Norwich Research Park

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Simulated gastro-intestinal digestion is widely employed in many fields of food and nutritional sciences, as conducting human trials are often costly, resource intensive, and ethically disputable. As a consequence, in vitro alternatives that determine endpoints such as the bioaccessibility of nutrients and non-nutrients or the digestibility of macronutrients (e.g. lipids, proteins and carbohydrates) are used for screening and building new hypotheses. Various digestion models have been proposed, often impeding the possibility to compare results across research teams. For example, a large variety of enzymes from different sources such as of porcine, rabbit or human origin have been used, differing in their activity and characterization. Differences in pH, mineral type, ionic strength and digestion time, which alter enzyme activity and other phenomena, may also considerably alter results. Other parameters such as the presence of phospholipids, individual enzymes such as gastric lipase and digestive emulsifiers vs. their mixtures (e.g. pancreatin and bile salts), and the ratio of food bolus to digestive fluids, have also been discussed at length. In the present consensus paper, within the COST Infogest network, we propose a general standardised and practical static digestion method based on physiologically relevant conditions that can be applied for various endpoints, which may be amended to accommodate further specific requirements. A frameset of parameters including the oral, gastric and small intestinal digestion are outlined and their relevance discussed in relation to available in vivo data and enzymes. This consensus paper will give a detailed protocol and a line-by-line, guidance, recommendations and justifications but also limitation of the proposed model. This harmonised static, in vitro digestion method for food should aid the production of more comparable data in the future.

Galaxy (homepage: https://galaxyproject.org, main public server: https://usegalaxy.org) is a web-based scientific analysis platform used by tens of thousands of scientists across the world to analyze large biomedical datasets such as those found in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and imaging. Started in 2005, Galaxy continues to focus on three key challenges of data-driven biomedical science: making analyses accessible to all researchers, ensuring analyses are completely reproducible, and making it simple to communicate analyses so that they can be reused and extended. During the last two years, the Galaxy team and the open-source community around Galaxy have made substantial improvements to Galaxy's core framework, user interface, tools, and training materials. Framework and user interface improvements now enable Galaxy to be used for analyzing tens of thousands of datasets, and >5500 tools are now available from the Galaxy ToolShed. The Galaxy community has led an effort to create numerous high-quality tutorials focused on common types of genomic analyses. The Galaxy developer and user communities continue to grow and be integral to Galaxy's development. The number of Galaxy public servers, developers contributing to the Galaxy framework and its tools, and users of the main Galaxy server have all increased substantially.

The human gastrointestinal (GI) tract harbours a complex and dynamic population of microorganisms, the gut microbiota, which exert a marked influence on the host during homeostasis and disease. Multiple factors contribute to the establishment of the human gut microbiota during infancy. Diet is considered as one of the main drivers in shaping the gut microbiota across the life time. Intestinal bacteria play a crucial role in maintaining immune and metabolic homeostasis and protecting against pathogens. Altered gut bacterial composition (dysbiosis) has been associated with the pathogenesis of many inflammatory diseases and infections. The interpretation of these studies relies on a better understanding of inter-individual variations, heterogeneity of bacterial communities along and across the GI tract, functional redundancy and the need to distinguish cause from effect in states of dysbiosis. This review summarises our current understanding of the development and composition of the human GI microbiota, and its impact on gut integrity and host health, underlying the need for mechanistic studies focusing on host-microbe interactions.

An annotated reference sequence representing the hexaploid bread wheat genome in 21 pseudomolecules has been analyzed to identify the distribution and genomic context of coding and noncoding elements across the A, B, and D subgenomes. With an estimated coverage of 94% of the genome and containing 107,891 high-confidence gene models, this assembly enabled the discovery of tissue- and developmental stage-related coexpression networks by providing a transcriptome atlas representing major stages of wheat development. Dynamics of complex gene families involved in environmental adaptation and end-use quality were revealed at subgenome resolution and contextualized to known agronomic single-gene or quantitative trait loci. This community resource establishes the foundation for accelerating wheat research and application through improved understanding of wheat biology and genomics-assisted breeding.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015328.pub2, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015330.pub2 and https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015326.pub2 for more recent reviews that cover this topic. BACKGROUND: Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies to prevent obesity is very large and is accumulating rapidly. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a range of interventions that include diet or physical activity components, or both, designed to prevent obesity in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL in June 2015. We re-ran the search from June 2015 to January 2018 and included a search of trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet or physical activity interventions, or combined diet and physical activity interventions, for preventing overweight or obesity in children (0-17 years) that reported outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk-of-bias and evaluated overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We extracted data on adiposity outcomes, sociodemographic characteristics, adverse events, intervention process and costs. We meta-analysed data as guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and presented separate meta-analyses by age group for child 0 to 5 years, 6 to 12 years, and 13 to 18 years for zBMI and BMI. MAIN RESULTS: , 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05). However, there is moderate-certainty evidence that they had little or no effect on zBMI (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02). There is low-certainty evidence from 20 RCTs (n = 24,043) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced zBMI (MD -0.05 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01). There is high-certainty evidence that diet interventions, compared with control, had little impact on zBMI (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01) or BMI (-0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.06).Children aged 13 to 18 years: There is very low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions, compared with control reduced BMI (MD -1.53 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.39; 4 RCTs; n = 720); and low-certainty evidence for a reduction in zBMI (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1; 1 RCT; n = 100). There is low-certainty evidence from eight RCTs (n = 16,583) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, had no effect on BMI (MD -0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05); or zBMI (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07; 6 RCTs; n = 16,543). Evidence from two RCTs (low-certainty evidence; n = 294) found no effect of diet interventions on BMI.Direct comparisons of interventions: Two RCTs reported data directly comparing diet with either physical activity or diet combined with physical activity interventions for children aged 6 to 12 years and reported no differences.Heterogeneity was apparent in the results from all three age groups, which could not be entirely explained by setting or duration of the interventions. Where reported, interventions did not appear to result in adverse effects (16 RCTs) or increase health inequalities (gender: 30 RCTs; socioeconomic status: 18 RCTs), although relatively few studies examined these factors.Re-running the searches in January 2018 identified 315 records with potential relevance to this review, which will be synthesised in the next update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that include diet combined with physical activity interventions can reduce the risk of obesity (zBMI and BMI) in young children aged 0 to 5 years. There is weaker evidence from a single study that dietary interventions may be beneficial.However, interventions that focus only on physical activity do not appear to be effective in children of this age. In contrast, interventions that only focus on physical activity can reduce the risk of obesity (BMI) in children aged 6 to 12 years, and adolescents aged 13 to 18 years. In these age groups, there is no evidence that interventions that only focus on diet are effective, and some evidence that diet combined with physical activity interventions may be effective. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent childhood obesity do not appear to result in adverse effects or health inequalities.The review will not be updated in its current form. To manage the growth in RCTs of child obesity prevention interventions, in future, this review will be split into three separate reviews based on child age.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biospherein a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important tobetter understand the global carbon cycle, support the development ofclimate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe andsynthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major componentsof the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement productiondata, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainlydeforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data andbookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directlyand its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes inconcentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrialCO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process modelsconstrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the lastdecade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), andELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budgetimbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance betweenestimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, thegrowth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasingto 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEANwas 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminarydata for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions,suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (medianestimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %,−7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in thecomponents of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over theperiod 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for therepresentation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison ofestimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensusin the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2)a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude ofthe land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparentdiscrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside thetropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data updatedocuments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new globalcarbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cyclecompared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al.,2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014,2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

Abstract Method validation is one of the measures universally recognized as a necessary part of a comprehensive system of quality assurance in analytical chemistry. In the past, ISO, IUPAC, and AOAC International have cooperated to produce agreed protocols or guidelines on the "Design, conduct and interpretation of method performance studies" [1], on the "Proficiency testing of (chemical) analytical laboratories" [2], on "Internal quality control in analytical chemistry laboratories" [3], and on "The use of recovery information in analytical measurement" [4]. The Working Group that produced these protocols/guidelines has now been mandated by IUPAC to prepare guidelines on the single-laboratory validation of methods of analysis. These guidelines provide minimum recommendations on procedures that should be employed to ensure adequate validation of analytical methods. A draft of the guidelines has been discussed at an International Symposium on the Harmonization of Quality Assurance Systems in Chemical Laboratory, the proceedings from which have been published by the UK Royal Society of Chemistry.

High-throughput data production technologies, particularly 'next-generation' DNA sequencing, have ushered in widespread and disruptive changes to biomedical research. Making sense of the large datasets produced by these technologies requires sophisticated statistical and computational methods, as well as substantial computational power. This has led to an acute crisis in life sciences, as researchers without informatics training attempt to perform computation-dependent analyses. Since 2005, the Galaxy project has worked to address this problem by providing a framework that makes advanced computational tools usable by non experts. Galaxy seeks to make data-intensive research more accessible, transparent and reproducible by providing a Web-based environment in which users can perform computational analyses and have all of the details automatically tracked for later inspection, publication, or reuse. In this report we highlight recently added features enabling biomedical analyses on a large scale.

The first antibiotic, salvarsan, was deployed in 1910. In just over 100 years antibiotics have drastically changed modern medicine and extended the average human lifespan by 23 years. The discovery of penicillin in 1928 started the golden age of natural product antibiotic discovery that peaked in the mid-1950s. Since then, a gradual decline in antibiotic discovery and development and the evolution of drug resistance in many human pathogens has led to the current antimicrobial resistance crisis. Here we give an overview of the history of antibiotic discovery, the major classes of antibiotics and where they come from. We argue that the future of antibiotic discovery looks bright as new technologies such as genome mining and editing are deployed to discover new natural products with diverse bioactivities. We also report on the current state of antibiotic development, with 45 drugs currently going through the clinical trials pipeline, including several new classes with novel modes of action that are in phase 3 clinical trials. Overall, there are promising signs for antibiotic discovery, but changes in financial models are required to translate scientific advances into clinically approved antibiotics.

This review presents recommended nomenclature for the biosynthesis of ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides (RiPPs), a rapidly growing class of natural products. The current knowledge regarding the biosynthesis of the >20 distinct compound classes is also reviewed, and commonalities are discussed.

Crop productivity relies heavily on nitrogen (N) fertilization. Production and application of N fertilizers consume huge amounts of energy, and excess is detrimental to the environment; therefore, increasing plant N use efficiency (NUE) is essential for the development of sustainable agriculture. Plant NUE is inherently complex, as each step-including N uptake, translocation, assimilation, and remobilization-is governed by multiple interacting genetic and environmental factors. The limiting factors in plant metabolism for maximizing NUE are different at high and low N supplies, indicating great potential for improving the NUE of current cultivars, which were bred in well-fertilized soil. Decreasing environmental losses and increasing the productivity of crop-acquired N requires the coordination of carbohydrate and N metabolism to give high yields. Increasing both the grain and N harvest index to drive N acquisition and utilization are important approaches for breeding future high-NUE cultivars.

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement was published in 2015 to provide the minimum reporting recommendations for studies developing or evaluating the performance of a prediction model. Methodological advances in the field of prediction have since included the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) powered by machine learning methods to develop prediction models. An update to the TRIPOD statement is thus needed. TRIPOD+AI provides harmonised guidance for reporting prediction model studies, irrespective of whether regression modelling or machine learning methods have been used. The new checklist supersedes the TRIPOD 2015 checklist, which should no longer be used. This article describes the development of TRIPOD+AI and presents the expanded 27 item checklist with more detailed explanation of each reporting recommendation, and the TRIPOD+AI for Abstracts checklist. TRIPOD+AI aims to promote the complete, accurate, and transparent reporting of studies that develop a prediction model or evaluate its performance. Complete reporting will facilitate study appraisal, model evaluation, and model implementation.

All cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed "kataegis," was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed.

Until recently, most studies on the role of hormones in plant-pathogen interactions focused on salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET). It is now clear that pathogen-induced modulation of signaling via other hormones contributes to virulence. A picture is emerging of complex crosstalk and induced hormonal changes that modulate disease and resistance, with outcomes dependent on pathogen lifestyles and the genetic constitution of the host. Recent progress has revealed intriguing similarities between hormone signaling mechanisms, with gene induction responses often achieved by derepression. Here, we report on recent advances, updating current knowledge on classical defense hormones SA, JA, and ET, and the roles of auxin, abscisic acid (ABA), cytokinins (CKs), and brassinosteroids in molding plant-pathogen interactions. We highlight an emerging theme that positive and negative regulators of these disparate hormone signaling pathways are crucial regulatory targets of hormonal crosstalk in disease and defense.

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXTMechanism of Molybdenum NitrogenaseBarbara K. Burgess and David J. LoweView Author Information Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, California 92717-3900, and Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory, John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UH, U.K. Cite this: Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 7, 2983–3012Publication Date (Web):November 7, 1996Publication History Received28 March 1996Revised15 August 1996Published online7 November 1996Published inissue 1 January 1996https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr950055xhttps://doi.org/10.1021/cr950055xresearch-articleACS PublicationsCopyright © 1996 American Chemical SocietyRequest reuse permissionsArticle Views14798Altmetric-Citations1567LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail Other access optionsGet e-Alertsclose SUBJECTS:Cluster chemistry,FeMo cofactor,Metal organic frameworks,Peptides and proteins,Redox reactions Get e-Alerts

Over the past decade it has become apparent that the atmosphere is a significant pathway for the transport of many natural and pollutant materials from the continents to the ocean. The atmospheric input of many of these species can have an impact (either positive or negative) on biological processes in the sea and on marine chemical cycling. For example, there is now evidence that the atmosphere may be an important transport path for such essential nutrients as iron and nitrogen in some regions. In this report we assess current data in this area, develop global scale estimates of the atmospheric fluxes of trace elements, mineral aerosol, nitrogen species, and synthetic organic compounds to the ocean; and compare the atmospheric input rates of these substances to their input via rivers. Trace elements considered were Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, As, Hg, Sn, Al, Fe, Si, and P. Oxidized and reduced forms of nitrogen were considered, including nitrate and ammonium ions and the gaseous species NO, NO 2 , HNO 3 , and NH 3 . Synthetic organic compounds considered included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), DDTs, chlordane, dieldrin, and hexachlorobenzenes (HCBs). Making this assessment was difficult because there are very few actual measurements of deposition rates of these substances to the ocean. However, there are considerably more data on the atmospheric concentrations of these species in aerosol and gaseous form. Mean concentration data for 10° × 10° ocean areas were determined from the available concentration data or from extrapolation of these data into other regions. These concentration distributions were then combined with appropriate exchange coefficients and precipitation fields to obtain the global wet and dry deposition fluxes. Careful consideration was given to atmospheric transport processes as well as to removal mechanisms and the physical and physicochemical properties of aerosols and gases. Only annual values were calculated. On a global scale atmospheric inputs are generally equal to or greater than riverine inputs, and for most species atmospheric input to the ocean is significantly greater in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. For dissolved trace metals in seawater, global atmospheric input dominates riverine input for Pb, Cd, and Zn, and the two transport paths are roughly equal for Cu, Ni, As, and Fe. Fluxes and basin‐wide deposition of trace metals are generally a factor of 5‐10 higher in the North Atlantic and North Pacific regions than in the South Atlantic and South Pacific. Global input of oxidized and reduced nitrogen species are roughly equal to each other, although the major fraction of oxidized nitrogen enters the ocean in the northern hemisphere, primarily as a result of pollution sources. Reduced nitrogen species are much more uniformly distributed, suggesting that the ocean itself may be a significant source. The global atmospheric input of such synthetic organic species as HCH,PCBs, DDT, and HCB completely dominates their input via rivers.

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biospherein a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carboncycle, support the development of climate policies, and project futureclimate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies toquantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and theiruncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energystatistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change(ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use changedata and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measureddirectly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annualchanges in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimatedwith global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-baseddata products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated withdynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, EFOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, withfossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission(including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1(40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2021, GATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with aBIM of −0.6 GtC yr−1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low orsinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest anincrease in EFOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %)globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, morethan 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the meanand trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistentlyestimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadalvariability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multipleapproaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in theestimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between thedifferent methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northernextratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on thestrength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data updatedocuments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new globalcarbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cyclecompared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented inthis work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andtheir redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere– the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand theglobal carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, andproject future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology toquantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and theiruncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energystatistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change(ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use changedata and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measureddirectly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changesin concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrialCO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process modelsconstrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance(BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and theestimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is ameasure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carboncycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the lastdecade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1,ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budgetimbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissionsand/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF wasabout 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history,ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenicCO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of−0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, theUSA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product correctedfor recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest ofthe world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the globalcarbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, butdiscrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation ofsemi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison amongindividual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observationsshows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissionsover the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the differentmethods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northernextra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data updatedocuments changes in the methods and data sets used in this new globalcarbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cyclecompared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré etal., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated bythis work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingsteinet al., 2019).