Competitive interactions of anti-carcinogens with serum albumin: A spectroscopic study of bendamustine and dexamethasone with the aid of chemometrics

Interactions between the anti-carcinogens, bendamustine (BDM) and dexamethasone (DXM), with bovine serum albumin (BSA) were investigated with the use of fluorescence and UV–vis spectroscopies under pseudo-physiological conditions (Tris–HCl buffer, pH 7.4). The static mechanism was responsible for the fluorescence quenching during the interactions; the binding formation constant of the BSA–BDM complex and the binding number were 5.14 × 105 L mol−1 and 1.0, respectively. Spectroscopic studies for the formation of BDM–BSA complex were interpreted with the use of multivariate curve resolution – alternating least squares (MCR–ALS), which supported the complex formation. The BSA samples treated with site markers (warfarin – site I and ibuprofen – site II) were reacted separately with BDM and DXM; while both anti-carcinogens bound to site I, the binding constants suggested that DXM formed a more stable complex. Relative concentration profiles and the fluorescence spectra associated with BDM, DXM and BSA, were recovered simultaneously from the full fluorescence excitation–emission data with the use of the parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) method. The results confirmed that on addition of DXM to the BDM–BSA complex, the BDM was replaced and the DXM–BSA complex formed; free BDM was released. This finding may have consequences for the transport of these drugs during any anti-cancer treatment.

ACE research vignette 038 : Cracking the start-up code : does it matter when you do what?

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. This vignette deals with the process of new venture creation, and specifically the sequence in which different ‘start-up activities’ are undertaken.

Developing a therapeutic anti-dendritic cell antibody to prevent graft versus host disease

Host and donor dendritic cells (DC) stimulate alloreactive donor T lymphocytes, and initiate GVHD. We have shown that polyclonal antibody to the DC surface activation marker human CD83 (anti hCD83), which depletes activated DC, can prevent human DC and T cell induced lethal xenogeneic GVHD in SCID mice without impairing T cell mediated anti-leukaemic and anti-viral (CMV and influenza) immunity (J Exp Med 2009; 206: 387). Therefore, we made and tested a polyclonal anti mouse CD83 (RAM83) antibody in murine HSCT models and developed a human mAb against hCD83 as a potential new therapeutic immunosuppressive agent.

H2 purification by functionalized graphdiyne – role of nitrogen doping

A nitrogen modified graphdiyne is investigated concerning its performance for hydrogen purification from CH4 and CO by density functional theory with dispersion correction and transition state theory. After nitrogen doping, the porous N-graphdiyne nano-mesh shows a reduced H2 diffusion barrier and increased CH4/CO diffusion barriers, hence leading to an enhanced hydrogen purification capability.

Where to after Drink Rite: An evaluation of opportunities for police and community promotion of an anti-drink driving message in the licensed venue setting. Report to the National Drug Strategy Law Enforcement Funding Committee

Estimating the prevalence of drink driving is a difficult task. Self‐reported drink driving indicates that drink driving is far more common than official statistics suggest. In order to promote a responsible attitude towards alcohol consumption and drink driving within the Queensland community, the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Health and Queensland Transport developed the ‘Drink Rite’ program (Queensland Police Service information sheet, 2009). However, the feasibility of the program is now in doubt as the National Health and Medical Research Council’s guidelines for alcohol consumption changed in 2009 to state “For healthy men and women, drinking no more than four standard drinks on a single occasion reduces the risk of alcohol‐related injury arising from that occasion” (NHMRC Publication, 2009, p. 51). As such, adhering to the NHMRC guidelines places restrictions on how the existing Drink Rite program can be operated (i.e. by reducing the number of standard drinks provided to participants from eight to four). It is arguable that a reduction in the number of alcoholic drinks provided to participants in the program will result in a large reduction in observed BAC readings. This, in turn, will lead to a potential loss of message content when discussing the variation in the effects of alcohol.

Cracking the Code: a Checklist to Complement CRAs for First Year Justice Students

Project overview, promotional poster and how to access and use the checklist (student guide)

Submission to Communications Alliance Industry Code: Copyright Notice Scheme

In making this submission, we suggest that Australia learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, and avoid some of the mistakes that have been made. In particular, this involves: * Ensuring that adequate information is available to evaluate the success of the scheme * Ensuring that notices sent to consumers provide full and accurate information that helps them understand their rights and options * Limiting the potential abuse of the system, and particularly attempts to intimidate consumers into paying unfair penalties through ‘speculative invoicing’ * Avoiding the potential for actual or perceived bias in the scheme’s oversight body

Paralog-specific kinase inhibition of FGFR4: Adding to the arsenal of anti-FGFR agents

In this issue of Cancer Discovery, Hagel and colleagues report the design and the in vitro and in vivo activity of a novel, irreversible, paralog-specific kinase inhibitor of FGFR4, BLU9931. This compound binds covalently to a cysteine residue in the hinge region of FGFR4 but not in FGFR1-3. BLU9931 induces tumor shrinkage in hepatocellular carcinoma models that express a functioning ligand/receptor complex consisting of FGF19/FGFR4/KLB and adds to a growing list of anti-FGFR4 agents.

MATLAB/Simulink simulation and C2000 code generation model for a grid-interactive 3-phase 4-wire inverter

This work is a MATLAB/Simulink model of a controller for a three-phase, four-wire, grid-interactive inverter. The model provides capacity for simulating the performance of power electroinic hardware, as well as code generation for an embedded controller. The implemented hardware topology is a three-leg bridge with a neutral connection to the centre-tap of the DC bus. An LQR-based current controller and MAF-based phase detector are implemented. The model is configured for code generation for a Texas Instruments TMS320F28335 Digital Signal Processor (DSP).

Revisiting the Australian code of banking practice: Is self-regulation still relevant for improving consumer protection standards?

The Code of Banking Practice is one of the oldest examples of consumer protection provided through self-regulation in the Australian financial services sector. However, since the Banking Code was first released in 1993, the volume of consumer protection legislation applying to banks has increased exponentially and parts of the Banking Code that once provided new consumer rights have now been largely superseded by legislation. In light of the increasingly complex set of laws and regulations that govern the relationship between banks and their consumer and small business customers it could be argued that the Banking Code has a limited future role. However, an analysis of the Banking Code shows that it adds to the consumer protection standards provided by legislation and can continue to facilitate improvements in the standards of subscribing banks and of other institutions in the financial services sector. Self-regulation and industry codes should continue to be part of the regulatory mix. Any regulatory changes that flow from the recent Financial System Inquiry should also facilitate and support the self-regulation role, but the government should also consider further changes to encourage improvements in industry codes and ensure that the implicit regulatory benefits that are provided, in part, because of the existence of industry codes, are made explicit and made available only to code subscribers.

Anti-tumour effects of antibodies targeting the extracellular cysteine-rich region of the receptor tyrosine kinase EphB4

EphB4 is a membrane-bound receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) commonly over-produced by many epithelial cancers but with low to no expression in most normal adult tissues. EphB4 over-production promotes ligand-independent signaling pathways that increase cancer cell viability and stimulate migration and invasion. Several studies have shown that normal ligand-dependent signaling is tumour suppressive and therefore novel therapeutics which block the tumour promoting ligand-independent signaling and/or stimulate tumour suppressive ligand-dependent signaling will find application in the treatment of cancer. An EphB4-specific polyclonal antibody, targeting a region of 200 amino acids in the extracellular portion of EphB4, showed potent in vitro anti-cancer effects measured by an increase in apoptosis and a decrease in anchorage independent growth. Peptide exclusion was used to identify the epitope targeted by this antibody within the cysteine-rich region of the EphB4 protein, a sequence defined as a potential ligand interacting interface. Addition of antibody to cancer cells resulted in phosphorylation and subsequent degradation of the EphB4 protein, suggesting a mechanism that is ligand mimetic and tumour suppressive. A monoclonal antibody which specifically targets this identified extracellular epitope of EphB4 significantly reduced breast cancer xenograft growth in vivo confirming that EphB4 is a useful target for ligand-mimicking antibody-based anti-cancer therapies.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Young drivers’ responses to anti-speeding advertisements: Comparison of self-report and objective measures of persuasive processing and outcomes

Objective Self-report measures are typically used to assess the effectiveness of road safety advertisements. However, psychophysiological measures of persuasive processing (i.e., skin conductance response [SCR]) and objective driving measures of persuasive outcomes (i.e., in-vehicle GPS devices) may provide further insights into the effectiveness of these advertisements. This study aimed to explore the persuasive processing and outcomes of two anti-speeding advertisements by incorporating both self-report and objective measures of speeding behaviour. In addition, this study aimed to compare the findings derived from these different measurement approaches. Methods Young drivers (N = 20, Mage = 21.01 years) viewed either a positive or negative emotion-based anti-speeding television advertisement. Whilst viewing the advertisement, SCR activity was measured to assess ad-evoked arousal responses. The RoadScout® GPS device was then installed into participants’ vehicles for one week to measure on-road speed-related driving behaviour. Self-report measures assessed persuasive processing (emotional and arousal responses) and actual driving behaviour. Results There was general correspondence between the self-report measures of arousal and the SCR and between the self-report measure of actual driving behaviour and the objective driving data (as assessed via the GPS devices). Conclusions This study provides insights into how psychophysiological and GPS devices could be used as objective measures in conjunction with self-report measures to further understand the persuasive processes and outcomes of emotion-based anti-speeding advertisements.