Accurate and interpretable nanoSAR models from genetic programming-based decision tree construction approaches

The number of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) being exploited commercially is growing rapidly, due to the novel properties they exhibit. Clearly, it is important to understand and minimize any risks to health or the environment posed by the presence of ENMs. Data-driven models that decode the relationships between the biological activities of ENMs and their physicochemical characteristics provide an attractive means of maximizing the value of scarce and expensive experimental data. Although such structure–activity relationship (SAR) methods have become very useful tools for modelling nanotoxicity endpoints (nanoSAR), they have limited robustness and predictivity and, most importantly, interpretation of the models they generate is often very difficult. New computational modelling tools or new ways of using existing tools are required to model the relatively sparse and sometimes lower quality data on the biological effects of ENMs. The most commonly used SAR modelling methods work best with large datasets, are not particularly good at feature selection, can be relatively opaque to interpretation, and may not account for nonlinearity in the structure–property relationships. To overcome these limitations, we describe the application of a novel algorithm, a genetic programming-based decision tree construction tool (GPTree) to nanoSAR modelling. We demonstrate the use of GPTree in the construction of accurate and interpretable nanoSAR models by applying it to four diverse literature datasets. We describe the algorithm and compare model results across the four studies. We show that GPTree generates models with accuracies equivalent to or superior to those of prior modelling studies on the same datasets. GPTree is a robust, automatic method for generation of accurate nanoSAR models with important advantages that it works with small datasets, automatically selects descriptors, and provides significantly improved interpretability of models

Characterization of Nanoparticle Batch-To-Batch Variability

A central challenge for the safe design of nanomaterials (NMs) is the inherent variability of NM properties, both as produced and as they interact with and evolve in, their surroundings. This has led to uncertainty in the literature regarding whether the biological and toxicological effects reported for NMs are related to specific NM properties themselves, or rather to the presence of impurities or physical effects such as agglomeration of particles. Thus, there is a strong need for systematic evaluation of the synthesis and processing parameters that lead to potential variability of different NM batches and the reproducible production of commonly utilized NMs. The work described here represents over three years of effort across 14 European laboratories to assess the reproducibility of nanoparticle properties produced by the same and modified synthesis routes for four of the OECD priority NMs (silica dioxide, zinc oxide, cerium dioxide and titanium dioxide) as well as amine-modified polystyrene NMs, which are frequently employed as positive controls for nanotoxicity studies. For 46 different batches of the selected NMs, all physicochemical descriptors as prioritized by the OECD have been fully characterized. The study represents the most complete assessment of NMs batch-to-batch variability performed to date and provides numerous important insights into the potential sources of variability of NMs and how these might be reduced

Characterization of Nanoparticle Batch-To-Batch Variability

A central challenge for the safe design of nanomaterials (NMs) is the inherent variability of NM properties, both as produced and as they interact with and evolve in, their surroundings. This has led to uncertainty in the literature regarding whether the biological and toxicological effects reported for NMs are related to specific NM properties themselves, or rather to the presence of impurities or physical effects such as agglomeration of particles. Thus, there is a strong need for systematic evaluation of the synthesis and processing parameters that lead to potential variability of different NM batches and the reproducible production of commonly utilized NMs. The work described here represents over three years of effort across 14 European laboratories to assess the reproducibility of nanoparticle properties produced by the same and modified synthesis routes for four of the OECD priority NMs (silica dioxide, zinc oxide, cerium dioxide and titanium dioxide) as well as amine-modified polystyrene NMs, which are frequently employed as positive controls for nanotoxicity studies. For 46 different batches of the selected NMs, all physicochemical descriptors as prioritized by the OECD have been fully characterized. The study represents the most complete assessment of NMs batch-to-batch variability performed to date and provides numerous important insights into the potential sources of variability of NMs and how these might be reduced

Crop Updates 2006 - Oilseeds

This session covers thirteen papers from different authors: 1. INTRODUCTION, Graham Walton, CONVENOR, Department of Agriculture 2. The performance of new TT canola varieties in National Variety Testing (NVT) WA, Fiona Martin, Research Agronomist, Agritech Crop Research 3. Comparison of TT Canola Varieties in Oilseeds WA Trials – 2005, Collated by G.H. Walton, Department of Agriculture, WA, from a collaboration between Oilseeds WA, Seed Companies, Agronomists and Growers 4. An overview of the potential for a Biofuels Industry in Western Australia, Anne Wilkins and Nathan Hancock, Department of Agriculture 5. Retrieval of fertile progeny from interspecific crosses between Brassica napus and B. carinata using microspore culture, Matthew Nelson, Marie-Claire Castello, Linda Thomson, Anouska Cousin, Guijun Yan and Wallace Cowling; School of Plant Biology (M084), The University of Western Australia 6. Advances in canola blackleg epidemiology and its implication in understanding and managing the disease, Moin Salam, Bill MacLeod, Ravjit Khangura, Jean Galloway and Art Diggle, Department of Agriculture 7. Effect of fertiliser phosphorus and nitrogen on grain yields and concentration of oil and protein of canola grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 8. Effect of applying fertiliser potassium and nitrogen on canola grain yields and concentration of oil and protein in grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 9. Effect of fertiliser nitrogen and sulfer on canola yields and concentration of oil in grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 10. Uptake of K from topsoil and subsoil by canola, P.M. Damon and Z. Rengel, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of WA 11. Accumulation of P and K by canola plants, Terry Rose, Zed Rengel and Qifu Ma, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of WA 12. Varied response from applying nitrogen at late flowering in canola! Dave Eksteen, Agronomist, United Farmers Cooperative 13. To investigate the timing, rate and placement of nitrogen on canola – Jerdacuttup 2005, Dave Eksteen, Agronomist, United Farmers Cooperativ

Clinical profiling of specific diagnostic subgroups of women with chronic pelvic pain

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. Its clinical presentation is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. We aim to explore whether specific subgroups of women with CPP report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life (QoL). Methods: The study is part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The study includes 769 female participants of reproductive age who completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome, and no endometriosis diagnosis, N = 230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N = 237), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS, N = 72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N = 120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N = 127). Results: Clinical profiles of women with CPP (13–50 years old) show variability of clinical symptoms. The EAP and EABP groups scored higher than the PP group (p p p p p p p  Discussion: Our results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' QoL and reveal an increased negative impact of pain on the comorbid EABP group. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for further exploration of interventions targeting QoL more broadly and suggest that novel approaches to classifying women with CPP are needed

Crop Updates 2001 - Lupins

This session covers twenty six papers from different authors: INTRODUCTION, 1. Introduction, Dr Mark Sweetingham LUPIN RESEARCH AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT, Agriculture Western Australia VARIETIES 2. Lupin variety performance: Are you making the most of it? Bevan J. Buirchell, Agriculture Western Australia 3. Adaption of restricted-branching lupins in Western Australia, Bob French and Laurie Wahlsten, Agriculture Western Australia 4. Isolated microspore culture of lupin for production of doubled haploids, Dr Janet Wroth, Dr Kirsty Bayliss and A/Prof. Wallace Cowling, Plant Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia NUTRITION 5. Banding manganese fertiliser below the seed increases seed yields of narrow-leafed lupins, R.F. Brennan, Agriculture Western Australia 6. Residual value of manganese fertiliser for lupin grain production, R.F. Brennan, Agriculture Western Australia AGRONOMY 7. Lupin seeding density, Miles Dracup, Agriculture Western Australia, Nick Galwey, University of Western Australia and Bob Thomson, University of Western AustraliaPESTS AND DISEASES 8. Anthracnose in lupins – understanding the risk, Moin Salam, Art Diggle, Geoff Thomas, Mark Sweetinghamand Bill O’Neill, Agriculture Western Australia 9. Implications of the ‘green bridge’ for viral and fungal disease carry-over between seasons, Debbie Thackray, Agriculture Western Australia and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 10. Insect pest development in WA via the ‘green bridge’, Kevin Walden, Agriculture Western Australia 11. Lupin anthracnose – seed infection thresholds, Geoff Thomas, Agriculture Western Australia 12. Identification and characterisation of resistance genes to Phomopsis blight in narrow-leafed lupin, M. Shankar1, M.W. Sweetingham1&2 and W.A. Cowling1&3 , 1Co-operative Research Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 2Agriculture Western Australia, 3Plant Sciences 13. Plant disease diagnostics, Dominie Wright and Nichole Burges, Agriculture Western Australia 14. Detection of strains of Phomopsis exhibiting species preference in lupins, M. Shankar, 1Co-operative Research Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and M.W. Sweetingham, Agriculture Western Australia 15. Potential alternate host for the lupin anthracnose pathogen, Geoff Thomasa, Hu’aan Yangb, Mark Sweetinghamab and Ming Pei Youa, aAgriculture Western Australia, bCooperative Research Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture WEEDS 16. Wild radish – the implications for our rotations, Dr David Bowran, Centre for Cropping Systems 17. Competitiveness of wild radish in a wheat – lupin rotation, Abul Hashem, Nerys Wilkins, and Terry Piper, Agriculture Western Australia 18. Population explosion and persistence of wild radish in a wheat-lupin rotation, Abul Hashem, Nerys Wilkins, Aik Cheam and Terry Piper, Agriculture Western Australia 19. Inter-row knockdowns for profitable lupins, Paul Blackwell, Agriculture Western Australia, Miles Obst, Mingenew 20. Is it safe to use 2,4-D Ester 80% pre-sowing when furrow sowing lupins? Andrew Sandison, Elders Ltd QUALITY AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT 21. Lupin protein – what we know, Bill O’Neill, Agriculture Western Australia 22. Foliar N application increases grain protein in lupins, Bob French and Laurie Wahlsten, Agriculture Western Australia 23. Can lupin grain protein be increased with Flexi-N? Cameron Weeks, Erin Hasson, Mingenew-Irwin Group and Luigi Moreschi, CSBP futurefarm 24. Putting a value on lupin use in the aquaculture industry: a fishy business? Brett D. Glencross, Fisheries WA, Fremantle Maritime Centre, Fremantle 25. Selection for thinner seed coats and pod walls in lupins, Jon Clements, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Miles Dracup, Agriculture Western Australia 26. Assessing the nutritional benefit of Australian sweet lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) in human foods, Ramon Hall (SPIRT PhD scholar), Stuart Johnson, Madeleine Ball, Deakin University, Melbourne, Sofia Sipsas and David Petterson, Agriculture Western Australi

Crop Updates 2001 - Grower Booklet

1. Strategies for leaf disease management in wheat, Jatinderpal Bhathal1, Cameron Weeks2, Kith Jayasena1 and Robert Loughman1, 1Agriculture Western Australia. 2Mingenew-Irwin Group Inc. 2. Burn stubble windrows: to diagnose soil fertility problems, Bill Bowden, Chris Gazey and Ross Brennan, Agriculture Western Australia 3. Rainfall – what happened in 2000 and the prospects for 2001, Ian Foster, Agriculture Western Australia 4. Strategies for leaf disease management in malting barley, K. Jayasena1, Q. Knight2 and R. Loughman1, 1Agriculture Western Australia, 2IAMA Agribusiness 5. Planning your cropping program in season 2001, Dr Ross Kingwell, Agriculture Western Australia and University of Western Australia 6. Rotational crops and varieties for management of root lesion nematodes in Western Australia, S.B. Sharma, S. Kelly and R. Loughman, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia 7. When and where to grow oats, Glenn McDonald, Agriculture Western Australia 8. Managing Gairdner barley for quality, Kevin Young and Blakely Paynter, Agriculture Western Australia FARMING SYSTEMS, PASTURES AND WEEDS 9.Evaluation of pasture species for phase pasture systems, Keith Devenish, Agriculture Western Australia 10. Competitiveness of wild radish in a wheat – lupin rotation, Abul Hashem, Nerys Wilkins, and Terry Piper, Agriculture Western Australia 11. Can we eradicate barley grass? Sally Peltzer, Agriculture Western Australia 12. Short term pasture phase for weed control, Clinton Revell and Candy Hudson, Agriculture Western Australia 13. Herbicide tolerance of some annual pasture legumes adapted to coarse textured sandy soils, Clinton Revell and Ian Rose, Agriculture Western Australia 14. Integrated weed management: Cadoux, Alexandra Wallace, Agriculture Western Australia LUPINS 15. Inter-row knockdowns for profitable lupins, Paul Blackwell, Agriculture Western Australia and Miles Obst, farmer, Mingenew 16.. Wild radish – the implications for our rotations, Dr David Bowran, Centre for Cropping Systems 17. Lupin variety performance: Are you making the most of it? Bevan J. Buirchell, Senior Plant Breeder, Agriculture Western Australia 18. Anthracnose in lupins – understanding the risk, Moin Salam, Art Diggle, Geoff Thomas, Mark Sweetingham and Bill O’Neill, Agriculture Western Australia OILSEEDS 19. Effect of stubble, seeding technique and seed size on crop establishment and yield of canola, Rafiul Alam, Glen Riethmuller and Greg Hamilton, Agriculture Western Australia 20. Canola – More responses to lime, Chris Gazey and Paul Carmody,Agriculture Western Australia 22. Performance of new canola varieties in AGWEST variety trials in 2000, G. Walton, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia PULSES 23. The ascochyta management package for 2001, B. MacLeod, Agriculture Western Australia 24. Herbicide tolerance of new field pea varieties and lines, M. Seymour, H. Dhammu, T. Piper, D. Nicholson, M. D\u27Antuono, Agriculture Western Australi