Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz

BACKGROUND: No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00105443.)

BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2%; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63%). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0%).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42%; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0%).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23%).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14%; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0% to 32%), but low for NPs (0% to 1.7%).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4%) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7%) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2%) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

This paper reviews recent experimental and theoretical progress concerning many-body phenomena in dilute, ultracold gases. It focuses on effects beyond standard weak-coupling descriptions, such as the Mott-Hubbard transition in optical lattices, strongly interacting gases in one and two dimensions, or lowest-Landau-level physics in quasi-two-dimensional gases in fast rotation. Strong correlations in fermionic gases are discussed in optical lattices or near-Feshbach resonances in the BCS-BEC crossover.

The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 2,873 new measurements from 758 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 118 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on Neutrinos in Cosmology.Starting with this edition, the Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and all review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings. Review articles that were previously part of the Listings are now included in volume 1.The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (http://pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is also available.The 2018 edition of the Review of Particle Physics should be cited as: M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.).

Abstract The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 2,143 new measurements from 709 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on Machine Learning, and one on Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 97 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 23 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print, as a web version optimized for use on phones, and as an Android app.

This biennial Review summarizes much of particle physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2658 new measurements from 644 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. Among the 112 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on Heavy-Quark and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Neutrino Cross Section Measurements, Monte Carlo Event Generators, Lattice QCD, Heavy Quarkonium Spectroscopy, Top Quark, Dark Matter, ${V}_{\mathit{cb}}$ ${V}_{\mathit{ub}}$, Quantum Chromodynamics, High-Energy Collider Parameters, Astrophysical Constants, Cosmological Parameters, and Dark Matter.A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov/.The 2012 edition of Review of Particle Physics is published for the Particle Data Group as article 010001 in volume 86 of Physical Review D.This edition should be cited as: J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,&#13;\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,&#13;\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,&#13;\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,&#13;\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,&#13;\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,&#13;\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,&#13;\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,&#13;\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,&#13;\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,&#13;\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,&#13;\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,&#13;\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,&#13;\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,&#13;\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,&#13;\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,&#13;\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,&#13;\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,&#13;\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,&#13;\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,&#13;\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,&#13;\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,&#13;\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,&#13;\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,&#13;\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,&#13;\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,&#13;\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,&#13;\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,&#13;\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,&#13;\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,&#13;\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,&#13;\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,&#13;\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,&#13;\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,&#13;\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,&#13;\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,&#13;\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,&#13;\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,&#13;\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,&#13;\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,&#13;\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,&#13;\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,&#13;\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,&#13;\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,&#13;\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,&#13;\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,&#13;\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,&#13;\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,&#13;\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,&#13;\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,&#13;\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,&#13;\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,&#13;\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,&#13;\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,&#13;\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,&#13;\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,&#13;\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,&#13;\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,&#13;\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,&#13;\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,&#13;\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,&#13;\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,&#13;\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,&#13;\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,&#13;\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,&#13;\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,&#13;\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,&#13;\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,&#13;\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,&#13;\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,&#13;\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,&#13;\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,&#13;\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,&#13;\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,&#13;\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,&#13;\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,&#13;\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,&#13;\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,&#13;\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,&#13;\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,&#13;\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,&#13;\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,&#13;\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,&#13;\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,&#13;\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,&#13;\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

In the past decade, extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been recognized as potent vehicles of intercellular communication, both in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. This is due to their capacity to transfer proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, thereby influencing various physiological and pathological functions of both recipient and parent cells. While intensive investigation has targeted the role of EVs in different pathological processes, for example, in cancer and autoimmune diseases, the EV‐mediated maintenance of homeostasis and the regulation of physiological functions have remained less explored. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of the physiological roles of EVs, which has been written by crowd‐sourcing, drawing on the unique EV expertise of academia‐based scientists, clinicians and industry based in 27 European countries, the United States and Australia. This review is intended to be of relevance to both researchers already working on EV biology and to newcomers who will encounter this universal cell biological system. Therefore, here we address the molecular contents and functions of EVs in various tissues and body fluids from cell systems to organs. We also review the physiological mechanisms of EVs in bacteria, lower eukaryotes and plants to highlight the functional uniformity of this emerging communication system.

BACKGROUND: Progressive respiratory failure is the primary cause of death in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. Despite widespread interest in the pathophysiology of the disease, relatively little is known about the associated morphologic and molecular changes in the peripheral lung of patients who die from Covid-19. METHODS: We examined 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from Covid-19 and compared them with 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to influenza A(H1N1) infection and 10 age-matched, uninfected control lungs. The lungs were studied with the use of seven-color immunohistochemical analysis, micro-computed tomographic imaging, scanning electron microscopy, corrosion casting, and direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression. RESULTS: In patients who died from Covid-19-associated or influenza-associated respiratory failure, the histologic pattern in the peripheral lung was diffuse alveolar damage with perivascular T-cell infiltration. The lungs from patients with Covid-19 also showed distinctive vascular features, consisting of severe endothelial injury associated with the presence of intracellular virus and disrupted cell membranes. Histologic analysis of pulmonary vessels in patients with Covid-19 showed widespread thrombosis with microangiopathy. Alveolar capillary microthrombi were 9 times as prevalent in patients with Covid-19 as in patients with influenza (P<0.001). In lungs from patients with Covid-19, the amount of new vessel growth - predominantly through a mechanism of intussusceptive angiogenesis - was 2.7 times as high as that in the lungs from patients with influenza (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our small series, vascular angiogenesis distinguished the pulmonary pathobiology of Covid-19 from that of equally severe influenza virus infection. The universality and clinical implications of our observations require further research to define. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Abstract The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 3,324 new measurements from 878 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on High Energy Soft QCD and Diffraction and one on the Determination of CKM Angles from B Hadrons. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 98 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 22 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print and as a web version optimized for use on phones as well as an Android app.

This review summarizes recent developments in the theory of spin glasses, as well as pertinent experimental data. The most characteristic properties of spin glass systems are described, and related phenomena in other glassy systems (dielectric and orientational glasses) are mentioned. The Edwards-Anderson model of spin glasses and its treatment within the replica method and mean-field theory are outlined, and concepts such as "frustration," "broken replica symmetry," "broken ergodicity," etc., are discussed. The dynamic approach to describing the spin glass transition is emphasized. Monte Carlo simulations of spin glasses and the insight gained by them are described. Other topics discussed include site-disorder models, phenomenological theories for the frozen phase and its excitations, phase diagrams in which spin glass order and ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism compete, the Ne\'el model of superparamagnetism and related approaches, and possible connections between spin glasses and other topics in the theory of disordered condensed-matter systems.

Natural products and their structural analogues have historically made a major contribution to pharmacotherapy, especially for cancer and infectious diseases. Nevertheless, natural products also present challenges for drug discovery, such as technical barriers to screening, isolation, characterization and optimization, which contributed to a decline in their pursuit by the pharmaceutical industry from the 1990s onwards. In recent years, several technological and scientific developments - including improved analytical tools, genome mining and engineering strategies, and microbial culturing advances - are addressing such challenges and opening up new opportunities. Consequently, interest in natural products as drug leads is being revitalized, particularly for tackling antimicrobial resistance. Here, we summarize recent technological developments that are enabling natural product-based drug discovery, highlight selected applications and discuss key opportunities.

Organic aerosol (OA) particles affect climate forcing and human health, but their sources and evolution remain poorly characterized. We present a unifying model framework describing the atmospheric evolution of OA that is constrained by high-time-resolution measurements of its composition, volatility, and oxidation state. OA and OA precursor gases evolve by becoming increasingly oxidized, less volatile, and more hygroscopic, leading to the formation of oxygenated organic aerosol (OOA), with concentrations comparable to those of sulfate aerosol throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Our model framework captures the dynamic aging behavior observed in both the atmosphere and laboratory: It can serve as a basis for improving parameterizations in regional and global models.

Abstract. Secondary organic aerosol (SOA) accounts for a significant fraction of ambient tropospheric aerosol and a detailed knowledge of the formation, properties and transformation of SOA is therefore required to evaluate its impact on atmospheric processes, climate and human health. The chemical and physical processes associated with SOA formation are complex and varied, and, despite considerable progress in recent years, a quantitative and predictive understanding of SOA formation does not exist and therefore represents a major research challenge in atmospheric science. This review begins with an update on the current state of knowledge on the global SOA budget and is followed by an overview of the atmospheric degradation mechanisms for SOA precursors, gas-particle partitioning theory and the analytical techniques used to determine the chemical composition of SOA. A survey of recent laboratory, field and modeling studies is also presented. The following topical and emerging issues are highlighted and discussed in detail: molecular characterization of biogenic SOA constituents, condensed phase reactions and oligomerization, the interaction of atmospheric organic components with sulfuric acid, the chemical and photochemical processing of organics in the atmospheric aqueous phase, aerosol formation from real plant emissions, interaction of atmospheric organic components with water, thermodynamics and mixtures in atmospheric models. Finally, the major challenges ahead in laboratory, field and modeling studies of SOA are discussed and recommendations for future research directions are proposed.

Nitric oxide (NO), the smallest signalling molecule known, is produced by three isoforms of NO synthase (NOS; EC 1.14.13.39). They all utilize l-arginine and molecular oxygen as substrates and require the cofactors reduced nicotinamide-adenine-dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH), flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), flavin mononucleotide (FMN), and (6R-)5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin (BH(4)). All NOS bind calmodulin and contain haem. Neuronal NOS (nNOS, NOS I) is constitutively expressed in central and peripheral neurons and some other cell types. Its functions include synaptic plasticity in the central nervous system (CNS), central regulation of blood pressure, smooth muscle relaxation, and vasodilatation via peripheral nitrergic nerves. Nitrergic nerves are of particular importance in the relaxation of corpus cavernosum and penile erection. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil) require at least a residual nNOS activity for their action. Inducible NOS (NOS II) can be expressed in many cell types in response to lipopolysaccharide, cytokines, or other agents. Inducible NOS generates large amounts of NO that have cytostatic effects on parasitic target cells. Inducible NOS contributes to the pathophysiology of inflammatory diseases and septic shock. Endothelial NOS (eNOS, NOS III) is mostly expressed in endothelial cells. It keeps blood vessels dilated, controls blood pressure, and has numerous other vasoprotective and anti-atherosclerotic effects. Many cardiovascular risk factors lead to oxidative stress, eNOS uncoupling, and endothelial dysfunction in the vasculature. Pharmacologically, vascular oxidative stress can be reduced and eNOS functionality restored with renin- and angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors, with angiotensin receptor blockers, and with statins.

Author(s): Collaboration, The ATLAS; Aad, G; Abat, E; Abdallah, J; Abdelalim, AA; Abdesselam, A; Abdinov, O; Abi, BA; Abolins, M; Abramowicz, H; Acerbi, E; Acharya, BS; Achenbach, R; Ackers, M; Adams, DL; Adamyan, F; Addy, TN; Aderholz, M; Adorisio, C; Adragna, P; Aharrouche, M; Ahlen, SP; Ahles, F; Ahmad, A; Ahmed, H; Aielli, G; Åkesson, PF; Åkesson, TPA; Akimov, AV; Alam, SM; Albert, J; Albrand, S; Aleksa, M; Aleksandrov, IN; Aleppo, M; Alessandria, F; Alexa, C; Alexander, G; Alexopoulos, T; Alimonti, G; Aliyev, M; Allport, PP; Allwood-Spiers, SE; Aloisio, A; Alonso, J; Alves, R; Alviggi, MG; Amako, K; Amaral, P; Amaral, SP; Ambrosini, G; Ambrosio, G; Amelung, C; Ammosov, VV; Amorim, A; Amram, N; Anastopoulos, C; Anderson, B; Anderson, KJ; Anderssen, EC; Andreazza, A; Andrei, V; Andricek, L; Andrieux, M-L; Anduaga, XS; Anghinolfi, F; Antonaki, A; Antonelli, M; Antonelli, S; Apsimon, R; Arabidze, G; Aracena, I; Arai, Y; Arce, ATH; Archambault, JP; Arguin, J-F; Arik, E; Arik, M; Arms, KE; Armstrong, SR; Arnaud, M; Arnault, C; Artamonov, A; Asai, S; Ask, S

BACKGROUND: Imatinib, a selective inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase, produces high response rates in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who have had no response to interferon alfa. We compared the efficacy of imatinib with that of interferon alfa combined with low-dose cytarabine in newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1106 patients to receive imatinib (553 patients) or interferon alfa plus low-dose cytarabine (553 patients). Crossover to the alternative group was allowed if stringent criteria defining treatment failure or intolerance were met. Patients were evaluated for hematologic and cytogenetic responses, toxic effects, and rates of progression. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 19 months, the estimated rate of a major cytogenetic response (0 to 35 percent of cells in metaphase positive for the Philadelphia chromosome) at 18 months was 87.1 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 84.1 to 90.0) in the imatinib group and 34.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 29.3 to 40.0) in the group given interferon alfa plus cytarabine (P<0.001). The estimated rates of complete cytogenetic response were 76.2 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 72.5 to 79.9) and 14.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 10.5 to 18.5), respectively (P<0.001). At 18 months, the estimated rate of freedom from progression to accelerated-phase or blast-crisis CML was 96.7 percent in the imatinib group and 91.5 percent in the combination-therapy group (P<0.001). Imatinib was better tolerated than combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of hematologic and cytogenetic responses, tolerability, and the likelihood of progression to accelerated-phase or blast-crisis CML, imatinib was superior to interferon alfa plus low-dose cytarabine as first-line therapy in newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML.

Many human melanoma tumors express antigens that are recognized in vitro by cytolytic T lymphocytes (CTLs) derived from the tumor-bearing patient. A gene was identified that directed the expression of antigen MZ2-E on a human melanoma cell line. This gene shows no similarity to known sequences and belongs to a family of at least three genes. It is expressed by the original melanoma cells, other melanoma cell lines, and by some tumor cells of other histological types. No expression was observed in a panel of normal tissues. Antigen MZ2-E appears to be presented by HLA-A1; anti-MZ2-E CTLs of the original patient recognized two melanoma cell lines of other HLA-A1 patients that expressed the gene. Thus, precisely targeted immunotherapy directed against antigen MZ2-E could be provided to individuals identified by HLA typing and analysis of the RNA of a small tumor sample.