35 research outputs found

    AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITY EVALUATION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLE STORE LOCATED IN THE SUPERMARKET UNDER UTOPIAN ENVIRONMENT

    Get PDF
    Customer satisfaction depends on the availability of different varieties of fruits and vegetables in a supermarket store as well as the quality of this supermarket store for fruits and vegetables. The store may contain different variety of fruits and vegetables in a utopian environment. Apart from this, there are several quality parameters of a fruits and vegetable store. The quality evaluation of fruits and vegetable stores located in a supermarket is a big challenge for managerial personnel. Here, a quality evaluation framework is proposed for the fruits and vegetable store. The committee of experts identifies and finalizes the quality evaluation parameters through a brainstorming session. Fuzzy AHP is used to calculate the weights of evaluation parameters. A fuzzy TOPSIS generally ranks for the alternative stores. An improved fuzzy TOPSIS, which is named fuzzy k-TOPSIS, is proposed here to evaluate the quality of fruits and vegetable stores located in a supermarket. The fuzzy k-TOPSIS will provide rank as well as classification of the alternatives. A numerical example is demonstrated for a better understanding of the proposed framework

    Characterization of Membrane Potential Dependency of Mitochondrial Ca2+ Uptake by an Improved Biophysical Model of Mitochondrial Ca2+ Uniporter

    Get PDF
    Mitochondrial Ca2+ uniporter is the primary influx pathway for Ca2+ into respiring mitochondria, and hence plays a key role in mitochondrial Ca2+ homeostasis. Though the mechanism of extra-matrix Ca2+ dependency of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake has been well characterized both experimentally and mathematically, the mechanism of membrane potential (ΔΨ) dependency of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake has not been completely characterized. In this paper, we perform a quantitative reevaluation of a previous biophysical model of mitochondrial Ca2+ uniporter that characterized the possible mechanism of ΔΨ dependency of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake. Based on a model simulation analysis, we show that model predictions with a variant assumption (Case 2: external and internal Ca2+ binding constants for the uniporter are distinct), that provides the best possible description of the ΔΨ dependency, are highly sensitive to variation in matrix [Ca2+], indicating limitations in the variant assumption (Case 2) in providing physiologically plausible description of the observed ΔΨ dependency. This sensitivity is attributed to negative estimate of a biophysical parameter that characterizes binding of internal Ca2+ to the uniporter. Reparameterization of the model with additional nonnengativity constraints on the biophysical parameters showed that the two variant assumptions (Case 1 and Case 2) are indistinguishable, indicating that the external and internal Ca2+ binding constants for the uniporter may be equal (Case 1). The model predictions in this case are insensitive to variation in matrix [Ca2+] but do not match the ΔΨ dependent data in the domain ΔΨ≤120 mV. To effectively characterize this ΔΨ dependency, we reformulate the ΔΨ dependencies of the rate constants of Ca2+ translocation via the uniporter by exclusively redefining the biophysical parameters associated with the free-energy barrier of Ca2+ translocation based on a generalized, non-linear Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz formulation. This alternate uniporter model has all the characteristics of the previous uniporter model and is also able to characterize the possible mechanisms of both the extra-matrix Ca2+ and ΔΨ dependencies of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake. In addition, the model is insensitive to variation in matrix [Ca2+], predicting relatively stable physiological operation. The model is critical in developing mechanistic, integrated models of mitochondrial bioenergetics and Ca2+ handling

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

    Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

    Get PDF
    Background The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness. Methods In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need. Findings In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US92trillion(959·2 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·1–9·3) was spent on health worldwide. We found great disparities in the amount of resources devoted to health, with high-income countries spending 7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2–7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the 248billion(9524·8 billion (95% UI 24·3–25·3) spent by low-income countries in 2019. That same year, 43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, 18billioninDAHcontributionswasprovidedtowardspandemicpreparednessinLMICs,and1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and 37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11–21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP. Interpretation There was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained
    corecore