Segregation of DNA polynucleotide strands into sister chromatids and the use of endoreduplicated cells to track sister chromatid exchanges induced by crosslinks, alkylations, or x-ray damage.

The method of Matsumoto and Ohta [Matsumoto, K. & Ohta, T. (1992) Chromosoma 102, 60-65; Matsumoto, K. & Ohta, T. (1995) Mutat. Res. 326, 93-98] to induce large numbers of endoreduplicated Chinese hamster ovary cells has now been coupled with the fluorescence-plus-Giemsa method of Perry and Wolff [Perry, P. & Wolff, S. (1974) Nature (London) 251, 156-158] to produce harlequin endoreduplicated chromosomes that after the third round of DNA replication are composed of a chromosome with a light chromatid and a dark chromatid in close apposition to its sister chromosome containing two light chromatids. Unless the pattern is disrupted by sister chromatid exchange (SCE), the dark chromatid is always in the center, so that the order of the chromatids is light-dark light-light. The advent of this method, which permits the observation of SCEs in endoreduplicated cells, makes it possible to determine with great ease in which cell cycle an SCE occurred. This now allows us to approach several vexing questions about the induction of SCEs (genetic damage and its repair) after exposure to various types of mutagenic carcinogens. The present experiments have allowed us to observe how many cell cycles various types of lesions that are induced in DNA by a crosslinking agent, an alkylating agent, or ionizing radiation, and that are responsible for the induction of SCEs, persist before being repaired and thus lose their ability to inflict genetic damage. Other experiments with various types of mutagenic carcinogens and various types of cell lines that have defects in different DNA repair processes, such as mismatch repair, excision repair, crosslink repair, and DNA-strand-break repair, can now be carried out to determine the role of these types of repair in removing specific types of lesions.

Exchanges are not equally able to enhance meiotic chromosome segregation in yeast.

Homologous chromosomes pair, and then migrate to opposite poles of the spindle at meiosis I. In most eukaryotic organisms, reciprocal recombinations (crossovers) between the homologs are critical to the success of this process. Individuals with defects in meiotic recombination typically produce high levels of aneuploid gametes and exhibit low fertility or are sterile. The experiments described here were designed to test whether different crossovers are equally able to contribute to the fidelity of meiotic chromosome segregation in yeast. These experiments were performed with model chromosomes with which it was possible to control and measure the distributions of meiotic crossovers in wild-type cells. Physical and genetic approaches were used to map crossover positions on model chromosomes and to correlate crossover position with meiotic segregation behavior. The results show that crossovers at different chromosomal positions have different abilities to enhance the fidelity of meiotic segregation.

Building from building waste: The development of an instrument to determine the circularity of materials from the existing building stock in order to maximise high quality reuse

On a global level the population growth and increase of the middle class lead to a growing demand on material resources. The built environment has an enormous impact on this scarcity. In addition, a surplus of construction and demolition waste is a common problem. The construction industry claims to recycle 95% of this waste but this is in fact mainly downcycling. Towards the circular economy, the quality of reuse becomes of increasing importance. Buildings are material warehouses that can contribute to this high quality reuse. However, several aspects to achieve this are unknown and a need for more insight into the potential for high quality reuse of building materials exists. Therefore an instrument has been developed that determines the circularity of construction waste in order to maximise high quality reuse. The instrument is based on three principles: ‘product and material flows in the end of life phase’, ‘future value of secondary materials and products’ and ‘the success of repetition in a new life cycle’. These principles are further divided into a number of criteria to which values and weighting factors are assigned. A degree of circularity can then be determined as a percentage. A case study for a typical 70s building is carried out. For concrete, the circularity is increased from 25% to 50% by mapping out the potential for high quality reuse. During the development of the instrument it was clarified that some criteria are difficult to measure. Accurate and reliable data are limited and assumptions had to be made. To increase the reliability of the instrument, experts have reviewed the instrument several times. In the long-term, the instrument can be used as a tool for quantitative research to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste and contribute to the reduction of raw material scarcity.

[Receipt issued for interest on stock], 1792 February 2

Printed Commissioner's Office receipt form acknowledging the disbursement of money to Caleb Gannett from Nathaniel Appleton, Commissioner of Loans in the State of Massachusetts, for interest on stock in the funds of the United States. The receipt, No. 484, is signed by Gannett and dated February 2, 1792.

Salema, Sarpa salsa (Linnaeus 1758) : stock structure in the eastern atlantic and biological characterizatin off the portuguese coast

Tese de doutoramento, Biologia (Biologia Marinha e Aquacultura), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, 2016

Taking stock after the Warsaw COP. CEPS Commentary, 4 December 2013

Drawing on his direct participation in the latest round of climate talks in Warsaw, Andrei Marcu looks at the results of the 19th COP through the lens of three basic questions, with a view to understanding how much progress was made and where we stand two years ahead of Paris. Are the targets adequate and how do we reach environmentally adequate targets? Can one understand and compare what other Parties are promising to do to ensure that the level of effort is comparable and equitable, and that companies are not asked to do more than their competitors in other jurisdictions? Is there comparability and equity in the eyes of the beholder? Do we understand what tools each country uses (what is available, what one gets as support) to ensure that no one country (and its companies) gets an easier ride or competitive advantage in meeting the commitment/promises that countries make. The author asserts that these questions need to be answered if an agreement is to be reached in 2015. And if they are not, he warns of mistrust, fear of carbon leakage and the temptation to resort to protectionist measures to compensate for competitive disadvantage.