Sentences with phrase «pnas latest»

The manuscript, tracking number of 17 - 19275, can be found online in PNAS Latest Articles.

Not exact matches

A week later, the animals» livers and kidneys had completely cleared the radioactive bacteria from their systems, with no damage to either organ (PNAS, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.12112871PNAS, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.12112871pnas.1211287110).

Five days later, those that had taken BCAAs had normal levels of the amino acids and performed better on a learning task (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.0910280107).

When the rats were retested one or two days later, the ones that received OEA performed better, suggesting they had stronger memories of their training (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.0903038106).

Their findings have been published in the latest issue of PNAS.

In this latest advance reported in PNAS, the Wyss team showed that the human gut - on - a-chip's unique ability to co-culture intestinal cells with living microbes from the normal gut microbiome for an extended period of time, up to two weeks, could allow breakthrough insights into how the microbial communities that flourish inside our GI tracts contribute to human health and disease.

Four weeks later, only 20 per cent of the mice given modified cells had lost limbs, compared with 60 per cent in mice that received unmodified cells (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.0905432106).

In a new study now published in the latest edition of the scientific journal PNAS, Bárbara Parreira and Lounès Chikhi from Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência (IGC; Portugal) show that social structure is important to maintain the genetic diversity within species.

According to a new theory of predation — published late last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)-- humans sharply reduced the orcas» main source of food in the 1950s with the postwar explosion of industrial whaling.

The study, which appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that when we come across low - valued items, we're willing to pay more for products we later face; by contrast, when we see high - valued items, we'll pay less for products we view in the future.

In late June, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published an article showing that elite male scientists hire fewer women (as postdocs and graduate students) than other male scientists or elite women do.

She will bear her first child about 5 months earlier and enter menopause 10 months later (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.0906199106).

The findings of the study appear in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Researchers from IAST, TSE & the French Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) publish their latest study in the leading PNAS journal.

That Mann did so in late 2009 long after the fact did not refute the claim in respect to Mann et al PNAS 2008.

Gavin has, on several occasions, contended that Pat Michaels has taken Hansen's (PNAS, 2001) warming estimate for the next 50 years out of context (for the latest see # 35).

Jim Hansen discusses the latest science in April 2012 This is about a month after his latest paper was accepted by PNAS.

Finally, a question for David and Gavin: McNeil & Matear (2008, PNAS 2Dec08, «Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping at 450 - ppm atmospheric CO2») suggest that by 2030 and no later than 2038 seasonal aragonite undersaturation is likely to disrupt the Southern Ocean ecosystem, due to key forms of zooplankton being unable to form shells.

But it's important to emphasize that if southwest North America moves into a dust bowl by mid-century or later (PNAS Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html), there will be suffering closer to home, even for people on other parts of the continent.

Gavin is looking at the forcings, I was looking at the mixing ratios in most of my posts, but did show the forcings from the follow up 1998 PNAS paper in a later one.

In scientific literature a few comparisons between the SRES projections and reality exist, like a 2007 PNAS study, which stated «The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil - fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s.»

That love, and respect, continues; I don't have the expertise to critique J Hansen et al's latest paper in detail, but certainly I'm worried by the fact that a paper in PNAS has the word «perception» in its title and its focus; this is «post-modern» «science», which I would argue is not science as understood in the grand tradition of science.

The latest PNAS paper on the problems of 4000 mammals by Kevin Crooks et al, from Colorado State University, US, the University of Queensland, Australia, Sapienza Università di Roma in Italy and Conservation Science Partners indicates that anthropogenic influences on habitat exacerbate the risks of extinction on a global basis.