancer, often associated with copy number variation and aberrant DNA methylation. Downregulation in cancer frequently leads to higher relative expression of the (imperfectly) silenced allele, yet this is not considered canonical LOI given the lack of (absolute) re-expression. In summary, our novel methodology highlights the massive deregulation of imprinting in breast cancer

CubeSpec, A Mission Overview

CubeSpec is an in-orbit demonstration CubeSat mission in the ESA technology programme, developed and funded in Belgium. The goal of the mission is to demonstrate high-spectral-resolution astronomical spectroscopy from a 6-unit CubeSat. The prime science demonstration case for the in-orbit demonstration mission is to unravel the interior of massive stars using asteroseismology by high-cadance monitoring of the variations in spectral line profiles during a few months. The technological challenges are numerous. The 10x20cm aperture telescope and echelle spectrometer have been designed to fit in a 10x10x20cm volume. Under low-Earth orbit thermal variations, maintaining the fast telescope focus and spectrometer alignment is achieved via an athermal design. Straylight rejection and thermal shielding from the Sun and Earth infrared flux is achieved via deploying Earth and Sunshades. The narrow spectrometer slit requires arcsecond-level pointing stability using a performant 3-axis wheel stabilised attitude control system with star tracker augmented with a fine beam steering mechanism controlled in closed loop with a guiding sensor. The high cadence, long-term monitoring requirement of the mission poses specific requirements on the orbit and operational scenarios to enable the required sky visibility. CubeSpec is starting the implementation phase, with a planned launch early 2024

The Mid-infrared Instrument for JWST and Its In-flight Performance

The Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) extends the reach of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to 28.5 μm. It provides subarcsecond-resolution imaging, high sensitivity coronagraphy, and spectroscopy at resolutions of λ/Δλ ∼ 100-3500, with the high-resolution mode employing an integral field unit to provide spatial data cubes. The resulting broad suite of capabilities will enable huge advances in studies over this wavelength range. This overview describes the history of acquiring this capability for JWST. It discusses the basic attributes of the instrument optics, the detector arrays, and the cryocooler that keeps everything at approximately 7 K. It gives a short description of the data pipeline and of the instrument performance demonstrated during JWST commissioning. The bottom line is that the telescope and MIRI are both operating to the standards set by pre-launch predictions, and all of the MIRI capabilities are operating at, or even a bit better than, the level that had been expected. The paper is also designed to act as a roadmap to more detailed papers on different aspects of MIRI

The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning

This paper characterizes the actual science performance of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as determined from the six month commissioning period. We summarize the performance of the spacecraft, telescope, science instruments, and ground system, with an emphasis on differences from pre-launch expectations. Commissioning has made clear that JWST is fully capable of achieving the discoveries for which it was built. Moreover, almost across the board, the science performance of JWST is better than expected; in most cases, JWST will go deeper faster than expected. The telescope and instrument suite have demonstrated the sensitivity, stability, image quality, and spectral range that are necessary to transform our understanding of the cosmos through observations spanning from near-earth asteroids to the most distant galaxies.Comment: 5th version as accepted to PASP; 31 pages, 18 figures; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/acb29

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure

Het bewijs door een schriftelijke getuigenverklaring. Commentaar bij de wet van 16 juli 2012

Bespreking van de wet van 16 juli 2012 tot wijziging van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en het Gerechtelijk Wetboek, met het oog op een vereenvoudiging van de regels van de burgerlijke rechtspleging. Inhoud: I. Inleiding. II. Een overzicht van de nieuwe regeling inzake de schriftelijke getuigenverklaring: a) De ratio legis; b) De toelaatbaarheid; c) De vormvereisten; d) De bewijswaarde; e) De afdwinging van de onderzoeksmaatregel. III. Toepassing in het familierecht: a) Bewijs van de onherstelbare ontwrichting van het huwelijk; b) Bewijs van de zware fout als exceptie tegen vordering tot onderhoudsuitkering. IV. Conclusie.status: publishe

„Im Westen nichts Neues”? Over diglossie, diaglossie en tussentaal in West-Vlaanderen.

In Flanders at large, the astonishing pace of dialect loss over the past four decades has created a rather complicated linguistic situation. Dialect loss deprived people of the natural anti-pole of the standard language. By their sheer existence, dialects used to offer a sort of safeguard for the existence and the function of that standard language. Obviously, the repercussions of such a dramatic change can differ from region to region.In the past, the linguistic distance between dialect and standard language was huge and both were looked upon as two really distinct varieties; this made the use of one instead of the other virtually impossible. Today, the linguistic and, most of all, attitudinal distance is considerably smaller, and, as a result, many people see no inconvenience in using the intermediate varieties in situations where actually the use of the standard would be or used to be more appropriate. In this article we wanted to find out whether there is some truth in the general feeling that the linguistic situation in West Flanders is decisively different from the rest of the country in that the changes which had occurred elsewhere did not manifest themselves in the same way here, in particular as far as the so-called ‘tussentaal’ intermediate variety is concerned. Dialect loss put an end to the diglossic situation which used to exist almost everywhere in Flanders. Diglossia requires the use of different language varieties in distinct communicative situations, e.g. dialect in an informal, and the standard language in a formal situation. There is ample evidence that where diglossia exists, the need for and the use of intermediate varieties is significantly lower than elsewhere. Five consecutive surveys between 1979 and 2001 of the situation in West Flanders, the only province where the pace of dialect loss is still rather low, and where the diglossic situation has persisted until the present day, show that the use West Flemings make of dialects, standard language and tussentaal as well as their attitudes toward those varieties are different from the rest of the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium. New, recent data corroborate those findings. In one of the very first enquiries to produce quantifiable data, Vandekerckhove 2004 and 2005 established that speakers from Brabant and Limburg do use tussentaal considerably more often than West Flemings do, the latter also being the only group where in specific situations the younger speakers use the tussentaal-features less often than the older ones. According to De Caluwe’s 2009 survey, based on the Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, the lowest amount of tussentaal-features is, here again, to be found with West Flemings 16.4%, all others totaling 60% and over. Both Geeraert and Ghyselen examine attitudes. They confirm that in West-Flanders the acceptance of tussentaal is considerably lower than with the respondents from all other provinces. All of this confirms Willemyns’s 2005 hypothesis that tussentaal is thriving precisely in those regions where dialect loss has occurred earlier and more intensely, whereas in those regions where a diglossic situation continues to exist, tussentaal remains on a lower level.Summarizing we see how the most conclusive evidence in the overall tussentaal-debate comes from West-Flanders indeed. Not only are the attitudes of the West-Flemings toward the intermediate variety significantly more negative than elsewhere, they do indeed use standard language in situations in which others prefer Tussentaal. Also, there is ample evidence that younger speakers are more opposed to Tussentaal than older ones still. Even so, we see that in West-Flanders the situation is changing as well. Whereas until recently it used to be a homogeneous province, linguistically speaking, there are significant signs that the homogeneity is threatened and that the pace differs in various parts of the territory and depends on variables such as social class and education, age etc., as well as on geographic parameters and the urban-rural opposition. Whether those changes go in the direction of the “inland situation” remains to be seen, but it is a safe assumption. At any rate, it is almost certain that the “interior” is not going to follow the “good example” West-Flanders is setting as far as the use or rather rejection of tussentaal is concerned.In Flanders at large, the astonishing pace of dialect loss over the past four decades has created a rather complicated linguistic situation. Dialect loss deprived people of the natural anti-pole of the standard language. By their sheer existence, dialects used to offer a sort of safeguard for the existence and the function of that standard language. Obviously, the repercussions of such a dramatic change can differ from region to region.In the past, the linguistic distance between dialect and standard language was huge and both were looked upon as two really distinct varieties; this made the use of one instead of the other virtually impossible. Today, the linguistic and, most of all, attitudinal distance is considerably smaller, and, as a result, many people see no inconvenience in using the intermediate varieties in situations where actually the use of the standard would be or used to be more appropriate. In this article we wanted to find out whether there is some truth in the general feeling that the linguistic situation in West Flanders is decisively different from the rest of the country in that the changes which had occurred elsewhere did not manifest themselves in the same way here, in particular as far as the so-called ‘tussentaal’ intermediate variety is concerned. Dialect loss put an end to the diglossic situation which used to exist almost everywhere in Flanders. Diglossia requires the use of different language varieties in distinct communicative situations, e.g. dialect in an informal, and the standard language in a formal situation. There is ample evidence that where diglossia exists, the need for and the use of intermediate varieties is significantly lower than elsewhere. Five consecutive surveys between 1979 and 2001 of the situation in West Flanders, the only province where the pace of dialect loss is still rather low, and where the diglossic situation has persisted until the present day, show that the use West Flemings make of dialects, standard language and tussentaal as well as their attitudes toward those varieties are different from the rest of the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium. New, recent data corroborate those findings. In one of the very first enquiries to produce quantifiable data, Vandekerckhove 2004 and 2005 established that speakers from Brabant and Limburg do use tussentaal considerably more often than West Flemings do, the latter also being the only group where in specific situations the younger speakers use the tussentaal-features less often than the older ones. According to De Caluwe’s 2009 survey, based on the Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, the lowest amount of tussentaal-features is, here again, to be found with West Flemings 16.4%, all others totaling 60% and over. Both Geeraert and Ghyselen examine attitudes. They confirm that in West-Flanders the acceptance of tussentaal is considerably lower than with the respondents from all other provinces. All of this confirms Willemyns’s 2005 hypothesis that tussentaal is thriving precisely in those regions where dialect loss has occurred earlier and more intensely, whereas in those regions where a diglossic situation continues to exist, tussentaal remains on a lower level.Summarizing we see how the most conclusive evidence in the overall tussentaal-debate comes from West-Flanders indeed. Not only are the attitudes of the West-Flemings toward the intermediate variety significantly more negative than elsewhere, they do indeed use standard language in situations in which others prefer Tussentaal. Also, there is ample evidence that younger speakers are more opposed to Tussentaal than older ones still. Even so, we see that in West-Flanders the situation is changing as well. Whereas until recently it used to be a homogeneous province, linguistically speaking, there are significant signs that the homogeneity is threatened and that the pace differs in various parts of the territory and depends on variables such as social class and education, age etc., as well as on geographic parameters and the urban-rural opposition. Whether those changes go in the direction of the “inland situation” remains to be seen, but it is a safe assumption. At any rate, it is almost certain that the “interior” is not going to follow the “good example” West-Flanders is setting as far as the use or rather rejection of tussentaal is concerned.In Flanders at large, the astonishing pace of dialect loss over the past four decades has created a rather complicated linguistic situation. Dialect loss deprived people of the natural anti-pole of the standard language. By their sheer existence, dialects used to offer a sort of safeguard for the existence and the function of that standard language. Obviously, the repercussions of such a dramatic change can differ from region to region.In the past, the linguistic distance between dialect and standard language was huge and both were looked upon as two really distinct varieties; this made the use of one instead of the other virtually impossible. Today, the linguistic and, most of all, attitudinal distance is considerably smaller, and, as a result, many people see no inconvenience in using the intermediate varieties in situations where actually the use of the standard would be or used to be more appropriate. In this article we wanted to find out whether there is some truth in the general feeling that the linguistic situation in West Flanders is decisively different from the rest of the country in that the changes which had occurred elsewhere did not manifest themselves in the same way here, in particular as far as the so-called ‘tussentaal’ intermediate variety is concerned. Dialect loss put an end to the diglossic situation which used to exist almost everywhere in Flanders. Diglossia requires the use of different language varieties in distinct communicative situations, e.g. dialect in an informal, and the standard language in a formal situation. There is ample evidence that where diglossia exists, the need for and the use of intermediate varieties is significantly lower than elsewhere. Five consecutive surveys between 1979 and 2001 of the situation in West Flanders, the only province where the pace of dialect loss is still rather low, and where the diglossic situation has persisted until the present day, show that the use West Flemings make of dialects, standard language and tussentaal as well as their attitudes toward those varieties are different from the rest of the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium. New, recent data corroborate those findings. In one of the very first enquiries to produce quantifiable data, Vandekerckhove 2004 and 2005 established that speakers from Brabant and Limburg do use tussentaal considerably more often than West Flemings do, the latter also being the only group where in specific situations the younger speakers use the tussentaal-features less often than the older ones. According to De Caluwe’s 2009 survey, based on the Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, the lowest amount of tussentaal-features is, here again, to be found with West Flemings 16.4%, all others totaling 60% and over. Both Geeraert and Ghyselen examine attitudes. They confirm that in West-Flanders the acceptance of tussentaal is considerably lower than with the respondents from all other provinces. All of this confirms Willemyns’s 2005 hypothesis that tussentaal is thriving precisely in those regions where dialect loss has occurred earlier and more intensely, whereas in those regions where a diglossic situation continues to exist, tussentaal remains on a lower level.Summarizing we see how the most conclusive evidence in the overall tussentaal-debate comes from West-Flanders indeed. Not only are the attitudes of the West-Flemings toward the intermediate variety significantly more negative than elsewhere, they do indeed use standard language in situations in which others prefer Tussentaal. Also, there is ample evidence that younger speakers are more opposed to Tussentaal than older ones still. Even so, we see that in West-Flanders the situation is changing as well. Whereas until recently it used to be a homogeneous province, linguistically speaking, there are significant signs that the homogeneity is threatened and that the pace differs in various parts of the territory and depends on variables such as social class and education, age etc., as well as on geographic parameters and the urban-rural opposition. Whether those changes go in the direction of the “inland situation” remains to be seen, but it is a safe assumption. At any rate, it is almost certain that the “interior” is not going to follow the “good example” West-Flanders is setting as far as the use or rather rejection of tussentaal is concerned