University of California, Davis

About: University of California, Davis is a education organization based out in Davis, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 78770 authors who have published 180033 publications receiving 8064158 citations. The organization is also known as: UC Davis & UCD.

A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population

Abstract: The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to 0.8% afterward (P = 0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001). Conclusions Implementation of the checklist was associated with concomitant reductions in the rates of death and complications among patients at least 16 years of age who were undergoing noncardiac surgery in a diverse group of hospitals.

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

Abstract: We present cosmological parameter results from the final full-mission Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, combining information from the temperature and polarization maps and the lensing reconstruction Compared to the 2015 results, improved measurements of large-scale polarization allow the reionization optical depth to be measured with higher precision, leading to significant gains in the precision of other correlated parameters Improved modelling of the small-scale polarization leads to more robust constraints on manyparameters,withresidualmodellinguncertaintiesestimatedtoaffectthemonlyatthe05σlevelWefindgoodconsistencywiththestandard spatially-flat6-parameter ΛCDMcosmologyhavingapower-lawspectrumofadiabaticscalarperturbations(denoted“base ΛCDM”inthispaper), from polarization, temperature, and lensing, separately and in combination A combined analysis gives dark matter density Ωch2 = 0120±0001, baryon density Ωbh2 = 00224±00001, scalar spectral index ns = 0965±0004, and optical depth τ = 0054±0007 (in this abstract we quote 68% confidence regions on measured parameters and 95% on upper limits) The angular acoustic scale is measured to 003% precision, with 100θ∗ = 10411±00003Theseresultsareonlyweaklydependentonthecosmologicalmodelandremainstable,withsomewhatincreasederrors, in many commonly considered extensions Assuming the base-ΛCDM cosmology, the inferred (model-dependent) late-Universe parameters are: HubbleconstantH0 = (674±05)kms−1Mpc−1;matterdensityparameterΩm = 0315±0007;andmatterfluctuationamplitudeσ8 = 0811±0006 We find no compelling evidence for extensions to the base-ΛCDM model Combining with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements (and consideringsingle-parameterextensions)weconstraintheeffectiveextrarelativisticdegreesoffreedomtobe Neff = 299±017,inagreementwith the Standard Model prediction Neff = 3046, and find that the neutrino mass is tightly constrained toPmν < 012 eV The CMB spectra continue to prefer higher lensing amplitudesthan predicted in base ΛCDM at over 2σ, which pulls some parameters that affect thelensing amplitude away from the ΛCDM model; however, this is not supported by the lensing reconstruction or (in models that also change the background geometry) BAOdataThejointconstraintwithBAOmeasurementsonspatialcurvatureisconsistentwithaflatuniverse, ΩK = 0001±0002Alsocombining with Type Ia supernovae (SNe), the dark-energy equation of state parameter is measured to be w0 = −103±003, consistent with a cosmological constant We find no evidence for deviations from a purely power-law primordial spectrum, and combining with data from BAO, BICEP2, and Keck Array data, we place a limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r0002 < 006 Standard big-bang nucleosynthesis predictions for the helium and deuterium abundances for the base-ΛCDM cosmology are in excellent agreement with observations The Planck base-ΛCDM results are in good agreement with BAO, SNe, and some galaxy lensing observations, but in slight tension with the Dark Energy Survey’s combined-probe results including galaxy clustering (which prefers lower fluctuation amplitudes or matter density parameters), and in significant, 36σ, tension with local measurements of the Hubble constant (which prefer a higher value) Simple model extensions that can partially resolve these tensions are not favoured by the Planck data

Identification of markers linked to disease-resistance genes by bulked segregant analysis: a rapid method to detect markers in specific genomic regions by using segregating populations.

Abstract: We developed bulked segregant analysis as a method for rapidly identifying markers linked to any specific gene or genomic region. Two bulked DNA samples are generated from a segregating population from a single cross. Each pool, or bulk, contains individuals that are identical for a particular trait or genomic region but arbitrary at all unlinked regions. The two bulks are therefore genetically dissimilar in the selected region but seemingly heterozygous at all other regions. The two bulks can be made for any genomic region and from any segregating population. The bulks are screened for differences using restriction fragment length polymorphism probes or random amplified polymorphic DNA primers. We have used bulked segregant analysis to identify three random amplified polymorphic DNA markers in lettuce linked to a gene for resistance to downy mildew. We showed that markers can be reliably identified in a 25-centimorgan window on either side of the targeted locus. Bulked segregant analysis has several advantages over the use of near-isogenic lines to identify markers in specific regions of the genome. Genetic walking will be possible by multiple rounds of bulked segregation analysis; each new pair of bulks will differ at a locus identified in the previous round of analysis. This approach will have widespread application both in those species where selfing is possible and in those that are obligatorily outbreeding.

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.