Toluene Dioxygenase Catalysed synthesis and reactions of cis-diol metabolites derived from 2 and 3-methoxy phenols

Using toluene dioxygenase as biocatalyst, enantiopure cisdihydrodiol and cis-tetrahydrodiol metabolites, isolated as their ketone tautomers, were obtained from meta and ortho methoxyphenols. Although these isomeric phenol substrates are structurally similar, the major bioproducts from each of these biotransformations were found at different oxidation levels. The relatively stable cyclohexenone cis-diol metabolite from meta methoxyphenol was isolated, while the corresponding metabolite from ortho methoxyphenol was rapidly bioreduced to a cyclohexanone cis-diol. The chemistry of the 3-methoxycyclohexenone cis-diol product was investigated and elimination, aromatization, hydrogenation, regioselective O-exchange, Stork−Danheiser transposition and O-methylation reactions were observed. An offshoot of this technology provided a two-step chemoenzymatic synthesis, from meta methoxyphenol, of a recently reported chiral fungal metabolite; this synthesis also established the previously unassigned absolute configuration.

Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients Amongst Specialty Trainees in Restorative Dentistry

Background: Upon completion of Specialty Training in Restorative Dentistry, trainees (StRs) should
be proficient in maxillofacial prosthodontics to meet the restorative needs of head and neck cancer patients (HANC), and in preparation for the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE).1,2
Objective: The aim of this study is to collate and compare data relating to the training of Restorative Dentistry Rs in the management of HANC patients across different geographical locations within the British Isles. Methods: Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience in assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre and manufacturing surgical obturators, and in providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching within their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing oncology- based questions in a future ISFE. Results: Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training in all five countries within the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%). A third were in their 5th year of training. Less than half reported that they were confident
of independently assessing (48%) or treatment planning (38%) HANC patients. More than half of StRs (52%) indicated that they were not confident of attending theatres alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. One third (33%) rated their experience of treating oncology patients with implants as poor or very poor, including three in their 5th year of training. Less than one third rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as good or excellent. Only 4 respondents indicated that they were confident of answering an ISFE oncology question on management of healthcare delivery. Six StRs expressed concerns over a lack of case-based exposure.
Conclusion: Experience and training in maxillofacial prosthodontics is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with many lacking in clinical exposure.

Strange, But True? Object-oriented Programming Is Best Taught, And Learnt, While Sitting On The Floor.

There is a perception amongst some of those learning computer programming that the principles of object-oriented programming (where behaviour is often encapsulated across multiple class files) can be difficult to grasp, especially when taught through a traditional, didactic ‘talk-and-chalk’ method or in a lecture-based environment.
We propose a non-traditional teaching method, developed for a government funded teaching training project delivered by Queen’s University, we call it bigCode. In this scenario, learners are provided with many printed, poster-sized fragments of code (in this case either Java or C#). The learners sit on the floor in groups and assemble these fragments into the many classes which make-up an object-oriented program.
Early trials indicate that bigCode is an effective method for teaching object-orientation. The requirement to physically organise the code fragments imitates closely the thought processes of a good software developer when developing object-oriented code.
Furthermore, in addition to teaching the principles involved in object-orientation, bigCode is also an extremely useful technique for teaching learners the organisation and structure of individual classes in Java or C# (as well as the organisation of procedural code). The mechanics of organising fragments of code into complete, correct computer programs give the users first-hand practice of this important skill, and as a result they subsequently find it much easier to develop well-structured code on a computer.
Yet, open questions remain. Is bigCode successful only because we have unknowingly predominantly targeted kinesthetic learners? Is bigCode also an effective teaching approach for other forms of learners, such as visual learners? How scalable is bigCode: in its current form can it be used with large class sizes, or outside the classroom?

Triggering employee voice under the European Information and Consultation Directive: A non-union case study

The transposition of the 2002/14/EC Directive, establishing a general framework for information and consultation (I&C), has proven contentious in largely voluntarist systems of employment regulation. Receiving particular criticism is the employee ‘opt-in’ mechanism as a means to access I&C rights. For non-union employees in particular, the ability and potential to negotiate rights for I&C is widely seen to be problematic. This article uniquely examines the opt-in mechanism in the context of non-unionism, considering how non-union employers respond to non-union employees invoking their legislative rights to I&C. Drawing upon a case study conducted over four years in a large non-union multinational, the evidence shows how the opt-in and negotiation process function to the advantage of the employer rather than the intended regulatory impact to advance employee rights

Specialty Registrars’ Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Objective The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training of Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) in the management of head and neck cancer (HANC) patients across different training units within the UK and Ireland. Methods Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre alone and manufacturing surgical obturators, and providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE)-station assessing knowledge of head and neck cancer. Results Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training within all five countries of the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%), with one StR in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A third (33%) were in their 5th year of training. Almost half of the StRs indicated that they were confident of independently assessing (48%) new patients with HANC, with fewer numbers reporting confidence in treatment planning (38%). The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that they were not confident of attending theatre alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. A third (33%) rated their experience of treating HANC patients with implants as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, including three StRs in their 5th year of training. Less than one third (<33%) rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 7 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE-station focused on HANC. Conclusion Experience and training regarding patients with head and neck cancer is inconsistent for StRs across the UK and Ireland with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.

Evaluation of Restorative Dentistry Specialty Registrars’ Clinical Experience of Developmental Disorders: A Survey

Background

Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) should be competent in the independent restorative management of patients with developmental disorders including hypodontia and cleft lip/palate upon completion of their specialist training.1 Knowledge and management may be assessed via the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE) in Restorative Dentistry.2

Objective

The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training and experience of StRs in the management of patients with developmental disorders across different training units within the British Isles.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to all StRs attending the Annual General Meeting of the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group, Belfast, in October 2015. Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for patients with developmental disorders, construction of appropriate prostheses, and provision of dental implants. Respondents were also asked to record clinical supervision and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future ISFE station assessing knowledge of developmental disorders.

Results

Responses were obtained from 32 StRs (n=32) training within all five countries of the British Isles. The majority of respondents were based in England (72%) with three in Wales, and two in each of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. Approximately one third of respondents (34%) were in the final years of training (years 4-6). Almost half of the StRs reported that they were not confident of independently assessing (44%) new patients with a developmental disorder, with larger numbers (72%) indicating a lack of confidence in treatment planning. Six respondents rated their experience of treating obturator patients as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The majority (56%) rated their experience of implant provision in these cases as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ with three-quarters (75%) rating clinical supervision at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Less than half (41%) rated the didactic teaching at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 8 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE station focused on developmental disorders.

Conclusion

Experience and training regarding patients with developmental disorders is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.