Photosynth Res 73(1–3):149–156PubMedCrossRef Portis AR Jr, MLN2238 manufacturer Parry MAJ (2007) Discoveries in Rubisco (Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase): a historical perspective. Photosynth

Res 94(1):121–143PubMedCrossRef Portis AR Jr, Salvucci ME (2002) The discovery of rubisco activase—yet another story of serendipity. Photosynth Res 73(1–3):257–264CrossRef Prasil O, Suggett DJ, Cullen JJ, Babin M, Govindjee (2008) Aquafluo 2007: chlorophyll fluorescence in aquatic sciences, an international conference held in Nové Hrady. Photosynth Res 95(1):111–115PubMedCrossRef Prince RC (1992) Robert Hill, FRS; his published work. Photosynth Res 34(3):329–332CrossRef Putnam-Evans C, Barry B (eds) (2007) Photosynthetic water oxidation. Photosynth Res 92(3):273–425 Rabinowitch E (1961) Robert Emerson (1903–1959). Biogr Mem Natl Acad Sci USA 25:112–131 Rabinowitch A (2005) Founder and father. Bull At Sci 61(1):30–37CrossRef Raghavendra

AS, Sane PV, Mohanty P (2003) Photosynthesis research in India: transition from yield physiology into molecular biology. Photosynth Res 76(1–3):435–450PubMedCrossRef Rao KK (1999) David Hall (1935–1999). Photosynth Res 62(2):117–119CrossRef Rebeiz CA, Benning C, Bohnert H, Hoober JK, Portis AR (2007) Govindjee was honored with the first lifetime achievement award, and Britta Förster and coworkers, with the first annual paper prize of Rebeiz foundation for basic research. Photosynth Res 94(1):147–151CrossRef Renger G (1987) Conference report on the Japan/US-binational seminar on “energy conversion: photochemical reaction centers and PLK inhibitor oxygen evolving complexes of plant photosynthesis”. Photosynth Res 13(3):261–268CrossRef Renger G (2003) Apparatus and mechanism of photosynthetic oxygen evolution: a personal perspective. Photosynth Res 76(1–3):269–288PubMedCrossRef Renger G (2008) Horst Tobias Witt (March 1, 1922–May

14, 2007). Photosynth Res 96(1):5–8CrossRef Rich PR (1992) Robin Hill: a personal perspective. Photosynth Res 34(3):333–335CrossRef Rich PR (ed) (1992) Robin Hill. Photosynth Res 34(3):319–488 Rieppel O (1985) The dream of Charles Bonnet (1720–1793). Gesnerus 42(3–4):359–367PubMed Rippka R (2003) Germaine Thalidomide Stanier (Cohen-Bazire) 1920–2001. Arch Hydrobiol-Suppl 148:17–34 Rochaix J-D (2002) The three genomes of Chlamydomonas. Photosynth Res 73(1–3):285–293PubMedCrossRef Rodermel S, Viret JF, Krebbers E (2005) Lawrence Bogorad (1921–2003), a pioneer in photosynthesis research: a tribute. Photosynth Res 83(1):17–24PubMedCrossRef Rosenberg JL (2004) The contributions of James Franck to photosynthesis research: a tribute. Photosynth Res 80(1–3):71–76PubMedCrossRef Rotblatt J (2000) Fifty Pugwash conferences: a tribute to Eugene Rabinowitch. Available online at: http://​www.​pugwash.​org/​reports/​pac/​pac256/​rotblat.​htm) Rurainski HJ (2004) The conference at Airlie House in 1963.

30 ± 0.05

0.30 ± 0.05 0.50 ± 0.05 After exposure MI-503 solubility dmso in dry air 1.55 ± 0.05 3.50 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.05 After subsequent TDS 1.30 ± 0.05 1.10 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.05 At the next step of our studies, the freshly deposited Ag-covered L-CVD SnO2 nanolayers were long-term exposed (aged) in dry air atmosphere at room temperature and this caused evident changes in their surface chemistry. Firstly, the relative [O]/[Sn] concentration reached the value of 1.55 ± 0.05. Likely, the increased O concentration after air exposure is due to the surface contaminations containing oxygen (CO2, H2O), what will be discussed and analyzed later on the basis of TDS spectra. Simultaneously, the relative [Ag]/[Sn] concentration evidently (more than twice) decreased reaching value 0.25 ± 0.05. At this point, we presume that to some extent, the even distribution of Ag atoms at the surface/subsurface of SnO/SnO2 films in the form of very flat 3D (2D) nanoparticles/clusters is related to the aging effect. However, what is most important to notice is that after this

procedure, remarkable C contamination was detected, observed in the form of a strong MAPK inhibitor C1s XPS peak shown in the survey spectra in Figure 1. The corresponding relative [C]/[Sn] concentration was equal to 3.50 ± 0.05. This value is one order larger than for the freshly deposited Ag-covered L-CVD SnO2 nanolayers. However, it should be pointed out at this moment that this high C contamination observed by XPS method concerns only the very thin near-surface region of the investigated films because the information depth for SnO2 is about 4 nm. Moreover, our recent depth profiling XPS experiments showed that C contamination is mostly located only at the topmost 2 to 3 atomic layers because going down

in depth, the relative concentration of [C]/[Sn] was about 0.1, Protirelin which was almost constant up to the Si substrate. This is strongly related to the grain-type surface morphology of Ag-covered L-CVD SnO2 nanolayers with the grains standing up in respect to the surface plane, as observed in the AFM image shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 AFM image of the Ag-covered L-CVD SnO 2 nanolayers. Very precise standard AFM depth profiling analysis (with DI software) showed that the maximum grain height and the maximum grain width for these nanolayers were estimated as equal to about 3 and 30 nm, respectively. In turn their average roughness was about 0.5 nm, which was very similar to the pure L-CVD SnO2 nanolayers, as determined in our recent AFM studies [8]. It means that deposition of 1 ML of Ag does not significantly modify the surface/subsurface morphology of L-CVD SnO2 nanolayers.

The wires produced in this way are 3 to 20 times thicker than most of the reported nanowires, which have diameters in the 50- to 300-nm range.   With the first technique, nanowires usually in a random arrangement are obtained. This

production process is limited with respect to the wire density, diameter control, wire length, and array stability. Moreover, an efficient low-resistivity connection to a current BAY 11-7082 collector is not easy with this technique. Method 2 overcomes some problems of technique 1, and may be easier than method 3 from a process point of view, but has a number of limits with respect to optimizing the array geometry and attaching to a current collector. For the moment, there are no reports of pores Liver X Receptor agonist or wires with modulated diameter by method 2, and thus, for

the moment, it is not possible to fabricate interconnected wires forming a free-standing array of long wires. Having a free-standing array is important for the deposition of a mechanically stable metal contact at one side. A new concept of Si anodes has been developed by technique 3, which consists of an array of Si microwires embedded at one end in a Cu current collector [9]. The capacity of the anodes is very stable over 100 cycles [2] and breaks all the records when considering the capacity per area (areal capacity) [10]. In the present work, the scalability of the production process will be discussed. As will become clear in the following lines, the capacity of the anodes is also scalable, with certain limits in the cycling rate. Methods The production process of the Si microwire anodes, depicted in Figure  1, consists of four main steps: (a) electro-chemical etching of macropores with modulated diameters. Sections with narrower diameters are created in order to produce (two) stabilization planes in the final wires. The starting material is Si wafers with a structure of pits defined by contact lithography. (b) The second step is chemical over-etching in KOH-based solutions of the pore walls;

this step is done until the pores merge and wires remain. Commonly, the wires are produced with a diameter of around 1 μm. (c) The third step is electroless deposition of a Cu seed layer until certain depth. (d) The fourth N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphate transferase step is electrochemical deposition of Cu on the Cu seed layer to create a current collector of the final anode. After this step, the anode is separated from the Si substrate by pulling from the Cu layer. Additional information of the fabrication process can be found in [9]. Figure 1 Process steps for the production of Si microwire anodes. (a) Electrochemical etching of macropores with modulated diameters. (b) Chemical over-etching of the pores to produce wires. (c) Electroless deposition of a Cu seed layer. (d) Electrochemical deposition of the Cu current collector.

CrossRef 7. Parker RR, Spencer RR, Francis E: Tularemia infection in ticks of the species Dermacenter andersoni Stiles in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana. Pub Health Rep 1924, 39:1057–1073. 8. Hopla

CE: The multiplication of tularemia organisms in the lone-star tick. Amer J Hyg 1955,61(3):371–380.PubMed 9. Francis E, Mayne B: Experimental transmission of tularaemia by flies of the species Chrysops discalis. Pub Health Rep 1921, 36:1738–1746. 10. Hopla CE: The ecology of tularemia. Advances In Veterinary Science And Comparative Medicine (Edited by: Brankly CA, Cornelius C). New York, N.Y., U.S.A.; London, England: Academic Press 1974, 18:25–53. 11. Matyas BI, Nieder HS, Telford SR: Pneumonic PRMT inhibitor tularemia on Martha’s Vineyard – Clinical,

epidemiologic, and ecological characteristics. Francisella Tularensis: Biology, Pathogenicity, Epidemiology, And Biodefense 2007, 1105:351–377. 12. Feldman KA, Enscore RE, Lathrop mTOR target SL, Matyas BT, McGuill M, Schriefer ME, Stiles-Enos D, Dennis DT, Petersen LR, Hayes EB: An outbreak of primary pneumonic tularemia on Martha’s Vineyard. N Engl J Med 2001,345(22):1601–1606.CrossRefPubMed 13. Berrada ZL, Goethert HK, Telford SR: Raccoons and skunks as sentinels for enzootic tularemia. Emerg Infect Dis 2006,12(6):1019–1021.PubMed 14. Goethert HK, Shani I, Telford SR: Genotypic diversity of Francisella tularensis infecting Dermacentor variabilis ticks on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. J Clin Microbiol 2004,42(11):4968–4973.CrossRefPubMed 15. Johansson A, Goransson I, Larsson P, Sjostedt A: Extensive allelic variation among Francisella tularensis strains in a short-sequence tandem repeat region. J Clin Microbiol 2001,39(9):3140–3146.CrossRefPubMed 16. Parker R, Steinhaus E, Kohls G, Jellison W: Contamination of Natural Waters and Mud with Pasteurella tularensis and Tularemia in Beavers and Muskrats in the

Northwestern United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office 1951., 193: 17. Goethert HK, Telford SRI: Nonrandom distribution of vector ticks ( Dermacentor variabilis ) infected by Francisella tularensis. PLoS Pathog 2009,5(3):e1000319.CrossRefPubMed Carbohydrate 18. Davis S, Klassovskiy N, Ageyev V, Suleimenov B, Atshabar B, Klassovskaya A, Bennett M, Leirs H, Begon M: Plague metapopulation dynamics in a natural reservoir: the burrow system as the unit of study. Epidemiol Infect 2007,135(5):740–748.CrossRefPubMed 19. Gaff HD, Gross LJ: Modeling tick-borne disease: A metapopulation model. Bull Math Biol 2007,69(1):265–288.CrossRefPubMed 20. Goethert HK, Telford SR: A new Francisella ( Beggiatiales: Francisellaceae ) inquiline within Dermacentor variabilis Say ( Acari: Ixodidae ). J Med Ent 2005,42(3):502–505.CrossRef 21. Johansson A, Farlow J, Larsson P, Dukerich M, Chambers E, Bystrom M, Fox J, Chu M, Forsman M, Sjostedt A, et al.: Worldwide genetic relationships among Francisella tularensis isolates determined by multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis.

The sample sizes ranged from 185 to 1210. All cases were histologically confirmed. The controls were primarily healthy populations and matched for age, ethnicity, and smoking status. There were 5 groups of Asians, 10 groups of Caucasians, and 2 mixed populations. All polymorphisms in the control subjects were 4EGI-1 clinical trial in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Meta-analysis results Table 2 listed the main results of this meta-analysis. Overall, for the T allele carriers (TC + TT) versus homozygote CC, the pooled OR for all studies combined 4123

cases and 5597 controls was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.87-1.04 P = 0.228 for heterogeneity) (Figure 1), for TT versus CC the pooled OR was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.86-1.15 P = 0.315 for heterogeneity). For all studies in the meta-analysis, Selleckchem Dinaciclib significantly risks were not found for the T allele carriers (TC + TT) versus homozygote CC or TT versus CC, and no heterogeneity was found in all

studies. Table 2 Summary ORs for various contrasts of XRCC3 Thr241Met gene polymorphisms in this meta-analysis Subgroup analysis exon7 genotype Contrast studies OR(95%) Ph Total T/T vs C/C 17 0.99(0.86-1.15) 0.315 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.95(0.87-1.04) 0.228 Ethnicity       Asian T/T vs C/C 5 0.92(0.71-1.09) 0.216 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.94(0.77-1.15)

0.545 Caucasian T/T vs C/C 10 0.94(0.87-1.13) 0.090 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.95(0.85-1.06) 0.056 Mixed population T/T vs C/C 2 1.04(0.77-1.43) 0.190 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 1.00(0.73-1.37) 0.823 Histological type       SCC T/T vs C/C 2 0.94(0.78-1.58) 0.164 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.91(0.48-1.74) 0.215 AC T/T vs C/C 3 1.09(0.72-1.38) 0.535 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 1.05(0.79-1.40) 4��8C 0.331 Smoking status       Smoker T/T vs C/C 4 0.98(0.72-1.45) 0.006 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.93(0.63-1.37) 0.001 Non-smoker T/T vs C/C 4 0.99(0.78-1.51) 0.230 (C/T + T/T) vs C/C 0.92(0.62-1.37) 0.186 Ph P value of Q-test for heterogeneity test. Figure 1 Forest plot (random-effects model) of lung cancer risk associated with XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphisms for the (C/T + T/T) versus vs C/C. Each box represents the OR point estimate, and its area is proportional to the weight of the study. The diamond (and broken line) represents the overall summary estimate, with CI represented by its width. The unbroken vertical line is set at the null value (OR =1.0). In the stratified analysis by ethnicity, significantly risks were not found among Asians for (TC + TT) versus CC (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.77-1.15; P = 0.545 for heterogeneity) or TT versus CC (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.71-1.09; P = 0.216 for heterogeneity).