Sentences with phrase «with radiation responses»

Cells in five different organs had died and other cells were expressing proteins associated with radiation responses.

Not exact matches

In 2007, a helmet covered with particle counters and an electroencephalograph were sent to the International Space Station to assess how astronaut brain activity changes in real time in response to radiation.

Preliminary results of a study of patients with prostate cancer show that MR tractography may be a reliable quantitative imaging biomarker to assess prostate cancer treatment response to androgen deprivation and radiation therapy, according to a team of researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Oncologists have long known that in rare cases, after patients receive radiation therapy to shrink a tumor, the immune system will mount an aggressive response that wipes out not only the tumor, but metastases throughout the body that hadn't been treated with the radiation.

This is the first evidence that the KRAS - variant can predict response to radiation, and that individuals with the KRAS - variant may have an altered immune system.

Wu's team killed the stem cells with radiation so they wouldn't keep growing and combined them with a substance that helps trigger an immune response.

The response was proportional to radiation dose, and in the most contaminated regions, the leaf loss was 40 percent less than in control regions in Ukraine with normal background radiation levels.

Experiments with mouse embryo support cells that express mutant DUB or pseudo-DUB proteins show an impaired immune response when infected with a virus and impaired DNA damage repair when exposed to ionizing radiation, further validating the need for complex's correct structure.

By combining local radiation therapy and anti-cancer vaccines with checkpoint inhibitors, researchers from the University of Chicago, working with mice, were able to increase the response rate for these new immunotherapy...

June 13, 2016 Radiation and vaccination can magnify effects of immunotherapy By combining local radiation therapy and anti-cancer vaccines with checkpoint inhibitors, researchers from the University of Chicago, working with mice, were able to increase the response rate for these new immunotherapy agents.

Thirty - nine percent of the 31 tumors treated with 24 gray of radiation met the criteria for tumor control — a complete or partial response.

Low - dose chemotherapy, radiation, or targeted therapies given in combination with immune checkpoint blockade may prove to be an effective and efficient way to immunize the body against tumor cells,» says CRI Scientific Advisory Council associate director James P. Allison, Ph.D., who identified the first immune checkpoint blockade with his discovery in 1995 that the cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen - 4 (CTLA - 4) receptor inhibited T cell responses.

At the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2017 Annual Meeting, we presented monotherapy data of nine patients who received G100 with radiation (no pembrolizumab) that showed 100 % DCR rate, with 44 % of the patients achieved a partial response (PR) based on WHO criteria, which requires at least a 50 % tumor reduction to qualify as a PR.

Overall, the five - year survival of patients with a PNET or pineoblastoma is 50 percent to 60 percent, but it is clearly worse among infants or in patients with incomplete surgical removal and poor response to radiation therapy.

Animal research, for example, indicated that supplementing with probiotics significantly suppressed changes in water loss, skin hydration, and skin thickening in response to UVB radiation, and also reduced skin damage.

With radiation, hyperthermia can double the response to therapy.

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

Adding CO2 does not (at least not before the climate response, which is generally stratospheric cooling and surface and tropospheric warming for increasing greenhouse gases) decrease the radiation to space in the central portion of the band because at those wavelengths, CO2 is so opaque that much or most radiation to space is coming from the stratosphere, and adding CO2 increases the heights from which radiation is able to reach space, and the stratospheric temperatures generally increase with increasing height.

In the most general sense, upper atmospheric cooling is a response to a forcing (reduction in net upward LW + SW radiation) that falls with height through the upper atmosphere.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Within a convecting layer, convective fluxes can also be part of the response, but where convection is bounded within a layer, the layer as a whole must respond with radiation to radiative forcings and feedbacks.)

«The committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no - threshold dose - response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.»

With the impacts of rising temperatures already being felt, and recent IPCC reports drawing into sharper focus the range of impacts expected in the coming decades, solar radiation management (SRM) is attracting increasing attention as a potentially cheap, fast - acting, albeit temporary response to some of the dangers of climate change.

In a category like agriculture, the experts looked, for example, at how soybean yields had varied with temperature in the past, and what a physiological simulation for wheat said about the response to changes in solar radiation and soil moisture.

With the surface being more than 70 % water, which evaporates in response to IR rather than raising its temperature, there is no radiation - only algebra that can determine temperatures.

While there is evidence of a persistent relationship between periods of aridity during the mid-Holocene and the MCA, as both are associated with increases in radiation and cooler SST in the eastern Pacific [64], climate simulations suggest that current forcing by increased GHG may produce an opposite oceanic response in the future [65].

Section 1 contains five subsections with results on 27 - day response of low - latitude ionosphere to solar extreme - ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, response to the recurrent geomagnetic storms, long - term trends in the upper atmosphere, latitudinal dependence of total electron content on EUV changes, and statistical analysis of ionospheric behavior during prolonged period of solar activity.

Take a look at Hansen 1993, scaling from radiation changes in last glacial epoch (plain orbital mechanics affecting irradiation), 3 ± 1 °C, Chylek 2007, differences between the Holocene and the last glacial maximum, 1.3 °C to 2.3 °C, and Bender et al 2010, looking at the response from Mount Pinatubo and the volcanic aerosols, with current temperature ranges, 1.7 to 4.1 °C.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zero feedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models.

GMT drops initially at glacial inception in response to decreased summer radiation at high northern latitudes that would have led to equatorward extension of sea ice and snow cover with associated cooling from increased albedo.

This study therefore suggests the rapid response to CO2 forcing is (apart from a possible small negative response from LW water vapour) essentially confined to cloud fraction changes affecting SW radiation, and further that significant feedbacks with temperature occur in all cloud components (including this one), and indeed in all other classically understood «feedbacks».

The pattern of SW cloud fraction response to SST changes differs quite markedly to this, with large positive radiation responses originating in the upper troposphere, positive contributions in the lowest levels and patterns of positive / negative contributions in mid latitude low levels.

So the point is this — even if Hypothesis C is correct, there may still be a difference between the response of the ocean temperatures below the surface — for back radiation compared with solar radiation.

They come up with all kinds of hypothetical feedback mechanisms involving more natural aerosol emissions in response to global warming: Dimethylsulfide from marine phytoplankton (although a very intriguing possibility, this has never been confirmed to be a significant feedback mechanism, and there is ample evidence to the contrary, which is omitted from the report), biological aerosols (idem), carbonyl sulfide (idem), nitrous oxide (idem), and iodocompounds (idem), about which they write the following: «Iodocompounds — created by marine algae — function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.»

[Response: It's true that most of Angstrom's paper (which is available from the link we gave in Part I) dealt with absorption of solar radiation.

The microstructural properties of the anterior thalamic radiation and IFOF have also been associated with individual differences in empathic abilities (experiencing emotion in response to the perceived emotions of others).