THE AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE

The evidentiary basis of the currently accepted classification of living amphibians is discussed and shown not to warrant the degree of authority conferred on it by use and tradition. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed to correct the deficiencies of the old one. This new taxonomy is based on the largest phylogenetic analysis of living Amphibia so far accomplished. We combined the comparative anatomical character evidence of Haas (2003) with DNA sequences from the mitochondrial transcription unit H1 (12S and 16S ribosomal RNA and tRNAValine genes, ø 2,400 bp of mitochondrial sequences) and the nuclear genes histone H3, rhodopsin, tyrosinase, and seven in absentia, and the large ribosomal subunit 28S (ø 2,300 bp of nuclear sequences; ca. 1.8 million base pairs; x¯ 5 3.7 kb/terminal). The dataset includes 532 terminals sampled from 522 species representative of the global diversity of amphibians as well as seven of the closest living relatives of amphibians for outgroup comparisons. The primary purpose of our taxon sampling strategy was to provide strong tests of the monophyly of all ‘‘family-group’’ taxa. All currently recognized nominal families and subfamilies were sampled, with the exception of Protohynobiinae (Hynobiidae). Many of the currently recognized genera were also sampled. Although we discuss the monophyly of genera, and provide remedies for nonmonophyly where possible, we also make recommendations for future research. A parsimony analysis was performed under Direct Optimization, which simultaneously optimizes nucleotide homology (alignment) and tree costs, using the same set of assumptions throughout the analysis. Multiple search algorithms were run in the program POY over a period of seven months of computing time on the AMNH Parallel Computing Cluster. Results demonstrate that the following major taxonomic groups, as currently recognized, are nonmonophyletic: Ichthyophiidae (paraphyletic with respect to Uraeotyphlidae), Caeciliidae (paraphyletic with respect to Typhlonectidae and Scolecomorphidae), Salamandroidea (paraphyletic with respect to Sirenidae), Leiopelmatanura (paraphyletic with respect to Ascaphidae), Discoglossanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae), Mesobatrachia (paraphyletic with respect to Neobatrachia), Pipanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae and Discoglossidae/Alytidae), Hyloidea (in the sense of containing Heleophrynidae; paraphyletic with respect to Ranoidea), Leptodactylidae (polyphyletic, with Batrachophrynidae forming the sister taxon of Myobatrachidae 1 Limnodynastidae, and broadly paraphyletic with respect to Hemiphractinae, Rhinodermatidae, Hylidae, Allophrynidae, Centrolenidae, Brachycephalidae, Dendrobatidae, and Bufonidae), Microhylidae (polyphyletic, with Brevicipitinae being the sister taxon of Hemisotidae), Microhylinae (poly/paraphyletic with respect to the remaining non-brevicipitine microhylids), Hyperoliidae (para/polyphyletic, with Leptopelinae forming the sister taxon of Arthroleptidae 1 Astylosternidae), Astylosternidae (paraphyletic with respect to Arthroleptinae), Ranidae (paraphyletic with respect to Rhacophoridae and Mantellidae). In addition, many subsidiary taxa are demonstrated to be nonmonophyletic, such as (1) Eleutherodactylus with respect to Brachycephalus; (2) Rana (sensu Dubois, 1992), which is polyphyletic, with various elements falling far from each other on the tree; and (3) Bufo, with respect to several nominal bufonid genera. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed, and the evidence for this is presented to promote further investigation and data acquisition bearing on the evolutionary history of amphibians. The taxonomy provided is consistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). Salient features of the new taxonomy are (1) the three major groups of living amphibians, caecilians/Gymnophiona, salamanders/Caudata, and frogs/Anura, form a monophyletic group, to which we restrict the name Amphibia; (2) Gymnophiona forms the sister taxon of Batrachia (salamanders 1 frogs) and is composed of two groups, Rhinatrematidae and Stegokrotaphia; (3) Stegokrotaphia is composed of two families, Ichthyophiidae (including Uraeotyphlidae) and Caeciliidae (including Scolecomorphidae and Typhlonectidae, which are regarded as subfamilies); (4) Batrachia is a highly corroborated monophyletic group, composed of two taxa, Caudata (salamanders) and Anura (frogs); (5) Caudata is composed of two taxa, Cryptobranchoidei (Cryptobranchidae and Hynobiidae) and Diadectosalamandroidei new taxon (all other salamanders); (6) Diadectosalamandroidei is composed of two taxa, Hydatinosalamandroidei new taxon (composed of Perennibranchia and Treptobranchia new taxon) and Plethosalamandroidei new taxon; (7) Perennibranchia is composed of Proteidae and Sirenidae; (8) Treptobranchia new taxon is composed of two taxa, Ambystomatidae (including Dicamptodontidae) and Salamandridae; (9) Plethosalamandroidei new taxon is composed of Rhyacotritonidae and Xenosalamandroidei new taxon; (10) Xenosalamandroidei is composed of Plethodontidae and Amphiumidae; (11) Anura is monophyletic and composed of two clades, Leiopelmatidae (including Ascaphidae) and Lalagobatrachia new taxon (all other frogs); (12) Lalagobatrachia is composed of two clades, Xenoanura (Pipidae and Rhinophrynidae) and Sokolanura new taxon (all other lalagobatrachians); (13) Bombinatoridae and Alytidae (former Discoglossidae) are each others’ closest relatives and in a clade called Costata, which, excluding Leiopelmatidae and Xenoanura, forms the sister taxon of all other frogs, Acosmanura; (14) Acosmanura is composed of two clades, Anomocoela (5 Pelobatoidea of other authors) and Neobatrachia; (15) Anomocoela contains Pelobatoidea (Pelobatidae and Megophryidae) and Pelodytoidea (Pelodytidae and Scaphiopodidae), and forms the sister taxon of Neobatrachia, together forming Acosmanura; (16) Neobatrachia is composed of two clades, Heleophrynidae, and all other neobatrachians, Phthanobatrachia new taxon; (17) Phthanobatrachia is composed of two major units, Hyloides and Ranoides; (18) Hyloides comprises Sooglossidae (including Nasikabatrachidae) and Notogaeanura new taxon (the remaining hyloids); (19) Notogaeanura contains two taxa, Australobatrachia new taxon and Nobleobatrachia new taxon; (20) Australobatrachia is a clade composed of Batrachophrynidae and its sister taxon, Myobatrachoidea (Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae), which forms the sister taxon of all other hyloids, excluding sooglossids; (21) Nobleobatrachia new taxon, is dominated at its base by frogs of a treefrog morphotype, several with intercalary phalangeal cartilages—Hemiphractus (Hemiphractidae) forms the sister taxon of the remaining members of this group, here termed Meridianura new taxon; (22) Meridianura comprises Brachycephalidae (former Eleutherodactylinae 1 Brachycephalus) and Cladophrynia new taxon; (23) Cladophrynia is composed of two groups, Cryptobatrachidae (composed of Cryptobatrachus and Stefania, previously a fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Tinctanura new taxon; (24) Tinctanura is composed of Amphignathodontidae (Gastrotheca and Flectonotus, another fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Athesphatanura new taxon; (25) Athesphatanura is composed of Hylidae (Hylinae, Pelodryadinae, and Phyllomedusinae, and excluding former Hemiphractinae, whose inclusion would have rendered this taxon polyphyletic) and Leptodactyliformes new taxon; (26) Leptodactyliformes is composed of Diphyabatrachia new taxon (composed of Centrolenidae [including Allophryne] and Leptodactylidae, sensu stricto, including Leptodactylus and relatives) and Chthonobatrachia new taxon; (27) Chthonobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Ceratophryidae (which excludes such genera as Odontophrynus and Proceratophrys and includes other taxa, such as Telmatobius) and Hesticobatrachia new taxon; (28) Hesticobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Cycloramphidae (which includes Rhinoderma) and Agastorophrynia new taxon; (29) Agastorophrynia is composed of Bufonidae (which is partially revised) and Dendrobatoidea (Dendrobatidae and Thoropidae); (30) Ranoides new taxon forms the sister taxon of Hyloides and is composed of two major monophyletic components, Allodapanura new taxon (microhylids, hyperoliids, and allies) and Natatanura new taxon (ranids and allies); (31) Allodapanura is composed of Microhylidae (which is partially revised) and Afrobatrachia new taxon; (32) Afrobatrachia is composed of Xenosyneunitanura new taxon (the ‘‘strange-bedfellows’’ Brevicipitidae [formerly in Microhylidae] and Hemisotidae) and a more normal-looking group of frogs, Laurentobatrachia new taxon (Hyperoliidae and Arthroleptidae, which includes Leptopelinae and former Astylosternidae); (33) Natatanura new taxon is composed of two taxa, the African Ptychadenidae and the worldwide Victoranura new taxon; (34) Victoranura is composed of Ceratobatrachidae and Telmatobatrachia new taxon; (35) Telmatobatrachia is composed of Micrixalidae and a worldwide group of ranoids, Ametrobatrachia new taxon; (36) Ametrobatrachia is composed of Africanura new taxon and Saukrobatrachia new taxon; (37) Africanura is composed of two taxa: Phrynobatrachidae (Phrynobatrachus, including Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon as synonyms) and Pyxicephaloidea; (38) Pyxicephaloidea is composed of Petropedetidae (Conraua, Indirana, Arthroleptides, and Petropedetes), and Pyxicephalidae (including a number of African genera, e.g. Amietia [including Afrana], Arthroleptella, Pyxicephalus, Strongylopus, and Tomopterna); and (39) Saukrobatrachia new taxon is the sister taxon of Africanura and is composed of Dicroglossidae and Aglaioanura new taxon, which is, in turn, composed of Rhacophoroidea (Mantellidae and Rhacophoridae) and Ranoidea (Nyctibatrachidae and Ranidae, sensu stricto). Many generic revisions are made either to render a monophyletic taxonomy or to render a taxonomy that illuminates the problems in our understanding of phylogeny, so that future work will be made easier. These revisions are: (1) placement of Ixalotriton and Lineatriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Bolitoglossinae) into the synonymy of Pseudoeurycea, to render a monophyletic Pseudoeurycea; (2) placement of Haideotriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Spelerpinae) into the synonymy of Eurycea, to render a monophyletic Eurycea; (3) placement of Nesomantis (Anura: Sooglossidae) into the synonymy of Sooglossus, to assure a monophyletic Sooglossus; (4) placement of Cyclorana and Nyctimystes (Anura: Hylidae: Pelodryadinae) into Litoria, but retaining Cyclorana as a subgenus, to provide a monophyletic Litoria; (5) partition of ‘‘Limnodynastes’’ (Anura: Limnodynastidae) into Limnodynastes and Opisthodon to render monophyletic genera; (6) placement of Adenomera, Lithodytes, and Vanzolinius (Anura: Leptodactylidae) into Leptodactylus, to render a monophyletic Leptodactylus; (7) partition of ‘‘Eleutherodactylus’’ (Anura: Brachycephalidae) into Craugastor, ‘‘Eleutherodactylus’’, ‘‘Euhyas’’, ‘‘Pelorius’’, and Syrrhophus to outline the taxonomic issues relevant to the paraphyly of this nominal taxon to other nominal genera; (8) partition of ‘‘Bufo’’ (Anura: Bufonidae) into a number of new or revived genera (i.e., Amietophrynus new genus, Anaxyrus, Chaunus, Cranopsis, Duttaphrynus new genus, Epidalea, Ingerophrynus new genus, Nannophryne, Peltophryne, Phrynoidis, Poyntonophrynus new genus; Pseudepidalea new genus, Rhaebo, Rhinella, Vandijkophrynus new genus); (9) placement of the monotypic Spinophrynoides (Anura: Bufonidae) into the synonymy of (formerly monotypic) Altiphrynoides to make for a more informative taxonomy; (10) placement of the Bufo taitanus group and Stephopaedes (as a subgenus) into the synonymy of Mertensophryne (Anura: Bufonidae); (11) placement of Xenobatrachus (Anura: Microhylidae: Asterophryinae) into the synonymy of Xenorhina to render a monophyletic Xenorhina; (12) transfer of a number of species from Plethodontohyla to Rhombophryne (Microhylidae: Cophylinae) to render a monophyletic Plethodontohyla; (13) placement of Schoutedenella (Anura: Arthroleptidae) into the synonymy of Arthroleptis; (14) transfer of Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon (Anura: Phrynobatrachidae) into the synonymy of Phrynobatrachus to render a monophyletic Phrynobatrachus; (15) placement of Afrana into the synonymy of Amietia (Anura: Pyxicephalidae) to render a monophyletic taxon; (16) placement of Chaparana and Paa into the synonymy of Nanorana (Anura: Dicroglossidae) to render a monophyletic genus; (17) recognition as genera of Ombrana and Annandia (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Dicroglossinae) pending placement of them phylogenetically; (18) return of Phrynoglossus into the synonymy of Occidozyga to resolve the paraphyly of Phrynoglossus (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Occidozyginae); (19) recognition of Feihyla new genus for Philautus palpebralis to resolve the polyphyly of ‘‘Chirixalus’’; (20) synonymy of ‘‘Chirixalus’’ with Chiromantis to resolve the paraphyly of ‘‘Chirixalus’’; (21) recognition of the genus Babina, composed of the former subgenera of Rana, Babina and Nidirana (Anura: Ranidae); (22) recognition of the genera Clinotarsus, Humerana, Nasirana, Pelophylax, Pterorana, Pulchrana, and Sanguirana, formerly considered subgenera of Rana (Anura: Ranidae), with no special relationship to Rana (sensu stricto); (23) consideration of Glandirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, as a genus, with Rugosa as a synonym; (24) recognition of Hydrophylax (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus, with Amnirana and most species of former Chalcorana included in this taxon as synonyms; (25) recognition of Hylarana (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus and its content redefined; (26) redelimitation of Huia to include as synonyms Eburana and Odorrana (both former subgenera of Rana); (27) recognition of Lithobates (Anura: Ranidae) for all species of North American ‘‘Rana’’ not placed in Rana sensu stricto (Aquarana, Pantherana, Sierrana, Trypheropsis, and Zweifelia considered synonyms of Lithobates); (28) redelimitation of the genus Rana as monophyletic by inclusion as synonyms Amerana, Aurorana, Pseudoamolops, and Pseudorana, and exclusion of all other former subgenera; (29) redelimitation of the genus Sylvirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, with Papurana and Tylerana included as synonyms

Is The Amphibian Tree of Life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55–56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.\u27s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1–370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is “a disaster” and recommending that readers “simply ignore this study”. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as “fatal flaws”: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony “assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates”; and (4) the results were at times “clearly erroneous”, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23–90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed “strong support” for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719–748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was \u3c 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579–596) also found them to be non-monophyletic. Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not with the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within “Eleutherodactylus”, and Lineatriton within “Pseudoeurycea”), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny

VISIR/VLT mid-infrared imaging of Seyfert nuclei: Nuclear dust emission and the Seyfert-2 dichotomy

Half of the Seyfert-2 galaxies escaped detection of broad lines in their polarised spectra observed so far. Some authors have suspected that these non-HBLRs contain real Sy2 nuclei without intrinsic broad line region hidden behind a dust torus. If this were true, then their nuclear structure would fundamentally differ from that of Sy2s with polarised broad lines: in particular, they would not be explained by orientation-based AGN unification. Further arguments for two physically different Sy2 populations have been derived from the warm and cool IRAS F25/F60 ratios. These ratios, however, refer to the entire host galaxies and are unsuitable to conclusively establish the absence of a nuclear dust torus. Instead, a study of the Seyfert-2 dichotomy should be performed on the basis of nuclear properties only. Here we present the first comparison between [OIII] 5007A and mid-infrared imaging at matching spatial resolution. Exploring the Seyfert-2 dichotomy we find that the distributions of nuclear mid-infrared/[OIII] luminosity ratios are indistinguishable for Sy1s and Sy2s with and without detected polarised broad lines and irrespective of having warm or cool IRAS F25/F60 ratios. We find no evidence for the existence of a population of real Sy2s with a deficit of nuclear dust emission. Our results suggest 1) that all Seyfert nuclei possess the same physical structure including the putative dust torus and 2) that the cool IRAS colours are caused by a low contrast of AGN to host galaxy. Then the Seyfert-2 dichotomy is explained in part by unification of non-HBLRs with narrow-line Sy1s and to a larger rate by observational biases caused by a low AGN/host contrast and/or an unfavourable scattering geometry.Comment: 11 pages, 6 figures, accepted by A&

Extragalactic Results from the Infrared Space Observatory

More than a decade ago the IRAS satellite opened the realm of external galaxies for studies in the 10 to 100 micron band and discovered emission from tens of thousands of normal and active galaxies. With the 1995-1998 mission of the Infrared Space Observatory the next major steps in extragalactic infrared astronomy became possible: detailed imaging, spectroscopy and spectro-photometry of many galaxies detected by IRAS, as well as deep surveys in the mid- and far- IR. The spectroscopic data reveal a wealth of detail about the nature of the energy source(s) and about the physical conditions in galaxies. ISO's surveys for the first time explore the infrared emission of distant, high-redshift galaxies. ISO's main theme in extragalactic astronomy is the role of star formation in the activity and evolution of galaxies.Comment: 106 pages, including 17 figures. Ann.Rev.Astron.Astrophys. (in press), a gzip'd pdf file (667kB) is also available at http://www.mpe.mpg.de/www_ir/preprint/annrev2000.pdf.g

Obscured Activity: AGN, Quasars, Starbursts and ULIGs observed by the Infrared Space Observatory

Some of the most active galaxies in the Universe are obscured by large quantities of dust and emit a substantial fraction of their bolometric luminosity in the infrared. Observations of these infrared luminous galaxies with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) have provided a relatively unabsorbed view to the sources fuelling this active emission. The improved sensitivity, spatial resolution and spectroscopic capability of ISO over its predecessor Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), has enabled significant advances in the understanding of the infrared properties of active galaxies. ISO surveyed a wide range of active galaxies which, in the context of this review, includes those powered by intense bursts of star-formation as well as those containing a dominant active galactic nucleus (AGN). Mid infrared imaging resolved for the first time the dust enshrouded nuclei in many nearby galaxies, while a new era in infrared spectroscopy was opened by probing a wealth of atomic, ionic and molecular lines as well as broad band features in the mid and far infrared. This was particularly useful since it resulted in the understanding of the power production, excitation and fuelling mechanisms in the nuclei of active galaxies including the intriguing but so far elusive ultraluminous infrared galaxies. Detailed studies of various classes of AGN and quasars greatly improved our understanding of the unification scenario. Far-infrared imaging and photometry also revealed the presence of a new very cold dust component in galaxies and furthered our knowledge of the far-infrared properties of faint starbursts, ULIGs and quasars. We summarise almost nine years of key results based upon ISO data spanning the full range of luminosity and type of active galaxies.Comment: Accepted for publication in 'ISO science legacy - a compact review of ISO major achievements', Space Science Reviews - dedicated ISO issue. To be published by Springer in 2005. 62 pages (low resolution figures version). Higher resolution PDFs available from http://users.physics.uoc.gr/~vassilis/papers/VermaA.pdf or http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/science/SSR/Verma.pd

Human monoclonal antibodies against Staphylococcus aureus surface antigens recognize in vitro and in vivo biofilm

Implant-associated Staphylococcus aureus infections are difficult to treat because of biofilm formation. Bacteria in a biofilm are often insensitive to antibiotics and host immunity. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) could provide an alternative approach to improve the diagnosis and potential treatment of biofilm-related infections. Here, we show that mAbs targeting common surface components of S. aureus can recognize clinically relevant biofilm types. The mAbs were also shown to bind a collection of clinical isolates derived from different biofilm-associated infections (endocarditis, prosthetic joint, catheter). We identify two groups of antibodies: one group that uniquely binds S. aureus in biofilm state and one that recognizes S. aureus in both biofilm and planktonic state. Furthermore, we show that a mAb recognizing wall teichoic acid (clone 4497) specifically localizes to a subcutaneously implanted pre-colonized catheter in mice. In conclusion, we demonstrate the capacity of several human mAbs to detect S. aureus biofilms in vitro and in vivo

Multi-Particle Collision Dynamics -- a Particle-Based Mesoscale Simulation Approach to the Hydrodynamics of Complex Fluids

In this review, we describe and analyze a mesoscale simulation method for fluid flow, which was introduced by Malevanets and Kapral in 1999, and is now called multi-particle collision dynamics (MPC) or stochastic rotation dynamics (SRD). The method consists of alternating streaming and collision steps in an ensemble of point particles. The multi-particle collisions are performed by grouping particles in collision cells, and mass, momentum, and energy are locally conserved. This simulation technique captures both full hydrodynamic interactions and thermal fluctuations. The first part of the review begins with a description of several widely used MPC algorithms and then discusses important features of the original SRD algorithm and frequently used variations. Two complementary approaches for deriving the hydrodynamic equations and evaluating the transport coefficients are reviewed. It is then shown how MPC algorithms can be generalized to model non-ideal fluids, and binary mixtures with a consolute point. The importance of angular-momentum conservation for systems like phase-separated liquids with different viscosities is discussed. The second part of the review describes a number of recent applications of MPC algorithms to study colloid and polymer dynamics, the behavior of vesicles and cells in hydrodynamic flows, and the dynamics of viscoelastic fluids

SYMPHONY consortium:Orchestrating personalized treatment for patients with bleeding disorders

Background Treatment choices for individual patients with an inborn bleeding disorder are increasingly challenging due to increasing options and rising costs for society. We have initiated an integrated interdisciplinary national research program. Objectives The SYMPHONY consortium strives to orchestrate personalized treatment in patients with an inborn bleeding disorder, by unraveling the mechanisms behind interindividual variations of bleeding phenotype. Patients The SYMPHONY consortium will investigate patients with an inborn bleeding disorder, both diagnosed and not yet diagnosed. Results Research questions are categorized under the themes: (1) diagnosis, (2) treatment, and (3) fundamental research, and consist of work packages addressing specific domains. Importantly, collaborations between patients and talented researchers from different areas of expertise promise to augment the impact of the SYMPHONY consortium, leading to unique interactions and intellectual property. Conclusions SYMPHONY will perform research on all aspects of care, treatment individualization in patients with inborn bleeding disorders, as well as diagnostic innovations and results of molecular genetics and cellular model technology with regard to the hemostatic process. We believe that these research investments will lead to health-care innovations with long-term clinical and societal impact. This consortium has been made possible by a governmental, competitive grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) within the framework of the NWA-ORC Call grant agreement NWA.1160.18.038

Sloan Digital Sky Survey Imaging of Low Galactic Latitude Fields: Technical Summary and Data Release

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) mosaic camera and telescope have obtained five-band optical-wavelength imaging near the Galactic plane outside of the nominal survey boundaries. These additional data were obtained during commissioning and subsequent testing of the SDSS observing system, and they provide unique wide-area imaging data in regions of high obscuration and star formation, including numerous young stellar objects, Herbig-Haro objects and young star clusters. Because these data are outside the Survey regions in the Galactic caps, they are not part of the standard SDSS data releases. This paper presents imaging data for 832 square degrees of sky (including repeats), in the star-forming regions of Orion, Taurus, and Cygnus. About 470 square degrees are now released to the public, with the remainder to follow at the time of SDSS Data Release 4. The public data in Orion include the star-forming region NGC 2068/NGC 2071/HH24 and a large part of Barnard's loop.Comment: 31 pages, 9 figures (3 missing to save space), accepted by AJ, in press, see http://photo.astro.princeton.edu/oriondatarelease for data and paper with all figure