\u3ci\u3eDow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro:\u3c/i\u3e The Problems with the Current Application of Forum Non Conveniens: Is Texas\u27 Solution a Sensible One or an Open Invitation to the World to Bring Suit There?

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118886#pone.0118886.g002" target="_blank">Fig. 2</a> displays representative FISH images and the radial distribution for CTs 1–8. Note FISH experiments were dual color, for simplicity only a single fluorochrome (CT) is displayed in each lymphocyte (the second fluorochome was removed by deselecting either the red or green channel). Moving from left to right the chromosome number is indicated followed by a representative FISH image for the CT and four histograms. The X-axis for all histograms represents each of the five rings of equal area (1–5, nuclear interior to nuclear periphery [left to right]). The Y-axis for all histograms represents the proportion of fluorescence (%). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). The first, second and third histogram display the radial distribution for each CT in control, H₂O₂ and UVB exposed lymphocytes, respectively. Each of these histograms contain six bars for the five rings, corresponding to each of the six subjects (1 to 6, left to right). The fourth histogram displays the average radial distribution for the six subjects in unexposed (blue), H₂O₂ (red) and UVB (green) exposed lymphocytes. Roman numerals indicate significant inter-individual variations in radial distributions (p<0.05) between subjects in control lymphocytes: I- CT3 subject 5 (different to subjects 1 and 6).</p

Non-random or random chromosome position status for all subjects and conditions.

<p>Each colored block represents the status of the chromosome position for all six subjects and three tested conditions following analysis of 100 cells. Chromosome territory position was determined to be random or non-random by the χ² goodness of fit test (df:4). White blocks indicate non-random positioning (p<0.05), whereas grey blocks indicates random positioning. Data for chromosome Y is provided only for the two male subjects. The control (unexposed) condition is abbreviated in the table (Ctrl).</p

Chromosomal aberrations observed following exposure to genotoxic agents.

<p>Panels A-F provides representative examples of karyotypes and different chromosomal aberrations observed after genotoxic exposure. Panels A-C depict individual metaphase spreads. Panels D-F provides examples of individual chromosome pairs with specific chromosome aberrations (magnified). A description of each panel follows: (A) Normal 46, XX metaphase spread; (B) Metaphase spread displaying distorted pulverized chromosomes with altered morphology, indistinct banding pattern and indistinguishable centromeres (several examples are indicated by arrows); (C) Metaphase spread demonstrating premature sister-chromatid separation (e.g. black arrow) and premature centromere separation (e.g. gray arrow); (D) Gap in chromosome 6; (E) Dicentric chromosome 3 at band 3p21; and (F) Chromatid break in the X chromosome at band Xq21.</p

Chromosome repositioning events following exposure to genotoxic agents.

<p>All four panels (A-D) depict the different types of CT repositioning observed in human lymphocytes following exposure to genotoxic agents H₂O₂ and UVB compared to control (unexposed) cells. In all four panels the X axis shows the five shells of equal area from the nuclear interior to the nuclear periphery (left to right) and the Y axis shows the percentage of fluorescence for each CT that lies within each of the five shells after analysis of 100 cells. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Examples for each of the four different categories of statistically significant chromosome repositioning described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118886#pone.0118886.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> are provided: (A) “less interior” localization of chromosome 17 in subject 5 following UVB exposure compared to control cells; (B) interior to intermediate positioning of chromosome 6 in subject 1 following H₂O₂ exposure; (C) interior to peripheral positioning of chromosome 4 in subject 5 following H₂O₂ exposure; and (D) intermediate to peripheral positioning of chromosome 7 in subject 3 following H₂O₂ exposure.</p

Radial distribution for chromosomes 9–16 in six subjects in unexposed, H₂O₂ and UVB exposed lymphocytes.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118886#pone.0118886.g003" target="_blank">Fig. 3</a> displays representative FISH images and the radial distribution for CTs 9–16. As in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118886#pone.0118886.g002" target="_blank">Fig. 2</a> moving from left to right the chromosome number is indicated followed by a representative FISH image for the CT and four histograms. Each histogram displays the proportion of fluorescence (%) from the nuclear interior toward the nuclear periphery (left to right). The first, second and third histogram displays the radial distribution for each CT in control, H₂O₂ and UVB exposed lymphocytes, respectively for each of the six subjects (1 to 6, left to right). The fourth histogram displays the average radial distribution for the six subjects in unexposed (blue), H₂O₂ (red) and UVB (green) exposed lymphocytes. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Roman numerals indicate significant inter-individual variations in radial distributions (p<0.05) between subjects in control lymphocytes: II- CT10 subjects 1, 4 and 5 (different to subjects 2, 3 and 6); III- CT12 subject 3 (different to subjects 1 and 5); IV- CT13 subject 6 (different to subject 1); V- CT15 subject 6 (different to subject 4).</p

Statistically significant events of CT repositioning following exposure to H₂O₂ and UVB compared to control unexposed lymphocytes.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118886#pone.0118886.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> includes chromosomes that demonstrated statistically significant events of repositioning (p<0.05) after exposure to H₂O₂ or UVB, compared to unexposed lymphocytes in the same subject. The percentage of fluorescence in each shell was compared between control and exposed lymphocytes and the χ² goodness of fit test deemed whether significant events of CT repositioning occurred. Results are presented on a per subject basis and include the chromosomes involved and the altered positioning observed in the exposed lymphocytes compared to unexposed lymphocytes. The hyphen (-) denotes no significant event of repositioning observed for the exposure condition.</p><p>Statistically significant events of CT repositioning following exposure to H₂O₂ and UVB compared to control unexposed lymphocytes.</p

Barriers to dog rabies vaccination during an urban rabies outbreak: Qualitative findings from Arequipa, Peru - Fig 1

<p>Urban (A) and peri-urban communities (B) where FG were conducted.</p

Participant characteristics.

<p>Participant characteristics.</p

Summary of factors that influence canine rabies vaccination uptake.

<p>Summary of factors that influence canine rabies vaccination uptake.</p

Community dwellers, not focus group participants, with their dogs at a rabies vaccination point in Mariano Melgar, February 2016.

<p>Note harness made of plastic bag (A) and lack of leash and holding dog by ears (B).</p