Three-dimensional cultured glioma cell lines

Three-dimensional glioma spheroids were produced in vitro with size and histological differentiation previously unattained. The spheroids were grown in liquid media suspension in a Johnson Space Center (JSC) Rotating Wall Bioreactor without using support matrices such as microcarrier beads. Spheroid volumes of greater than 3.5 cu mm and diameters of 2.5 mm were achieved with a viable external layer or rim of proliferating cells, a transitional layer beneath the external layer with histological differentiation, and a degenerative central region with a hypoxic necrotic core. Cell debris was evident in the degenerative central region. The necrotics centers of some of the spheroids had hyaline droplets. Granular bodies were detected predominantly in the necrotic center

Model Bond albedos of extrasolar giant planets

The atmospheres of extrasolar giant planets are modeled with various effective temperatures and gravities, with and without clouds. Bond albedos are computed by calculating the ratio of the flux reflected by a planet (integrated over wavelength) to the total stellar flux incident on the planet. This quantity is useful for estimating the effective temperature and evolution of a planet. We find it is sensitive to the stellar type of the primary. For a 5 M_Jup planet the Bond albedo varies from 0.4 to 0.3 to 0.06 as the primary star varies from A5V to G2V to M2V in spectral type. It is relatively insensitive to the effective temperature and gravity for cloud--free planets. Water clouds increase the reflectivity of the planet in the red, which increases the Bond albedo. The Bond albedo increases by an order of magnitude for a 13 M_Jup planet with an M2V primary when water clouds are present. Silicate clouds, on the other hand, can either increase or decrease the Bond albedo, depending on whether there are many small grains (the former) or few large grains (the latter).Comment: 6 pages, 9 figures, uses egs.cls and epsfig.sty, submitted to Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (proceedings of the April 1998 EGS meeting in Nice, France

Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute: Did the New York Court of Appeals\u27 Misapplication of Unjustified Policy Fears Lead to A Miscarriage of Justice and the Creation of Inadequate Precedent for the Proper Use of the Empire State’s Long-Arm Statute?

This article discusses CPLR section 302(a)(1) as applied by the New York State Court of Appeals in Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute. The Paterno Court failed to properly apply a statutory jurisdictional analysis by conflating it with a due process inquiry. Also, the Court unnecessarily balanced the interests of the Empire State\u27s citizens in having a forum for access to justice with unjustified policy fears of potential costs to the state from assertions of in personam jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court\u27s policy focus4 on the protection of medical doctors from lawsuits and the prevention of “floodgate” litigation which would adversely affect the medical profession was not justified by the record and created poor precedent for subsequent judicial application of the state\u27s long-arm statute. This article will examine CPLR section 302(a)(1), under Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute and some of its predecessors, to demonstrate that sometimes overarching policy concerns get in the way of a strict statutory analysis under CPLR section 302(a)(1). We analyze how the Court of Appeals in Paterno conflated the jurisdictional basis and due process analyses and determine that the Court, based on a faulty statutory analysis, erroneously decided that there was no statutory jurisdiction. Our article is divided into six parts. Part II briefly discusses the history of the CPLR and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction through Sections 301 and 302, focusing mainly on long-arm jurisdiction. Part III discusses and analyzes leading cases, which involve the application of CPLR 302 in obtaining personal jurisdiction. Part IV discusses a recent case, Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute, in great detail, and Part V engages in a critical analysis of Paterno with reference to a similar case, Grimaldi v. Guinn. Part VI addresses policy considerations and Part VII concludes with a discussion of how the Paterno Court entangled its jurisdictional analysis and where the Court may be headed with its future application of CPLR section 302(a)(1)