Reversibility Iteration Method to Understand Reaction Networks and to Solve Micro-Kinetics in Heterogeneous Catalysis

Solving microkinetics of catalytic systems, which bridges microscopic processes and macroscopic reaction rates, is currently vital for understanding catalysis in silico. However, traditional microkinetic solvers possess several drawbacks that make the process slow and unreliable for complicated catalytic systems. In this paper, a new approach, the so-called reversibility iteration method (RIM), is developed to solve microkinetics for catalytic systems. Using the chemical potential notation we previously proposed to simplify the kinetic framework, the catalytic systems can be analytically illustrated to be logically equivalent to the electric circuit, and the reaction rate and coverage can be calculated by updating the values of reversibilities. Compared to the traditional modified Newton iteration method (NIM), our method is not sensitive to the initial guess of the solution and typically requires fewer iteration steps. Moreover, the method does not require arbitrary-precision arithmetic and has a higher probability of successfully solving the system. These features make it ∼1000 times faster than the modified Newton iteration method for the systems we tested. Moreover, the derived concept and the mathematical framework presented in this work may provide new insight into catalytic reaction networks.

The comparative utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for FOXO1 gene rearrangement and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts have become routine ancillary tools for the diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas (ARMS). Here we summarize our experience of these adjunct diagnostic modalities at a tertiary center, presenting the largest comparative series of FISH and PCR for suspected or possible ARMS to date. All suspected or possible ARMS tested by FISH or PCR for FOXO1 rearrangement or PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion transcripts over a 7-year period were included. FISH and PCR results were correlated with clinical and histologic findings. One hundred samples from 95 patients had FISH and/or PCR performed. FISH had higher rates of technical success (96.8 %) compared with PCR (88 %). Where both tests were utilized successfully, there was high concordance rate between them (94.9 %). In 24 histologic ARMS tested for FISH or PCR, 83.3 % were translocation-positive (all for PAX3-FOXO1 by PCR) and included 3 histologic solid variants. In 76 cases where ARMS was excluded, there were 3 potential false-positive cases with FISH but none with PCR. PCR had similar sensitivity (85.7 %) and better specificity (100 %) in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS, compared with FISH (85 and 95.8 %, respectively). All solid variant ARMS harbored FOXO1 gene rearrangements and PAX3-FOXO1 ARMS were detected to the exclusion of PAX7-FOXO1. In comparative analysis, both FISH and PCR are useful in aiding the diagnosis of ARMS and excluding its sarcomatous mimics. FISH is more reliable technically but has less specificity than PCR. In cases where ARMS is in the differential diagnosis, it is optimal to perform both PCR and FISH: both have similar sensitivities for detecting ARMS, but FISH may confirm or exclude cases that are technically unsuccessful with PCR, while PCR can detect specific fusion transcripts that may be useful prognostically.

Improved clonality assessment in germinal centre/post-germinal centre non-Hodgkin's lymphomas with high rates of somatic hypermutation.

BACKGROUND: PCR detects clonal rearrangements of the Ig gene in lymphoproliferative disorders. False negativity occurs in germinal centre/post-germinal centre lymphomas (GC/PGCLs) as they display a high rate of somatic hypermutation (SHM), which causes primer mismatching when detecting Ig rearrangements by PCR. AIMS: To investigate the degree of SHM in a group of GC/PGCLs and assess the rate of false negativity when using BIOMED-2 PCR when compared with previously published strategies. METHODS: DNA was isolated from snap-frozen tissue from 49 patients with GC/PGCL (23 diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCLs), 26 follicular lymphomas (FLs)) and PCR-amplified for complete (VDJH), incomplete (DJH) and Ig kappa/lambda rearrangements using the BIOMED-2 protocols, and compared with previously published methods using consensus primers. Germinal centre phenotype was defined by immunohistochemistry based on CD10, Bcl-6 and MUM-1. RESULTS: Clonality detection by amplifying Ig rearrangements using BIOMED-2 family-specific primers was considerably higher than that found using consensus primers (74% DLBCL and 96% FL vs 69% DLBCL and 73% FL). Addition of BIOMED-2 DJH rearrangements increased detection of clonality by 22% in DLBCL. SHM was present in VDJH rearrangements from all patients with DLBCL (median (range) 5.7% (2.5-13.5)) and FL (median (range) 5.3% (2.3-11.9)) with a clonal rearrangement. CONCLUSIONS: Use of BIOMED-2 primers has significantly reduced the false negative rate associated with GC/PGCL when compared with consensus primers, and the inclusion of DJH rearrangements represents a potential complementary target for clonality assessment, as SHM is thought not to occur in these types of rearrangements.