University of Arizona

About: University of Arizona is a education organization based out in Tucson, Arizona, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Galaxy. The organization has 63805 authors who have published 155998 publications receiving 6854915 citations. The organization is also known as: UA & U of A.

Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies

Abstract: We present the large-scale correlation function measured from a spectroscopic sample of 46,748 luminous red galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The survey region covers 0.72h −3 Gpc 3 over 3816 square degrees and 0.16 < z < 0.47, making it the best sample yet for the study of large-scale structure. We find a well-detected peak in the correlation function at 100h −1 Mpc separation that is an excellent match to the predicted shape and location of the imprint of the recombination-epoch acoustic oscillations on the low-redshift clustering of matter. This detection demonstrates the linear growth of structure by gravitational instability between z ≈ 1000 and the present and confirms a firm prediction of the standard cosmological theory. The acoustic peak provides a standard ruler by which we can measure the ratio of the distances to z = 0.35 and z = 1089 to 4% fractional accuracy and the absolute distance to z = 0.35 to 5% accuracy. From the overall shape of the correlation function, we measure the matter density mh 2 to 8% and find agreement with the value from cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. Independent of the constraints provided by the CMB acoustic scale, we find m = 0.273 ±0.025+0.123(1+ w0)+0.137K. Including the CMB acoustic scale, we find that the spatial curvature is K = −0.010 ± 0.009 if the dark energy is a cosmological constant. More generally, our results provide a measurement of cosmological distance, and hence an argument for dark energy, based on a geometric method with the same simple physics as the microwave background anisotropies. The standard cosmological model convincingly passes these new and robust tests of its fundamental properties. Subject headings: cosmology: observations — large-scale structure of the universe — distance scale — cosmological parameters — cosmic microwave background — galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD

Multivariate Simultaneous Generalized ARCH

Abstract: This paper presents theoretical results in the formulation and estimation of multivariate gen- eralized ARCH models within simultaneous equations systems. A new parameterization of the multivariate ARCH process is proposed and equivalence relations are discussed for the various ARCH parameterizations. Constraints suffcient to guarantee the positive deffniteness of the con- ditional covariance matrices are developed, and necessary and suffcient conditions for covariance stationarity are presented. Identifcation and maximum likelihood estimation of the parameters in the simultaneous equations context are also covered.

Why do cancers have high aerobic glycolysis

Abstract: If carcinogenesis occurs by somatic evolution, then common components of the cancer phenotype result from active selection and must, therefore, confer a significant growth advantage. A near-universal property of primary and metastatic cancers is upregulation of glycolysis, resulting in increased glucose consumption, which can be observed with clinical tumour imaging. We propose that persistent metabolism of glucose to lactate even in aerobic conditions is an adaptation to intermittent hypoxia in pre-malignant lesions. However, upregulation of glycolysis leads to microenvironmental acidosis requiring evolution to phenotypes resistant to acid-induced cell toxicity. Subsequent cell populations with upregulated glycolysis and acid resistance have a powerful growth advantage, which promotes unconstrained proliferation and invasion.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.