Modeling the Subsurface Structure of Sunspots

While sunspots are easily observed at the solar surface, determining their subsurface structure is not trivial. There are two main hypotheses for the subsurface structure of sunspots: the monolithic model and the cluster model. Local helioseismology is the only means by which we can investigate subphotospheric structure. However, as current linear inversion techniques do not yet allow helioseismology to probe the internal structure with sufficient confidence to distinguish between the monolith and cluster models, the development of physically realistic sunspot models are a priority for helioseismologists. This is because they are not only important indicators of the variety of physical effects that may influence helioseismic inferences in active regions, but they also enable detailed assessments of the validity of helioseismic interpretations through numerical forward modeling. In this paper, we provide a critical review of the existing sunspot models and an overview of numerical methods employed to model wave propagation through model sunspots. We then carry out an helioseismic analysis of the sunspot in Active Region 9787 and address the serious inconsistencies uncovered by \citeauthor{gizonetal2009}~(\citeyear{gizonetal2009,gizonetal2009a}). We find that this sunspot is most probably associated with a shallow, positive wave-speed perturbation (unlike the traditional two-layer model) and that travel-time measurements are consistent with a horizontal outflow in the surrounding moat.Comment: 73 pages, 19 figures, accepted by Solar Physic

Withdrawal of maintenance therapy for cytomegalovirus retinitis in AIDS patients exhibiting immunological response to HAART

BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), CMV retinitis was a common complication in patients with advanced HIV disease and the therapy was well established; it consisted of an induction phase to control the infection with ganciclovir, followed by a lifelong maintenance phase to avoid or delay relapses. METHODS: To determine the safety of CMV maintenance therapy withdrawal in patients with immune recovery after HAART, 35 patients with treated CMV retinitis, on maintenance therapy, with CD4+ cell count greater than 100 cells/mm³ for at least three months, but almost all patients presented these values for more than six months and viral load < 30000 copies/mL, were prospectively evaluated for the recurrence of CMV disease. Maintenance therapy was withdrawal at inclusion, and patients were monitored for at least 48 weeks by clinical and ophthalmologic evaluations, and by determination of CMV viremia markers (antigenemia-pp65), CD4+/CD8+ counts and plasma HIV RNA levels. Lymphoproliferative assays were performed on 26/35 patients. RESULTS: From 35 patients included, only one had confirmed reactivation of CMV retinitis, at day 120 of follow-up. No patient returned positive antigenemia tests. No correlation between lymphoproliferative assays and CD4+ counts was observed. CONCLUSION: CMV retinitis maintenance therapy discontinuation is safe for those patients with quantitative immune recovery after HAART

Epistatic Gene-Based Interaction Analyses for Glaucoma in eMERGE and NEIGHBOR Consortium

10.1371/journal.pgen.1006186PLoS Genetics129e100618