zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
CHBr3 CHCl3 tTHMs BDCM BrTHMs CHBr3 DBCM tTHMs Meiosis Disease BDCM BrTHMs CHCl3 DBCM HIF-1 signaling pathway - Homo sapiens BDCM BrTHMs CHCl3 tTHMs miR-targeted genes in squamous cell - TarBase RHO GTPases Activate NADPH Oxidases role of mitochondria in apoptotic signaling EGFR1 Processing and activation of SUMO RAC1 signaling pathway BDCM BrTHMs CHBr3 DBCM keratinocyte differentiation Regulation of toll-like receptor signaling pathway NOTCH1 Intracellular Domain Regulates Transcription Fc epsilon RI signaling pathway - Homo sapiens BDCM BrTHMs DBCM tTHMs Oxidative Stress Induced Senescence Tuberculosis - Homo sapiens Toxoplasmosis - Homo sapiens miR-targeted genes in lymphocytes - TarBase BDCM BrTHMs CHCl3 HIV-1 Nef: Negative effector of Fas and TNF-alpha Signaling by Rho GTPases hiv-1 nef: negative effector of fas and tnf Vitamin E metabolism BDCM CHCl3 tTHMs IL4 Coregulation of Androgen receptor activity JAK STAT MolecularVariation 2 BDCM BrTHMs DBCM Cellular Senescence Hemostasis Toll-like receptor signaling pathway Toll-like receptor signaling pathway - Homo sapiens p38 MAPK signaling pathway Cellular responses to stress MAPK Cascade links between pyk2 and map kinases Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype (SASP) Chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis) - Homo sapiens
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) - Homo sapiens Factors involved in megakaryocyte development and platelet production Angiogenesis overview EGF-Core BCR BDCM BrTHMs tTHMs Endocytosis - Homo sapiens IL5 BrTHMs CHBr3 DBCM ATF6-alpha activates chaperone genes BrTHMs DBCM tTHMs B Cell Receptor Signaling Pathway BDCM CHCl3 Nanomaterial induced apoptosis CHCl3 DBCM Programmed Cell Death CHCl3 tTHMs Regulation of lipid metabolism by Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARalpha) mechanism of gene regulation by peroxisome proliferators via ppara Steroid biosynthesis - Homo sapiens miR-targeted genes in adipocytes - TarBase BDCM BrTHMs Innate Immune System Regulation of and p38-beta CDC42 signaling events Nucleotide-binding domain Kit receptor signaling pathway tnf/stress related signaling BDCM Regulation of Androgen receptor activity DBCM Glucocorticoid Receptor Pathway BrTHMs DBCM Measles - Homo sapiens TSH signaling pathway Mitochondrial Beta-Oxidation of Long Chain Saturated Fatty Acids Class IB PI3K non-lipid kinase events Pathways in cancer - Homo sapiens EGF repression of WNT target genes Non-small cell lung cancer - Homo sapiens Nicotinate and Nicotinamide Metabolism Leishmaniasis - Homo sapiens DBCM tTHMs TCR
Body weight (BW) Kg 70 14 Averaging time (AT) days 10950 2190 Water consumption (IngRDW) L/day 2 1 Exposure frequency (EF) days/year 350 350 Exposure duration (ED) years 30 6 Table S5. Wet weight of a cup equivalent of edible tissue of plant species. Vegetable Mass of cup equivalent (g ww/ cup equivalent) Pumpkin(Cucurbita spp) 133.5 Potato( Solamum tuberosum) 147.8 Cabbage ( Brassica chinensis) 178 Lettuce( Lactuca sativa L. var. Longifolia) 218.6 Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum) 176 Carrot ( Daucus carota) 134.9
Radish( Raphanus sativus) 135.5 Soybeans (Glycine max) 178.6 Zucchini( Cucurbita pepo) 134.6 Cucumber( Cucumis sativus) 174.2 Green Bell Pepper( Capsicum annuum) 151.6 Sweet Corn( Zea mays) 201.9 White Onion( Allium cepa) 139.8 Onion (Allium fistulosum) 100.6 Garlic( Allium sativum) 143.6 Green Beans ( Vigna radiata ) 138.6 Table S6. Degradation of norfloxacin, and in Alfisols soil. Soil Antibiotics Formula R2 DT50(d)
Table S7. The average recovery (%), accuracy (%), precision (%), and limits of detection (ng/mL). Chemical Recovery (%) Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Limits of detection (ng/mL) PFHxA (perfluorohexanoic acid) 94.5 88.5 6.3 0.008 PFHpA (perfluoroheptanoic acid) 95.1 70.0 5.4 0.110 PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) 90.9 85.4 5.8 0.041 PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) 90.1 86.4 6.1 0.067 PFDA (perfluorodecanoic acid) 94.2 88.3 6.9 0.154 PFUnDA (perfluoroundecanoic acid) 89.5 83.3 6.8 0.113 PFDoDA (perfluorododecanoic acid) 86.7 70.5 6.3 0.084 PFTrDA (perfluorotridecanoic acid) 90.2 82.6 6.3 0.079 PFTeDA (perfluorotetradecanoic acid) 85.9 77.9 5.9 0.088 PFBS (perfluorobutane sulfonate) 86.9 83.2 5.2 0.014 PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonate) 90.2 85.3 5.2 0.035 PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) 86.5 83.2 7.0 0.143 PFDS (perfluorodecane sulfonate) 91.2 88.5 6.3 0.007
Supplemental 1. Spearman correlation coefficients between oil spill experiences among oil spill response and clean-up workers with spirometry quality ≥ grade D (n=4,806) Smelled oil, dispersants, or cleaning chemicals Skin or clothing in contact with oil/tar/oily water Body or clothing ever became wet with chemicals Ever had to stop working because you were hot Worked any job involving oily plants/wildlife or dead animal recovery Worked as a commercial fisherman part-time or seasonally Smelled oil, dispersants, or cleaning chemicals 1.00 Skin or clothing in contact with oil/tar/oily water 0.30 1.00 Body or clothing ever became wet with chemicals 0.33 0.36 1.00 Ever had to stop working because you were hot 0.15 0.27 0.18 1.00 Worked any job involving oily plants/wildlife or dead animal recovery 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.14 1.00 Worked as a commercial fisherman part-time or seasonally 0.10 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.21 1.00 Supplemental 2. Spearman correlations between oil spill experiences and oil spill chemicals among workers with spirometry quality ≥ grade D (N=4,806) Maximum ordinal THC exposure level* Potential exposure to dispersants** Potential exposure to burning oil/gas† Smelled oil, dispersants, or cleaning chemicals 0.25 0.15 0.12 Skin or clothing in contact with oil/tar/oily water 0.22 0.19 0.09
Inexperienced: Pre < Post, Pre < 1-month SD 0.86 0.56 0.55 Experienced 7 mean 3.29 3.29 3.14 SD 0.49 0.76 0.38 8. Do you directly recommend that M visit a psychiatric or psychosomatic department?[Encourage the person to get appropriate professional help] Inexperienced 34 mean 2.29 3.32 2.94 0.061 0.189 0.281 Post: Inexperienced > Experienced Inexperienced: Pre < Post, Pre < 1-month SD 1.00 0.64 1.18 Experienced 7 mean 2.43 2.71 2.29 SD 1.27 0.95 1.60
Table S1. Primers for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Gene SNP_ID Primers Length (bp) HTR1A rs6294 F:CGGCAACACTACTGGTATCTCC R: CGATGAACAGGTCGCAGGT 275 rs116985176 F:CACCAACACCRACACCATAAAA R:GTATGGATGTGTTTAGTTTTGGTTAGG 269 HTR1B rs6298 F:AGGAACTCACGGAACTATCAAC R: CAATCACAAAGGCATTGGA 331 rs6296 F:AAATAACCAACACACAATAAAAACTCC R: GGTAAGYGTTTGATTYGAGTTTAGTTG 246 rs1228814 F: TTTTGGTTATTYGGAYGAGTTGTTT R: CCAACTCCCCCAAACACC 204 rs1778258 F: CCRATCCRCCAAAACAATACA R: TTAGGGTTGGGAGGATGGT 190 Table S2. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conditions rs6294, rs6298 rs116985176, rs1228814, rs1778258, rs6296
71 cg 78173096 643 0.073±0.021 84 cg 78173109 630 0.039±0.012 105 cg 78173130 609 0.043±0.014 116 cg 78173141 598 0.051±0.017 121 cg 78173146 593 0.038±0.012 141 cg 78173166 573 0.058±0.018 145 cg 78173170 569 0.047±0.016 157 cg 78173182 557 0.045±0.015 166 cg 78173191 548 0.023±0.008 171 cg 78173196 543 0.023±0.009 175 cg 78173200 539 0.023±0.008 HTR1B_4 33 cg 78172347 1392 0.034±0.011 42 cg 78172338 1401 0.021±0.006 50 cg 78172330 1409 0.026±0.008 56 cg 78172324 1415 0.037±0.012 74 cg 78172306 1433 0.018±0.005 76 cg 78172304 1435 0.014±0.005 84 cg 78172296 1443 0.018±0.005 87 cg 78172293 1446 0.019±0.006 96 cg 78172284 1455 0.023±0.008 102 cg 78172278 1461 0.023±0.009 136 cg 78172244 1495 0.031±0.012 144 cg 78172236 1503 0.086±0.022 147 cg 78172233 1506 0.062±0.017 177 cg 78172203 1536 0.175±0.045 187 cg 78172193 1546 0.196±0.051
Table S6. Frequencies of six SNPs of HTR1A and HTR1B SNP_ID Gene Genotype n Frequency(%) Allele Frequency(%) HWE rs6294 HTR1A GG AG AA 78 7 0 91.72 8.28 0 G A 163 7 0.69 rs116985176 HTR1A GG TG TT 1 15 69 1.18 17.65 81.17 G T 10.0 90.0 0.86 rs6296 HTR1B GG CG CC 17 46 22 20.0 54.11 25.89 G C 47.06 52.94 0.43 rs6298 CC CT TT 16 47 22 18.82 55.29 25.89 C T 46.47 53.53 0.31 rs1228814 HTR1B TT TG GG 3 19 63 3.53 22.35 74.12 T G 14.71 85.23 0.31 rs1778258 GG AG AA 70 18 0 79.55 20.45 0 G A 89.77 10.23 0.29
Table S1 (supplementary) Pearson’s correlation between YONI and SCDC-total score Total sample (n=538) ODD sample (n=40) % correct-total -.180* -.329* mean react.-total .011 .105 % correct-cognitive -.175* -.435* mean react.-cognitive -.001 .084 % correct-affect -.156* -.264 mean react.-affect .013 .120 Note. ODD: oppositional defiant disorder. *Bold: significant correlation (.05 level). Bold: good to large effect-size (|r|.30). Interpretation for effect-size: moderate (|r|0.15), good (|r|0.30) and large (|r|0.50).
Supplementary material Table S1. Descriptive statistics and probabilities of significant differences between drop-outs (with only baseline assessment) and follow-up participants across baseline variables included in the analyses Non-completers (n = 477) Completers (n = 228) p Age Mean years (SD) Range 21.47 (2.41) 18-30 21.40 (2.25) 18-30 .711a Females N (%) 339 (71.1) 178 (78.1) .049b BMI Mean (SD) 21.27 (3.16) 21.08 (2.72) .565a Smoking .117b Not at all N (%) 327 (68.7) 173 (75.9) Yes, occasionally (less than 30 cigarettes in the last month) N (%) 57 (12) 24 (10.5) Yes, daily N (%) 92 (19.3) 31 (13.6) Alcohol consumption .703b Never N (%) 50 (10.5) 17 (7.5)
Table continues Monthly or less N (%) 141 (29.6) 68 (29.8) 2-4 times a month N (%) 187 (39.2) 101 (44.3) 2-3 times a week N (%) 75 (15.7) 31 (13.6) 4-6 times a week N (%) 19 (4) 9 (3.9) Every day N (%) 5 (1) 2 (0.9) Cannabis use .015b No N (%) 340 (71.6) 183 (80.3) Yes N (%) 135 (28.4) 45 (19.7) Subjective income Mean (SD) Range 3.33 (0.89) 1-5 3.33 (1.03) 1-5 .963a Satisfaction with academic choice Mean (SD) 4.27 (.78) 1-5 4.32 (0.73) 1-5 .373a Motivation Mean (SD) Range 5.97 (1.14) 1-6 6.06 (1.04) 1-6 .298a Depression Mean (SD) Range 1.19 (.71) 0-3 1.18 (0.63) 0-3 .829a a Significant difference between groups according to univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). b Significant difference between groups according to Chi-square (χ2) test.
Fig. S1. Pyrolysis unit used to produce the biochars (reprinted from the SI of Zielinska & Oleszczuk (2015), ref. 16 in main text). The diameter of the quartz tube is 56 mm. Fig. S2. Van Krevelen plot of elemental ratios for biochars formed from various biomass sources (BCW – biochar from willow, BCM – biochar from miscanthus, BCS – biochar from wheat straw, BCSH – biochar from Sida hermaphrodita) in different pyrolysis temperatures (blue – 500 °C, green – 600 °C, black – 700 °C) in comparison to organic materials such as cellulose, lignin, brown-, bituminous- and stone coal. The lines represent the dehydration, demetylation and decarboxylation reactions.
Pitfirrane (Fife) 67.1 516 10.57 33670 4.1 1188 7.5 360 27 Morlais (Loughor Valley) 172.9 321 14.25 2 16.5 1253 7.5 279 27 Silkstone (Yorkshire) 4.3 100 10.40 2 16.3 987 6.9 199 30 Stony Heap (Durham) 14.4 43 - - 15.9 985 7.1 197 28 Tan Y Garn (Loughor Valley) 2.6 6 11.16 186 37.3 520 6.5 59 29 Whitworth 1 (Pelenna) 3.9 16 - - 25.4 668 6.5 47 12 Wilsontown (Mousewater) 17.0 17 9.80 1 15.6 863 6.8 195 26 Figure S Conductivity - temperature profile for the flooded Woodside Colliery Shaft, Derbyshire, England; showing inset levels
with10 M Ryanodine, 10 M Xestospongine C and 100 M 2-APB (see Methods). Note, decrease in amplitude and influx of [Ca2+]C, in neurons transfected with siNCLX. Right, Mean ± SEM of changes in amplitude (peak (F- F0)/F0), and cytosolic Ca2+ influx rate (ΔF/s). nsiControl = 30; nsiNCLX = 25. ** p<0.05, ***p<0.001. Student's t-test. Supplementary Figure 2. siMCU impairs mitochondrial Ca2+ influx. A. Mitochondrial Ca2+ transients in HEK293T cells transfected with either siControl or siMCU following a puff application of 1 µM capsaicin (indicated by arrow). B. Mean ± SEM of mitochondrial Ca2+ influx and efflux rate (ΔF/s) in siControl (black, n=120) and siMCU (red, n=95). ** p < 0.01; Student's t-test. Supplementary Figure 3. Li+ regulates the capsaicin-dependent cytosolic and mitochondrial Ca2+ transients. A. Left, representative traces of changes in fluorescence of HEK293T cells loaded with Fura 2AM, co-transfected with TRPV1 and either siControl or siNCLX, following a short application of 1 µM capsaicin (indicated by arrow) in the presence of Na+ or Li+ in bath solution. Right, mean ± SEM of peak ratio (peak (F- F0)/F0) and capsaicin-induced cytosolic Ca2+ influx rates for siControl and siNCLX (n=110). B. Left, representative traces of changes in mitochondrial Ca2+
Sleep apnea 0.21 (0.04-1.13) 0.07 0.19 (0.03-1.23) 0.08 Obstructive lung disease (model not converging) - n.a. n.a. Hypercapnia Midazolam group 4.62 (1.24-17.23) 0.023 4.62 (1.24-17.23) 0.023 Procedure duration (min) 0.99 (0.99-1.0) 0.90 n.a. n.a. Cryo 0.67 (0.14-3.12) 0.61 n.a. n.a. BMI (kg/m²) 1.09 (0.93-1.27) 0.29 n.a. n.a. Sleep apnea 0.27 (0.05-1.44) 0.12 n.a. n.a. Obstructive lung disease 3.0 (0.25-35.9) 0.39 n.a. n.a. Data are odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) and the respective p-values derived from logistic regression models with acidosis (pH<7.3) and hypercapnia (pCO2>55 mmHg), respectively, as dependent variable. Predictor variables with a univariable p<0.1 were forced in the respective multivariable model.
surveillance of resident “synanthropic” birds, or alternatively on rural or free-range poultry farms or by positioning groups of sentinel chickens; surveillance of horses; entomological surveillance; surveillance of the migratory wild birds. The outbreaks detected in 2009 were reported to SIMAN (figure 2). All the relevant information as requested by the OIE and the EU were reported to the system (Colangeli et al., 2011). Figure 1. Geographical areas as defined in the WND surveillance plan of 2009. Figure 2. WND outbreaks in horses reported to SIMAN in 2009: web GIS display and list of the outbreaks with detailed information (from left to right: holding code, municipality, province, disease, type of outbreak, serotype, suspect date, confirmation date, extinction date).
74 Multiple-herd 5,237 2 21 8 167.82 <0.001 1.38 75 Single-herd 0 1 20 1 165.10 <0.001 2.57 76 Single-herd 0 4 23 1 116.18 <0.001 3.46
Supplementary 1: Table depicting primer sets used for PCR amplification in the study Primers Reference Ehrlichia canis Primary PCR ECC: 5’-AGAACGAACGCTGGCGGCAAGCC-3’ ECB:5’-CGTATTACCGCGGCTGCTGGC-3’ Nested PCR HE-3: 5’-TATAGGTACCGTCATTATCTTCCCTAT-3’ ECA:5’-CAATTATTTATAGCCTCTGGCTATAGGAA-3’ Wen et al, 1997 Babesia species B18S-F: 5’-TGGTTGATCCTGCCAGTA-3’ B18S-R: 5’-CTTCTCCTTCCTTTA AGTGA-3’ Ikadai et al, 2004 Trypanosoma evansi 5’-TGCAGACGACCTGACGCTACT-3’ 5’-CTCCTAGAAGCTTCGGTGTCCT -3’ Wuyts et al, 1994
Table E3. Contd Biomarker-low Biomarker-high† Placebo Tralokinumab 45 mg Tralokinumab 150 mg Tralokinumab 300 mg Placebo Tralokinumab 45 mg Tralokinumab 150 mg Tralokinumab 300 mg IgE, n 29 26 20 25 21 23 31 26 EASI, n (week 12) 25 21 18 22 14 22 26 25 Adjusted change in EASI, mean (SE) –10.82 (1.40) –15.18 (1.50) –16.02 (1.69) –13.85 (1.52) –10.55 (2.69) –12.17 (2.32) –15.04 (2.04) –16.63 (2.17) Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) - –4.36 (–8.44 to –0.29)‡ –5.19 (–9.55 to –0.84)‡ –3.03 (–7.15 to 1.09) - –1.62 (–8.70 to 5.45) –4.49 (–11.18 to 2.20) –6.08 (–12.95 to 0.79) IGA, n (week 12) 29 26 20 24 20 23 31 26 IGA responders*, n (adj %) 6 (20.2) 5 (20.1) 6 (27.5) 7 (30.9) 0 1 (4.3) 4 (12.9) 5 (19.2)
SOC/Preferred term (MedDRA Version 18.1) (N = 51) (N = 50) (N = 51) (N = 52) (N = 153) Total patients* reporting one or more event† 5 (9.8) 2 (4.0) 3 (5.9) 0 5 (3.3) Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 0 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0) 0 2 (1.3) Arthralgia 0 1 (2.0) 0 0 1 (0.7) Tendonitis 0 0 1 (2.0) 0 1 (0.7) Eye disorders 1 (2.0) 0 1 (2.0) 0 1 (0.7) Iridocyclitis 1 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 Keratitis 0 0 1 (2.0) 0 1 (0.7) Investigations 0 1 (2.0) 0 0 1 (0.7) Blood creatinine increased 0 1 (2.0) 0 0 1 (0.7) Vascular disorders 0 0 1 (2.0) 0 1 (0.7) Hypertension 0 0 1 (2.0) 0 1 (0.7) Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders 3 (5.9) 0 0 0 0 Atopic dermatitis 2 (3.9) 0 0 0 0 Eczema 1 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 Table E6. Contd Placebo Tralokinumab 45 mg 150 mg 300 mg Total
Our results can then be viewed as supportive, but not conclusive, evidence of higher costs for drugs with lower therapeutic significance ratings for the period studied. REFERENCES DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W., Grabowski, H.G., Lasagna, L., 1991. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Health Economics 10(2), 107-142. DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W., Grabowski, H.G., 2003. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics 22(2), 151-185. DiMasi, J.A., Grabowski, H.G., 2007. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different? Managerial & Decision Economics 28(4-5), 285-291. DiMasi, J.A., Feldman, L., Seckler, A., Wilson, A., 2010. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: Success rates for investigational drugs. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 87(3), 272-277. DiMasi, J.A., Reichert, J.M., Feldman, L., Malins, A., 2013. Clinical approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 94(3), 329-335. Guedj, I., Sharfstein, D. 2004. Organization Scope and Investment: Evidence from the Drug Development Strategies and Performance of Biopharmaceutical Firms. NBER Working Paper 10933. (url: [Accessed July 23, 2014]).
Company : Part I. Annual Pharmaceutical R&D Expenditures, 1990-2010 A. Total, NCE, and Other R&D Expenditures (millions of dollars) Year (1) Total R&D (2) R&D on Therapeutic New Chemical Entities (NCEs) (pre-approval) (3) R&D on Self- Originated Therapeutc New Biologics [excluding vaccines] (pre-approval) (4) R&D on New Vaccines (pre-approval) (5) R&D on New NCE and Biologic Diagnostics (pre-approval) (6) R&D on Licensed Compounds (pre-approval) (7) R&D on Existing Products (post-approval) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Originated
5— H1N1 Mitigation Strategy Mexico City (n=837) San Luis Potosi (n=951) Queretaro (n=878) Frequently washing hands with soap/water 89.3 81.1 76.1 Using a mask 63.4 64.7 50.0 Using hand sanitizer/gel 30.1 30.3 16.0 Covering cough/sneeze with tissue or elbow 21.5 14.1 24.0 Avoiding crowds/public gatherings 19.5 29.5 14.8 Ventilating the home 19.9 17.3 18.6 Avoiding shaking hands/kissing when greeting 11.7 16.1 11.9 Avoiding close contact with symptomatic people 10.4 11.4 8.6 Incidence of H1N1 at time of survey (per 100,000 inhabitants) 14.1 16.1 1.6 Notes: Number of observations represents the number of households surveyed. Source: Adapted from Table 2 in Aburto et al. (2010).
respectively. A longer exposure of Fig. 2C. (B) Stability of pJH3.0 transformants passaged up to 30 times with antibiotic resistance. Southern blot analysis of uncut genomic DNA from untransformed M. bovis (PG45), M. bovis transformed with pJH3.0 after 10 (P10), 20 (P20), and 30 (P30) passages with different incubation time, pJH3.0 plasmid was used as control. (C) Stability of pJHmini3.0 transformants passaged up to 30 times with antibiotic resistance. Southern blot analysis of uncut genomic DNA from untransformed M. bovis (PG45), M. bovis transformed with pJHmini3.0 after 10 (P10), 20 (P20), and 30 (P30) passages with different incubation time, pJHmini3.0 plasmid was used as control. Visualization was performed with ethidium bromide (EtBr) and a tetM fragment was used as a probe. Figure S5 Reproducibility of pJHmini3.0 plasmid Figure S5 Reproducibility of pJHmini3.0 plasmid. Plasmid DNA extracted from untransformed M. bovis (PG45) and M. bovis transformed pJHmini3.0 after 10 (P10), 20 (P20), and 30 (P30) passages was analysed by electrophoresis along with pJHmini3.0 plasmid. Figure S6 Conserved DNA sequence flanking oriC region between M. bovis and M. agalactiae Figure S6 (A) Alignment of DNA sequence flanking oriC region between M. bovis and its closely related species Mycoplasma agalactiae using DNAMAN software. Upper line: sequence of M. bovis (GenBank: CP002188.1 from 1,141 to 1,859), lower line: sequence
Table S5 NRTL and UNIQUAC binary interaction parameters for DES (1) + Indoline (2) + Heptane (3) at T= 308.15 K and atmospheric pressure i-j NRTL parameters UNIQUAC parameters τij τji Fa %RMSDb Aij Aji Fa %RMSDb 1-2 -2.85 2.03 -6.66 × 10-4 0.37 75.74 29.89 -3.7 × 10-4 0.28 1-3 3.69 3.40 503.16 8.75 2-3 15.71 1.38 -150.63 154.33 a equation (2), b equation (5)
29. Walker, F.M., et al. (2014) Transformation of personal computers and mobile phones into genetic diagnostic systems. Anal. Chem. 86, 9236-9241. 30. Wargocki, P., et al. (2015) Medically relevant assays with a simple smartphone and tablet based fluorescence detection system. Sensors 15, 11653-11664. 31. Roda, A., et al. (2014) Integrating biochemiluminescence detection on smartphones: mobile chemistry platform for point-of-need analysis. Anal. Chem. 86, 7299-7304. 32. Zangheri, M., et al. (2015) A simple and compact smartphone accessory for quantitative chemiluminescence-based lateral flow immunoassay for salivary cortisol detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 64, 63-68. 33. Yu, H., et al. (2014) Smartphone fluorescence spectroscopy. Anal. Chem. 86, 8805-8813. 34. Z. and Eriksson, M. (2013) Classification and quantitative optical analysis of liquid and solid samples using a mobile phone as illumination source and detector. Sens. Actuators B-Chem. 185, 354-362. 35. Preechaburana, P., et al. (2012) Surface plasmon resonance chemical sensing on cell phones. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51, 11585-11588. 36. Bremer, K. and Roth, B. (2015) Fibre optic surface plasmon resonance sensor system designed for smartphones. Optics express 23, 17179-17184. 37. Liu, Y., et al. (2015) Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor on Smart Phone Platforms. Sci. Rep. 5, 12864. 38. Lillehoj, P.B., et al. (2013) Rapid electrochemical detection on a mobile Lab Chip 13, 2950-2955. 39. Nemiroski, A., et al. (2014) Universal mobile electrochemical detector designed for use in resource-limited applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11984-11989.
GEC-ESTRO ACROP recommendations in skin brachytherapy Supplementary tables and figures Supplementary tables 3: Main series with customized moulds and flaps. AUTHOR/ YEAR # patients/ # lesions # DOSE (FR) DOSE FREQUENCY BED (Gy) UP months LOCAL ACUTE G ≥ 3 CHRONIC TOXICITY Svoboda V et al. [14] 1995 76p/106 Customized moulds 1-15 4-22 Gy Surface of the 12-50 Gy Single/ a day/ Daily 9.6 (mean) 96.3% ----- ----- Mixed Somanchi BV et al. [62] 2008 25 p Customized moulds 8 5- 5.6 Gy 80% 1.5- 3.5mm 40-45 Gy 5 days 1 Monday and Friday and 2 the other days 60 100% ----- Mild atrophy 28% Mild telangiectasias 48% Mild alopecia 28% Necrosis Amputation 4% Skin hand Maroñas M et al. [19] 2011 48p/51 Customized moulds 11-12 18 4 Gy 3Gy 3mm from skin surface 44-48 Gy 54Gy 3 times week 70.2 45 90.2% 21% 0% good/ 100% Amendola B et al. [15] 2016 28p/42 Customized moulds 10 Gy ------ 48.5-50 Gy 2 times week 56-75 85 95% ----- ---- good Chan A et al. 2003 25p/36 (unpublished) Fleiburg flap 5 12 Gy 5 mm from app. surface 60 Gy Weekly 132 14.2 90.4% ----- ----- Kanikowski M et al. 2009 2016 497p (unpublished) Fleiburg flap 10 6-8 5-6 Gy 10 mm from source 50-60 Gy or 30-40 Gy ------ 75-96 45-60 12 71.6% 8,9% 24.4% 4,9 G3 Mixed Radical BED - biological effective dose Table 4: Results with Leipzig and Valencia applicators
2013 2.2 (0.1) 1.8 (1.0) 2.6 (0.2) 25.7 (0.2) 2014 16.4 (3.0) 13.3 (3.6) 30.5 (11.4) 54.8 (9.5) OGM= organic with green manure; OGL= organic with grain legume; M= manure.
Appendix 1. Systematic search in databases showing number of articles (Identified/screened (title)/ screened (abstract)/eligible) First search: all studies published before 2 September 2013. PubMed EMBASE Cinahl + Other source Search word # Identified/screened (title)/ screened (abstract)/eligible # Identified/screened (title)/ screened (abstract)/eligible # Identified/screened (title)/ screened (abstract)/eligible Found in searched articles/ included after reading of article Electronic cigarette 1 342/93/36/36 5 98/96/30/7 13 11/11/4/0 Electrically heated cigarette 2 34/22/22/22 9 31/31/22/0 14 4/3/3/0 E-cigarette 4 71/55/21/3 10 67/59/20/0 15 17/17/4/0 ENDS and cigarette 3 63/9/1/0 7 65/14/1/0 16 3/2/0/0 Electronic nicotine delivery system 8 3/3/0/0 6 8/8/1/0 17 1/1/0/0 Electronic nicotine delivery device 11 20/20/8/1 12 6/6/4/0 18 1/1/0/0 E-liquid 19 1/1/0/0 20 8/1/0/0 21 1/1/0/0 Total number: Identified/screened (title)/ screened (abstract)/eligible 534/203/88/62 283/215/78/7 38/36/11/0 8/7 # Search number Up-date: PubMed: studies published between 2 September 2013 and August 5 2014. EMBASE: studies published in 2013/2014 Cinahl: studies published between Sept 2013 and August 2014. Latest search 14 Aug 2014.
Supplementary Figures Figure S.1 (A): PCA scatter plot of MALDI-TOF MS data (obtained by culturing the L. monocytogenes isolates on ALOA agar, post 24 h incubation). Each point on the scatter plot refers to single isolate, with R2X (cumulative) = 0.56 and Q2 (cumulative) = 0.15. As observed in the plot no clear grouping of the isolates (according to their source of isolation was seen). The tolerance eclipse represents the 95% confidence interval limit and since observation 760 lies outside this eclipse it is considered as an outlier [DModX(Norm) value-0.38; D-Criticial value for model-1.30] Figure S.1 (B): PLS-DA scatter plot of MALDI-TOF MS data (obtained by culturing the L. monocytogenes isolates on ALOA agar, post 24 h incubation). Each point on the scatter plot refers to single isolate, with R2X (cumulative) = 0.78 and Q2 (cumulative) = 0.74. The tolerance eclipse represents the 95% confidence interval limit and since observation 702 lies outside this eclipse it is considered as an outlier [DModX(Norm) value-0.86; D-Criticial value for Figure S.2 (A): PCA scatter plot of MALDI-TOF MS data (obtained by culturing the L. monocytogenes isolates on HBA agar, post 24 h incubation). Each point on the scatter plot refers to single isolate, with R2X (cumulative) = 0.52 and Q2 (cumulative) = 0.20. As observed in the plot no clear grouping of the isolates was obtained (according to their source of isolation was
Appendix Figure 1 Model validation graph using in-season soil moisture in the topsoil Figure 2 Model validation graph using model simulated and observed wheat grain yield. The dotted line represents 1:1 relationship. . Figure 3 Wheat sensitivity to reduced, observed and increased temperature for observed radiation (ObsRad), radiation reduced by 10% (-10%Rad) and radiation reduced by 20% for different rates of Nitrogen. Tmax-5=maximum temperature reduced by 5oC,
Table S2 Parameter PC1 PC2 PC3 BOCcv 0.68 0.09 0.32 BOCsl -0.62 -0.07 0.41 0.25 0.09 0.60 ELHsl 0.19 0.75 -0.07 PORcv 0.64 -0.17 0.29 PORsl -0.70 0.02 0.43 Rccv 0.52 0.59 -0.15 Rcsl 0.11 0.50 -0.38 TOCcv 0.63 -0.31 0.34 TOCsl -0.57 0.55 0.43 NPP -0.34 -0.05 0.10
Dawkins L [4] 2013 ▲ Yes, 1 ◦SKYCIG 18-mg/ml nicotine ◦Experimental study ◦A repeated measures design ◦Experimental sessions after 12 hours of abstinence ◦Exposure: 1) Ten 2) 1 hour ad lib use ◦14 regular EC users - using at least one nicotine cartridge per day). ◦Smokers or ◦Aim: to explore the effect of EC on nicotine, tobacco withdrawal symptoms, AE and urge to smoke ◦Plasma nicotine concentration: mean maximum of 13.91 ng/ml by the end of the ad lib puffing period. ◦Very low level of the total mean AE score: 13 (max. =200). ◦Light-headedness showed the highest mean, followed by throat irritation, dizziness, salvation, mouth irritation. 21 different negative symptoms reported. ◦Only one of EC ◦Selected regular users who probably tolerate EC and have positive experiences ◦AE were symptoms, no spontaneous reporting ◦Small study ◦Low reporting of AE in regular users. Most frequent: throat irritation and dizziness Dawkins L [5] 2013 ▲ Yes, 2 ◦Tornado EC was supplied by Totally Wicked liquid 18 mg nicotine ◦Ref: 0 mg nicotine, same EC brand ◦Experimental ◦Within-subjects design ◦Experimental sessions 8-10 hours of abstinence, completed two experimental sessions under nicotine (18 mg) and placebo (0 mg) EC conditions ◦Exposure: 10 min. ad lib use ◦20 smokers ◦ Aim: measure prospective memory: Desire to The Cambridge Prospective Memory Test, Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale ◦Improved time-based but not prospective memory ◦Reduced desire to smoke and tobacco withdrawal symptoms ◦Only one brand of EC ◦EC naïve participants ◦Small study ◦Findings suggest that the EC can effectively deliver nicotine to impact on cognitive performance Dawkins L [6] 2012 ▲ Yes, 2 ◦The Super’ EC ◦Randomly allocated to: 18 mg nicotine EC 0 mg nicotine EC just hold the EC ◦Experimental study ◦Mixed experimental design ◦Abstinence of 1-2 hours. ◦Exposure: 5 min. ad lib use ◦86 EC naive smokers ◦Aim: memory ◦Letter Cancellation and Brown–Peterson Working Memory Tasks, performed by 60 ◦The nicotine containing EC improved working memory performance compared with placebo at the longer interference intervals. ◦There was no effect of nicotine on Letter Cancellation performance. ◦Only one brand of EC ◦Paper gives the impression that EC improve memory. In reality, nicotine withdrawals impair concentration ◦Improved nicotine withdrawal impaired pre- based
Table S1: Survival analysis. Group N Max Survival (Days) Median Survival (Days) ISTmedian (%) Hazard Ratio Control 6 28 27.33 -- -- -- CDDP-BPN 6 32 28 2.5% 0.18 2.24 FUSlo+CDDP-BPN 6 32 28.5 4.3% 0.23 2.07 FUShi+CDDP-BPN 4 35 31.5 15.3% 0.04 5.03
NLRP3 (AG-20B-0014-C100) 1:100 Mouse monoclonal Adipogen ASC (NBP1-78977) 1:100 Rabbit polyclonal Novus CD44 (553131) 1:100 Mouse monoclonal BD Bioscience Table S4. Primer sequences used in this study. Gene 5’ - Forward primer – 3’ 5’ - Reverse primer – 3’ 18S ACC CGT TGA ACC CCA TTG CCA TCC AAT CGG TAG TAG
identify high risk 6. AUSDRISK + to exclude DM 39.0% 39.0% 0.7% 38.4% 70.9% 15.5a 23.2b 46.4c $90.90 $9860b $19720c $393 million $1810 million $2203 million 7. AUSDRISK + HbA1c to identify high risk 39.0% 39.0% 0.7% 3.0% 26.5% 2.7a 4.0b 8.0c $90.90 $3400c $393 million $141 million $534 million FPG = fasting plasma glucose; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; = glycated haemoglobin; AUSDRISK = Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool; DM = diabetes; SDM = screen-detected diabetes; a Assume diabetes prevention program is 75% effective; b 50% effective (base case); c 25% effective;* See supplementary table 1 for cost estimation # Base on cost of $425 per person for prevention program @ In June 2015, were 11,084,198 adults aged ≥40 years in Australia [10] ^ Assume 100% participation rate
Changes related to pricing of generics (G) (e.g., G price link) 1_2010 LT: change in methodology of G pr. link 2_2010 - 1_2011 BE: increase in % for price difference between O and G, extra % after 2 and 4 yrs. LV: change in methodology of G price link – higher % between O and G SI: new pricing rule for G (lower G prices) 2_2011 SE: change in pr. ceiling for specific on-patent med. with generic competition TR: change in % of G price link 1_2012 BE: link no longer constantly applied CZ: change in % P + R decrease in case of market entry of 1st G or biosimilar med. FR: change in of G pr. link LV: change in methodology of G pr. link PT: change in methodology of G pr. link RS: change in methodology of G price link SI: lowering maximum allowed pr. for G 2_2012 BG: introduction of G pr. link IE: G with pr. of 60% of reference O LT: legal basis for G pr. reduction NO: pr. comparison of G to DK and SE PT: change in methodology of G pr. link O pr.) 1_2013 - 2_2013 EL: price link for G (med. with MA after 01/01/2012) to prices of corresponding med. IE: G with pr. of 50% of reference O after 1 yr. 1_2014 BE: increase in % for pr. difference between O and G FR: reduction in G prices NO: lower G pr. following pr. comparison to DK and SE PT: new rules for the pr. of G 2_2014 EL: change in G pr. policy TR: decrease in R price for G 1_2015 - 2_2015 -
Supplemental Table 1. Examples of gene promoters used in plant biotechnology. Promoter Source Activity Reference CaMV35S Cauliflower mosaic virus Constitutive [] FMV Figwort mosaic caulimovirus Constitutive [] PC1SV Peanut chlorotic streak virus Constitutive [] CmYLCV Cestrum yellow leaf curling virus Constitutive [] MMV Mirabilis mosaic virus Constitutive [] CsVMV Cassava vein mosaic virus Constitutive [] ScBV Sugarcane bacilliform virus Constitutive [] CoYMV Commelina yellow mottle virus Constitutive [] Ubiquitin RUBQ1, RUBQ2 and rubi3 Rice Constitutive [] Ubiquitin Zmubi1 Maize Constitutive [] Ubiquitin Gmubi3 Soybean Constitutive [, ] Ubiquitin PvUbi1 and PvUbi2 Switchgrass Constitutive [] Ubiquitin ubi4 and ubi9 Sugarcane Constitutive [] actin1 Rice Constitutive [] Tubuline OsTubA1 Rice Constitutive [] Actin OsAct2 Rice Constitutive [] Actin ACT1 Banana Constitutive [] Actin ACT2 Arabidopsis Constitutive [] Eukaryotic Initiation Factor NeIF4A-10 Tobacco Constitutive []
Hor2-4, Hor3-1 Barley Seed-specific [] GluA-1/Gt-2, GluA-2/Gt-1 and GluB-1 Rice Seed-specific [] PGNpr2, Z27 Maize Seed-specific [] LMW Glu, HMW Glu-1D1 Wheat Seed-specific [] helianthinin Sunflower Seed-specific [] ß-phaseolin French bean Seed-specific [] Lectin Soybean Seed-specific [] ß-conglycinin Soybean Seed-specific [] Glycinin G1 Soybean Seed-specific [] Expansin CsExp Cucumis sativus Ripened fruits [] Expansin PcExp2 Sour cherry Ripened fruits [] ACC-oxidase Apple fruit ripening [] E8 Arabidopsis ripening [] PG (polygalacturonase) Apple fruit ripening [] Dioscorin pDJ3S Yam Tuber/storage [] Potato class I patatin Potato Tuber/storage [] GBSS starch synthase Potato Tuber/storage [] Sporamin Sweet potato Tuber/storage [] ß-amylase potato Tuber/storage [] NtHSP3A Tobacco [] Rab16A and OsABA2 Rice [] specific specific
Figure S2: Genotype calls in the population. The frequency of genotype calls ranged from 0.17 (AA) to 0.025 (AT/TA). A high proportion of genotype calls (61%) were homozygous (GG, CC, AA and TT).
A total of 40 data points were measured between −0.1 and 0.70 V in both the forward and the reverse direction. For each type of devices, six cells were made and J-V analyses were done on them. Subsequently, the mean and standard deviation of JSC, VOC, FF and PCE of each device were reported in Table 1. Table S1. Short-length organic ligands used for solution phase ligand exchange and subsequent colloidal stability of prepared QDs inks. Colloidal stability of ink* Solvent Structure Chemical formula Ligand name Stable Octane Oleic acid (OA) 1 Stable TCE C2H5-NH2 Ethylamine (EA) 2 Stable TCE C3H7-NH2 Propylamine (PA) 3 Stable TCE C4H9-NH2 Butylamine (BA) 4 1 week Hexane C2H5-SH Ethanethiol (ET) 5 1 week Hexane C3H7-SH Propanethiol (PT) 6 1 week Hexane C4H9-SH Butanethiol (BT) 7 2 days TCE NH2-C2H4-NH2 Ethanediamine (EDA) 8 2 days TCE SH-C2H4-SH Ethanedithiol (EDT) 9 3 (ξ= -9 mV) DMSO SH-C3H4-O-OH Mercaptopropionic acid (MPA) 10 (ξ= -18 mV) DMSO 1 week (ξ= -3 mV) DMSO SH-C3H3-NH2-O-OH acid (Cysteine) 11
Supplementary table The properties of 14 TAAs. Oncoproteins Molecular size Cellular location properties/functions Ref. IMP1 63.5 KD Cytoplasm insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 1 [17,18] IMP2/p62 66.1 KD Nucleus insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 2 [18,19] IMP3/Koc 63.7 KD Nucleus; Cytoplasm insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 3/K homology protein overexpressed in cancer [17,18,20] CIP2A/p90 102.2 KD Membrane; Cytoplasm cancerous inhibitor of protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) [19,21] RalA 23.6 KD Cell surface; Cell membrane. ras-like GTP-binding protein [22] c-Myc 48.8 KD Nucleus transcription factor oncoprotein [23,24] survivin 16.4 KD Cytoplasm; Nucleus; Chromosome. inhibitor of apoptosis [25,26] cyclin B1 48.3 KD Cytoplasm; Nucleus cell-cycle nuclear protein [27] 14-3-3 ζ 27.7 KD Cytoplasm mediate signal transduction by binding to phosphoserine-containing proteins [28,29] MDM2 55.2 KD Nucleus; Cytoplasm nuclear phosphoprotein that binds and inhibits transactivation by tumor protein p53 [30,31] suppressor proteins p53 53 KD Cytoplasm; Nucleus tumor suppressor protein containing transcriptional activation, DNA binding, and oligomerization domains. [32,33] Ink4a/p16 16.5 KD Cytoplasm; Nucleus cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor [34,35] NPM1/B23 32.6 KD Nucleolus nucleolar phosphoprotein involved in several processes including regulation of the ARF/p53 pathway [36,37] CAPERα/HCC1.4 59.4 KD Nucleus (concentrated in nuclear speckles) mRNA binding protein, steroid hormone receptor-mediated transcription and alternative splicing [38,39]
Appendix A: Supplementary data Table A1. Association of PD-L1 expression with patient and disease characteristics. Study name Evidence and study phase/design Cut-off for PD-L1 positivity Category PD-L1High, n/N (%) PD-L1Low, n/N (%) p-value antibody Age Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor Lin 2015 [1] Preliminary: Prospective Mean H scores ≤65 years 22/30 (73.3) 18/26 (69.2) 0.735 Anti-PD-L1, ab58810 (Abcam®) >65 years 8/30 (26.7) 8/26 (30.8) Tang 2015 [2] Preliminary: Consecutive >5% ≤50 years 28/112 (25.0) 17/58 (29.3) 0.546 Rabbit monoclonal anti-human antibody >50 84/112 (75.0) 41/58 (70.7) Chemotherapy/radiotherapy Sorensen 2014a [3] Preliminary: retrospective / Abstract Proportion of 3+ defined as strong intensity <65 years 23/51 (45.1)b 27/51 (52.9) 0.65 Clone 22C3 mouse monoclonal antibody ≥65 years 28/51 (54.9)b 24/51 (47.1) 2015 [4] Preliminary: Consecutive NR All No significant association of PD-L1 expression with age 0.188 Rabbit polyclonal antibody ab156361 Schmidt 2015 [5] Preliminary: Retrospective >5% <70 years 49 (23%)c 0.580 Clone E1L3N®, #13684 rabbit IgG Cell Signaling Technology ≥70 years 28 (26%)c Gender Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor D'Incecco 2015 [6] Preliminary: Retrospective Male 36/68 (52.9) 30/55 (54.5) trial
against PD-L1 (Abcam®) Never 4/38 (10.5) 2/14 (14.3) Wang 2015 [8] Preliminary: Prospective / Abstract NR All Smokers had significantly higher expression rates than non-smokers (67.0% vs. 44.0%, p=0.039) 0.039 NR NR Konishi 2004 [9] Preliminary: Prospective >11% Smoker 19/26 (73.1)d 18/26 (69.2) NS Anti-B7-H1 (MIH1) Non-smoker 7/26 (26.9)d 8/26 (30.8) Histology Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor D'Incecco 2015 [6] Preliminary: Retrospective Staining intensity ≥2 in more than 5% of tumor cells was considered as positive Adenocarcinoma 52/59 (88.1) 30/46 (65.2) 0.005 PD-L1: rabbit polyclonal antibody ab58810 (Abcam®) PD-1: 760–4448 (Ventana) Squamous cell carcinoma 7/59 (11.9) 16/46 (34.8) Tang 2015 [2] Preliminary: Consecutive >5% Adenocarcinoma 96/112 (85.7) 49/58 (84.5) 0.83 Rabbit monoclonal anti-human antibody 16/112 (14.3) 9/58 (15.5) Adenocarcinoma; EGFR wild type 32/96 (33.3) 24/49 (41.4) 0.067 Adenocarcinoma; EGFRm+ 64/96 (66.7) 25/49 (43.1) Chemotherapy/radiotherapy Schmidt 2015 [5] Preliminary: Retrospective >5% Squamous 48 (28%)c 0.089 E1L3N®, #13684 rabbit IgG Non-squamous 29 (20%)c
PFS CTC < 5 9.57 0.0549 CTC ≥ 5 4.87 CTC < 10 7.23 0.0942 CTC ≥ 10 4.87 CTC < 50 7.30 0.0251 CTC ≥ 50 4.67 Cycle 2 CTC < 5 6.93 <.0001 CTC ≥ 5 3.00 CTC < 10 6.93 <.0001 CTC ≥ 10 3.17 CTC < 50 6.90 <.0001 CTC ≥ 50 2.60 Supplemental Table 2: Changes in Gamma H2AX staining during chemotherapy Gamma 2 HX data % of CTCs expressing gH2AX Patient (Pts) with sig. increase baseline D1 D2 Pt 1 2 6 10 * Pt 2 20 18 20 Pt 2-C2 0 20 29 * Pt 7 2 3 7 Pt 8 0 0 54 * Pt 11 23 44 * Pt 13 3 10 * Pt 14 3 2 2 Pt 14 C2 1 2 3 Pt 19 22 43 * Pt 24 6 1 2 Pt 25 1 1 1 Pt 27 2 1 2 Pt 31 1 1 1 Pt 32 0 0 0 Pt 35 7 50 20 * Pt 36 9 25 8 *
dishes Pasta dishes (excluding pasta salad) Frozen and chilled pasta based meals Pastries Sweet and savoury pastry products Sweet and savoury pastry products Pizza Take-away pizza products with meat, seafood or vegetable-based toppings Frozen pizza products with or vegetable-based toppings Salads Salad dishes Salads Seafood All seafood products Frozen coated and uncoated seafood, frozen fish based meals Sides French Salted and unsalted fries Frozen fries rings Onion rings - Bread side dishes Bread side dishes including garlic bread, herb bread etc - Fruit or vegetable side dishes Fruit and vegetable-based side dishes (excluding salad) - Soup products Canned or chilled soup Wraps and sandwiches Beef/chicken/seafood/vegetable-based sandwich and wrap products (excluding burger bun products) Beef/chicken/egg/ham- based sandwiches and rolls
Supplementary table I: Characteristics of the snacks (n=32) used for the sorting task. Product type (brand name), photograph, portion size, nutrition facts per 100g and Ofcom Nutrient Profile Score. (Data found on: coles.com.au; woolworths.com.au; ah.nl; specific product websites and the nutrition information on the package) Product Description Portion size [g] Energy [kJ] Total fat [g] fat [g] [g] Total sugar [g] [mg] Fruit, and nuts [%] Fibre [g] Protein [g] NP Carrots bag with 3 real baby carrots 120 180 0.00 0 10 5 69 100 3 1 - 8 Banana 3D of a medium-sized banana 120 372 0.00 0 23 12 1 100 3 1 - 6 Plain fat free yoghurt Original packaging of Farmers Union brand yoghurt, filled with play dough to mimic correct weight 175 190 0.10 0 0 0 70 0 1 5 - 4 Fruit salad Contained 3D models of pineapple, raspberry, grapes and banana 200 230 0.50 0 20 12 0 100 3 0 - 7 Lo Carb protein bar Chocolate fudge flavour, chocolate coated 60 1430 9.7 5.6 5.9 3.1 190 0 13.8 30.3 6 Be Natural trail bar Nut & Fruit Made with: 5 wholegrains, sultanas, peanuts, almonds and 32 1510 6.80 1.7 60.4 14.3 180 7 12.6 7.9 0 Go Natural Nut Delight Made with: peanuts, almonds, walnuts and brazil nuts 40 2169 39.50 4.3 26.9 20.4 17 85 7.8 15.4 - 1 peanuts Salted 50 2460 48.20 7.4 8.2 3 470 100 9.3 29.1 4 Bounce Energy Ball Coconut & Macademia 40 1865 17.00 6.4 46 25 268 26 10 22 13 Popcorn Airpopped, seasalt 20 1840 16.3 1.7 56.6 2.8 255 0 8.4 12 - 3
Figure S2 (a) The thermal transient response (T(z)) and (b) its smoothened 1st derivative curve (Ṫ(z)) of LED module with different thickness of CuO composite coatings. Figure S3 The Foster equivalent circuit for theoretical analysis. Figure S4 Thermal capacitance versus thermal resistance plot for LED module with different thickness of CuO composite coatings. Figure S5 Junction temperature of the LED module with a heat sink with respect to the different coating thicknesses, with the average emissivity values of the composite
Process Unit Steam boiler (kg/s) Gas turbine (MW) Heat recovery steam generator (kg/s) Steam turbine (MW) MSF (m3/day) RO (m3/day) Solar (kW) Zone one Production site one Phase one 6×180 0 0 6×146 383,275 0 0 Phase two 0 2×97 2×117 143 118,048 0 0 Phase three 0 3×237 3×290 330 343,412 0 0 Phase four 0 3×157 6×180 2×143 260,625 0 0 five 0 8×100 8×117 4×400 1,126,308 0 0 Production site two Phase one 0 2×60 2×52 0 56,724 0 0 two 8×102 0 0 10×60 206,455 0 0 Phase three 2×117 0 0 2×65 0 0 0 Production site three Phase one 0 5×215 2×278 2×308 502,086 0 0 Zone two Phase one 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 Zone three Phase one 0 2×60 0 0 0 0 100 Zone four Phase one 4×62 4×48 4×34 0 392,469 0 0
Supplementary Table. 4 Effect of rLj-RGD3 on apoptotic index (AI) of nude mice Panc-2 pancreatic carcinoma. (200×, ±SD, n=5) Group AI (%) The multiple of the control group (Times) Control 3.55±1.31 —— rLj-RGD3 75.0 μg/kg 10.72±2.40** 3.0 rLj-RGD3 150.0 μg/kg 22.65±3.80*** 6.4 rLj-RGD3 300.0 μg/kg 46.87±4.05*** 13.2 Relative to the control group: **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
PKA 80 52 89 86 78 91 82 83 75 35 83 87 96 67 1288 YES1 75 60 94 86 88 96 72 87 86 94 72 57 61 78 89 1308 PAK5 66 58 87 99 84 93 83 85 89 61 94 87 94 99 79 61 1319 MARK1 35 71 89 99 87 96 84 96 91 75 91 81 72 89 87 80 1323 JNK3 79 75 74 94 95 77 85 82 71 56 95 77 86 71 1352 p38b MAPK 83 31 81 68 67 72 88 89 90 82 92 95 97 1357 IR 35 78 92 95 96 91 89 95 81 59 83 79 84 1359 p38d MAPK 93 32 99 91 82 84 94 92 84 78 92 75 85 82 1373 ERK1 48 75 84 94 96 81 87 70 76 58 85 94 1378 NEK6 75 67 84 99 92 70 74 59 85 95 92 86 1399 EPH-B3 38 46 88 93 79 83 85 99 87 84 79 1399 PKCz 50 9 80 98 96 94 92 98 76 83 94 1404 ERK2 57 80 93 85 83 98 86 90 71 46 97 98 1410 SYK 68 86 90 91 90 87 96 90 99 90 85 91 87 95 72 1417 PAK2 70 50 95 87 96 85 89 90 89 91 89 68 1419 CSK 93 54 76 86 82 90 94 97 90 90 99 81 96 80 1423 PAK6 92 67 97 99 82 93 84 88 87 89 96 95 89 75 1433 JNK2 92 64 87 93 95 82 92 98 87 82 82 99 93 92 86 1434 p38g MAPK 90 50 99 97 90 89 86 91 86 97 85 1501 EPH-B4 72 91 97 90 91 92 95 92 97 88 86 1517 MEKK1 82 96 91 88 99 84 97 95 86 81 93 1534 PDK1 75 89 98 95 92 90 94 94 99 90 94 97 80 1539 JNK1 85 81 98 90 92 88 99 97 91 97 1548 Lck 83 97 97 97 80 87 98 84 86 1552 CHK1 91 70 98 97 99 88 90 98 76 83 1561 p38a MAPK 97 63 89 97 97 92 99 97 1573 Src 99 83 88 96 89 87 87 90 95 73 1614 EPH-A4 80 77 90 99 98 87 83 87 93 94 1638 2 6 4
Table S5 : Cytotoxic selectivity index for compounds 5a, 5e, 5j 5a 5e 5j HeLa CC50 46.86 250 187.5 IC50 10.5 (E. coli) 65.0 (C. krusei) 48.4 (E. coli) SI 04.46 03.80 03.87 HEK-293 CC50 58.57 236.20 223.21 IC50 10.50 (E. coli) 65.00 (C. krusei) 48.40 (E. coli) SI 05.57 03.60 04.60
11 11 5 5 References 1. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2015.1001; Chemical Computing Group Inc., 1010 Sherbooke St. West, Suite #910, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7, 2016. 2. Cheung, J.; Gary, E. N.; Shiomi, K.; Rosenberry, T. L. Structures of Human Acetylcholinesterase Bound to Dihydrotanshinone I and Territrem B Show Peripheral Site Flexibility. Acs Med Chem Lett 2013, 4, 1091-1096. 3. Nachon, F.; Carletti, E.; Ronco, C.; Trovaslet, M.; Nicolet, Y.; Jean, L.; Renard, P. Y. Crystal structures of human cholinesterases in complex with huprine W and tacrine: elements of specificity for anti-Alzheimer's drugs targeting acetyl- and butyryl-cholinesterase. Biochem J 2013, 453, 393-399. 4. Halgren, T. A.; Bush, B. L. The Merck molecular force field (MMFF94). Extension and application. Abstr Pap Am Chem S 1996, 212, 2-Comp. 5. G. Jones, P. Willett, R. C. Glen, A. R. Leach and R. Taylor, Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking J. Mol. Biol., 267, 727-748, 1997.
RJC 02225 -9.406.859 S 10535 -9.402.729 CD 04067 -9.400.159 RJC 04090 -9.399.248 KM 06804 -9.393.316 HTS -9.387.576 S 05940 -9.387.487 JFD -9.377.084 BTB 13089 -9.374.832 DP 01471 -9.362.871 BTB -9.357.894 CD -9.355.667 BTB -9.352.313 SPB -9.344.406 JM 00018 -9.336.935 HTS 08604 -9.335.401 BTB -9.334.151 DSHS -9.326.869 MWP 00952 -9.316.952 MO 00129 -9.315.294 CD 03535 -9.300.084 BTB 00198 -9.298.232 SCR -9.291.416 AW -9.272.523 KM 09464 -9.268.300 S 08597 -9.265.217 HTS 02411 -9.238.784 KM -9.234.259 JP 00573 -9.231.313 HTS 06219 -9.225.396 S -9.223.565 BTB -9.209.483 RF 01043 -9.205.672 HTS 04948 -9.201.012 AW 00794 -9.199.955 CD 11604 -9.196.785 RJF 01210 -9.185.567 HTS 12577 -9.185.326 HTS 12724 -9.184.867 RH 00239 -9.181.981 FM 00074 -9.152.464 KM 05168 -9.150.787 GK 02955 -9.150.395 RDR 03027 -9.148.718 GK 03357 -9.145.009 HTS 06822 -9.144.539 BTB 04464 -9.141.486
15 HTS06715 55 16 JFD03669 55 17 SPB01708 42 18 KM09828 30 19 NRB00811 28 20 GK02467 27 21 RJC04090 27 22 JFD03197 20 23 BTB15242 15 24 NRB00216 12 25 AW00690 n.a.c 26 BTB04595 n.a.
27 BTB11706 n.a. 28 CD04096 n.a. 29 BLT00216 n.a. 30 DP00603 n.a. 31 DP00604 n.a. 32 DP00605 n.a. 33 GK03551 n.a. 34 MWP01035 n.a. 35 NH00503 n.a. 36 NRB01634 n.a. 37 SEW01456 n.a. 38 XBX00031 n.a.
39 NRB05197 n.a. 40 RH02186 n.a. 41 SCR00400 n.a. Vandetanib 0.95 aPercentage inhibition values of RET activity determined at 100 µM concentration of the test compounds. Values are the average of two determination carried out in triplicate Standard error of the mean (SEM) are ≤ 10%. bIC50 values represent the concentration required to produce 50% enzyme inhibition. Values are the average from at least two independent dose-response curves. Standard error of the mean (SEM) are ≤ 10% cNot active. No inhibition was observed up to 100 μM of the test compound. Table SI3. RET, EGFR, and VEGFR2 Inhibitory Activity of Compounds 7-13. N° Compound IC50 RET-WT (μM)a IC50 EGFR (μM)a IC50 VEGFR-2 (μM)a 7 12.1 n.a.b 17.8 8 20.9 n.a. 21.6 9 54.0 n.a. 92.7 10 63.8 n.a. 67.0 11 68.4 31.8 9.61 12 78.1 14.9 1.66 13 82.6 n.a. 47.0 aIC50 values represent the concentration required to produce 50% enzyme inhibition. Values are the average from at least two independent curves. Standard error of the mean (SEM) are ≤ 10 %. bNot active. No inhibition was observed up to 100 μM of the test compound.