Sequence-selective assembly of tweezer-molecules on linear templates enables frameshift-reading of sequence information

Monomer-sequence information in synthetic copolyimides can be recognised by tweezer-type molecules binding to adjacent triplet-sequences on the polymer chains. In the present paper different tweezer-molecules are found to have different sequence-selectivities, as demonstrated in solution by 1H NMR spectroscopy and in the solid state by single crystal X-ray analyses of tweezer-complexes with linear and macrocyclic oligo-imides. This work provides clear-cut confirmation of polyimide chain-folding and adjacent-tweezer-binding. It also reveals a new and entirely unexpected mechanism for sequence-recognition which, by analogy with a related process in biomolecular information processing, may be termed "frameshift-reading". The ability of one particular tweezer-molecule to detect, with exceptionally high sensitivity, long-range sequence-information in chain-folding aromatic copolyimides, is readily explained by this novel process.

Proceedings of the West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference 2010

FOREWORD Welcome to this West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) conference taking place here in Ghana. Thank you for coming and welcome to Accra. The main aims of the WABER conference are: to help young researchers and early-career scholars in West Africa to develop their research work and skills through constructive face-to-face interaction with experienced academics; to provide a platform for networking and collaborative work among senior built environment academics in West Africa; and to serve as a vehicle for developing the field of construction management and economics in Africa. Waber 2009 The WABER event in 2009 was held at the British Council in Accra, Ghana on 2-3 June. The event was a resounding success. It attracted participation from 32 researchers, from 12 different institutions, who presented their work to an audience of approximately 100 people. Each presenter received immediate and constructive feedback from an international panel. The event was opened by Professor K.K. Adarkwa, Vice Chancellor of KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana, with several senior academics and researchers from universities, polytechnics, and other institutions in Ghana and Nigeria in attendance. There was also a significant level of attendance by senior construction practitioners in Ghana. Thank you to the School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, UK for funding the inaugural event in 2009. We are also grateful to all of you who helped to make the event a success and to those of you who have joined us here today to build upon the success and legacy of WABER 2009. Waber 2010 This year, we have 60+ peer-reviewed papers and presentations on topics relating to Building services and maintenance, Construction costs, Construction design and technology, Construction education, Construction finance, Construction procurement, Contract administration, Contract management, Contractor development, Decision support systems, Dispute resolution, Economic development, Energy efficiency, Environment and sustainability, Health and safety, Human resources, Information technology, Marketing, Materials science, Organisation strategy and business performance, Productivity, Project management, Quantity surveying, Real estate and planning, Solar energy systems, Supply chain management and Urban development. We hope that these papers will generate interest among delagates and stimulate discussion here and beyond the conference into the wider community of academia and industry. The delegates at this conference come from 10 different countries. This provides a rich international and multicultural blend and a perfect platform for networking and developing collaborations. This year we are blessed to have three high profile keynote speakers in the persons of Professor George Ofori (National University of Singapore), Dr Roine Leiringer (University of Reading, UK) and Professor Will Hughes (University of Reading, UK). We are also thankful to Dr Chris Harty (University of Reading, UK) who is facilitating the Research Skills Workshop on ‘Writing a scientific article’. Thank you to Dr Sena Agyepong of our conference organising team for her capable management of local organising arrangements. And above all, thank you to all of you for coming to this conference. Enjoy and have a safe journey back home. Dr Samuel Laryea School of Construction Management and Engineering University of Reading, July 2010

Stress generation in the tension wood of poplar is based on the lateral swelling power of the G-layer

The mechanism of active stress generation in tension wood is still not fully understood. To characterize the functional interdependency between the G-layer and the secondary cell wall, nanostructural characterization and mechanical tests were performed on native tension wood tissues of poplar (Populus nigra x Populus deltoids) and on tissues in which the G-layer was removed by an enzymatic treatment. In addition to the well-known axial orientation of the cellulose fibrils in the G-layer, it was shown that the microfibril angle of the S2-layer was very large (about 36 degrees). The removal of the G-layer resulted in an axial extension and a tangential contraction of the tissues. The tensile stress-strain curves of native tension wood slices showed a jagged appearance after yield that could not be seen in the enzyme-treated samples. The behaviour of the native tissue was modelled by assuming that cells deform elastically up to a critical strain at which the G-layer slips, causing a drop in stress. The results suggest that tensile stresses in poplar are generated in the living plant by a lateral swelling of the G-layer which forces the surrounding secondary cell wall to contract in the axial direction.

Understanding construction consortia: Theory, practice and opinions

Firms form consortia in order to win contracts. Once a project has been awarded to a consortium each member then concentrates on his or her own contract with the client. Therefore, consortia are marketing devices, which present the impression of teamworking, but the production process is just as fragmented as under conventional procurement methods. In this way, the consortium forms a barrier between the client and the actual construction production process. Firms form consortia, not as a simple development of normal ways of working, but because the circumstances for specific projects make it a necessary vehicle. These circumstances include projects that are too large or too complex to undertake alone or projects that require on-going services which cannot be provided by the individual firms inhouse. It is not a preferred way of working, because participants carry extra risk in the form of liability for the actions of their partners in the consortium. The behaviour of members of consortia is determined by their relative power, based on several factors, including financial commitment and ease of replacement. The level of supply chain visibility to the public sector client and to the industry is reduced by the existence of a consortium because the consortium forms an additional obstacle between the client and the firms undertaking the actual construction work. Supply chain visibility matters to the client who otherwise loses control over the process of construction or service provision, while remaining accountable for cost overruns. To overcome this separation there is a convincing argument in favour of adopting the approach put forward in the Project Partnering Contract 2000 (PPC2000) Agreement. Members of consortia do not necessarily go on to work in the same consortia again because members need to respond flexibly to opportunities as and when they arise. Decision-making processes within consortia tend to be on an ad hoc basis. Construction risk is taken by the contractor and the construction supply chain but the reputational risk is carried by all the firms associated with a consortium. There is a wide variation in the manner that consortia are formed, determined by the individual circumstances of each project; its requirements, size and complexity, and the attitude of individual project leaders. However, there are a number of close working relationships based on generic models of consortia-like arrangements for the purpose of building production, such as the Housing Corporation Guidance Notes and the PPC2000.

The competitive dialogue procedure: Advantages, disadvantages, and its implementation into English and Dutch law

Competitive Dialogue (CD) is a new contract award procedure of the European Community (EC). It is set out in Article 29 of the 'Public Sector Directive' 2004/18/EC. Over the last decades, projects were becoming more and more complex, and the existing EC procedures were no longer suitable to procure those projects. The call for a new procedure resulted in CD. This paper describes how the Directive has been implemented into the laws of two member states: the UK and the Netherlands. In order to implement the Directive, both lawmakers have set up a new and distinct piece of legislation. In each case, large parts of the Directive’s content have been repeated ‘word for word’; only minor parts have been reworded and/or restructured. In the next part of the paper, the CD procedure is examined in different respects. First, an overview is given on the different EC contract award procedures (open, restricted, negotiated, CD) and awarding methods (lowest price and Most Economically Advantageous Tender, MEAT). Second, the applicability of CD is described: Among other limitations, CD can only be applied to public contracts for works, supplies, and services, and this scope of application is further restricted by the exclusion of certain contract types. One such exclusion concerns services concessions. This means that PPP contracts which are set up as services concessions cannot be awarded by CD. The last two parts of the paper pertain to the main features of the CD procedure – from ‘contract notice’ to ‘contract award’ – and the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. One advantage is that the dialogue allows the complexity of the project to be disentangled and clarified. Other advantages are the stimulation of innovation and creativity. These advantages are set against the procedure’s disadvantages, which include high transaction costs and a perceived hindrance of innovation (due to an ambiguity between transparency and fair competition). It is concluded that all advantages and disadvantages are related to one of three elements: communication, competition, and/or structure of the procedure. Further research is needed to find out how these elements are related.