ABSTRACT
The human antibody response to influenza virus infection or vaccination is as complicated as it is essential for protection against flu. The constant antigenic changes of the virus to escape human herd immunity hinder the yearly selection of vaccine strains since it is hard to predict which virus strains will circulate for the coming flu season. A "universal" influenza vaccine that could induce broad cross-influenza subtype protection would help to address this issue. However, the human antibody response is intricate and often obscure, with factors such as antigenic seniority or original antigenic sin (OAS), and back-boosting ensuring that each person mounts a unique immune response to infection or vaccination with any new influenza virus strain. Notably, the effects of existing antibodies on cross-protective immunity after repeated vaccinations are unclear. More research is needed to characterize the mechanisms at play, but traditional assays such as hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) are excessively limited in scope and too resource-intensive to effectively meet this challenge. In the past ten years, new multiple dimensional assays (MDAs) have been developed to help overcome these problems by simultaneously measuring antibodies against a large panel of influenza hemagglutinin (HA) proteins with a minimal amount of sample in a high throughput way. MDAs will likely be a powerful tool for accelerating the study of the humoral immune response to influenza vaccination and the development of a universal influenza vaccine.
ABSTRACT
Cancer cell invasion is a complex process that naturally occurs in a three-dimensional (3-D) environment comprised of tumor cells and extracellular matrix components (ECM). Therefore, examining the invasive ability of breast cancer cells in a 3-D assay is imperative to discovering novel treatment strategies aimed at preventing cancer invasion and metastasis. Here, I describe a method to quantitatively measure the number of invaded cancer cells within a 3-D microenvironment and determine the effects of potential drugs on this cellular process.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Cytological Techniques/methods , Cell Count , Cell Line, Tumor , Collagen/chemistry , Extracellular Matrix/pathology , Humans , Neoplasm Invasiveness , Tumor MicroenvironmentABSTRACT
Introdução e objetivo: este trabalho teve como objetivo comparar dois materiais de fixação interna rígida utilizados em cirurgia maxilofacial, sob o ponto de vista ultra-estrutural, dimensional e mecânico. Materiais e Métodos: foram comparadas amostras de miniplacas de 2.0mm Neoortho® e Synthes®. As amostras foram avaliadas por Microscopia Eletrônica de Varredura (MEV) e Espectroscopia por Dispersão de Energia (EDS) para avaliação superficial e identificação de contaminantes. Avaliação macroscópica foi feita com paquímetros digitais e com micrômetro. Miniplacas foram submetidas a ensaio de acordo com as normas da American Society for Testing and Materials, Norma F382-99. Resultado: Como resultado do exame pelo MEV e EDS, observa-se a presença de contaminantes, manchamentos e rebarbas em ambas as amostras. Na análise dimensional, observou-se variabilidade nas medidas entre as marcas e maior variabilidade de dimensão nas miniplacas Neoortho®. Ao ensaio de flexão, observou-se discrepância entre as amostras, sendo a Synthes® com maior homogeneidade, mas ambas dentro do intervalo preconizado pela ASTM. Conclusão: a MEV demonstrou superfícies de titânio homogêneas e com debris de superfície oriundos da fabricação e manipulação dos materiais. Dimensionalmente as miniplacas apresentam variações quando comparadas, e estas podem influenciar diretamente os resultados do dos ensaios mecânicos, sendo que mesmo com as variações ambas estão de acordo com a norma da ASTM.
Introduction and objective: this study aimed to compare two rigid internal fixation materials used in maxillofacial surgery, from the ultra-structural, dimensional and mechanical points of view. Materials and Methods: we have compared samples of 2.0 mm miniplates produced by Neoortho® and Synthes®. The samples were analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) for evaluation and identification of surface contaminants. Macroscopic evaluation was made with digital calipers and micrometer. The miniplates were subjected totesting in accordance with the F382-99 standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard. Result: examination by SEM and EDS revealed the presence of contaminants, staining and burrs in both samples. In dimensional analysis, there was variability in measurements between brands and greater variability in size of Neoortho® miniplates. In the bending test, it was observed discrepancy between the samples, showing the Synthes® greater uniformity, but both within the range recommended by ASTM. Conclusion: the SEM showed homogeneous titanium surfaces and surface debris deriving from the manufacture and handling of materials. From the dimensional point of view, the miniplates showed variations when compared to each other, and this may directly influence the results of the mechanical tests. However, even with variations both are in agreement with the standard ASTM..
