The development of the control for an urban search and rescue robot manipulator arm

Includes abstract.Includes bibliographical references.The University of Cape Town (UCT) Robotics and Agents Research Laboratory (RARL) began research into developing a USAR robot in 2006. The final design of the fourth generation USAR robot developed by UCT [is] named RATEL... This document reports on the research and development of the control for the four degree-of-freedom manipulator arm and pan/tilt system located on the RATEL USAR robot. The report initially discusses control methods used on previously developed teleoperated manipulators in the fields of kinematic modelling, motor control, communications architectures, teleoperative interfaces as well as collision detection and proceeds to discuss the development of the control for the RATEL manipulator

Avian Influenza Viruses Infect Primary Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells Unconstrained by Sialic Acid α2,3 Residues

Avian influenza viruses (AIV) are an important emerging threat to public health. It is thought that sialic acid (sia) receptors are barriers in cross-species transmission where the binding preferences of AIV and human influenza viruses are sias α2,3 versus α2,6, respectively. In this study, we show that a normal fully differentiated, primary human bronchial epithelial cell model is readily infected by low pathogenic H5N1, H5N2 and H5N3 AIV, which primarily bind to sia α2,3 moieties, and replicate in these cells independent of specific sias on the cell surface. NHBE cells treated with neuraminidase prior to infection are infected by AIV despite removal of sia α2,3 moieties. Following AIV infection, higher levels of IP-10 and RANTES are secreted compared to human influenza virus infection, indicating differential chemokine expression patterns, a feature that may contribute to differences in disease pathogenesis between avian and human influenza virus infections in humans

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

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