Measurement of the top-quark mass in tt¯ events with dilepton final states in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.-- Chatrchyan, S. et al.The top-quark mass is measured in proton-proton collisions at s√=7 TeV using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 5.0 fb−1 collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The measurement is performed in the dilepton decay channel tt¯→(ℓ+νℓb)(ℓ−ν¯¯ℓb¯), where ℓ=e,μ. Candidate top-quark decays are selected by requiring two leptons, at least two jets, and imbalance in transverse momentum. The mass is reconstructed with an analytical matrix weighting technique using distributions derived from simulated samples. Using a maximum-likelihood fit, the top-quark mass is determined to be 172.5±0.4 (stat.)±1.5 (syst.) GeV.Acknowledge support from BMWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); MoER, SF0690030s09 and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France);BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF and WCU (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MSI (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MSTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); ThEP, IPST and NECTEC (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Austrian Science Fund (FWF); the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWTBelgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); and the HOMING PLUS program of Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund.Peer Reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Alcohol and drugs in seriously injured drivers in six European countries.

The objective of this study was to determine the presence of alcohol and drugs in drivers severely injured in traffic crashes in six European countries. Data were collected from 2492 seriously injured drivers of cars and vans in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, and the Netherlands, between 2007 and 2010. Toxicological analysis was performed with chromatographic techniques on whole blood for 23 substances. The percentage of drivers positive for at least one psychoactive substance ranged between 28% (Lithuania) and 53% (Belgium). Alcohol (≥0.1 g/L) was the most common finding with the highest percentage in Belgium (42.5%). Among the alcohol-positive drivers, 90.5% had a blood alcohol count (BAC) ≥0.5 g/L and 65.7% had a BAC ≥1.3 g/L. Benzodiazepines (0.0-10.2%) and medicinal opioids (0.5-7.8%) were the most prevailing medicinal drugs, but half of the concentrations were lower than therapeutic. Cannabis (0.5-7.6%) was the most prevailing illicit drug. Alcohol was found in combination with drugs in 2.3-13.2% of the drivers. Drug combinations were found in 0.5-4.3% of the drivers. This study confirms the high prevalence of psychoactive substances in injured drivers, but we observed large differences between the participating countries. Alcohol was the most common finding, followed by cannabis and benzodiazepines. Notable are the many drivers having a BAC ≥ 1.3 g/L. The majority of the substances were found in combination with another psychoactive substance, mostly alcohol. The high prevalence of high BACs and combinations (compared to roadside surveys) suggest that those drivers are most at risk and that preventive actions should target them preferentiall