| 1. |
- Schael, S, et al.
(author)
-
Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance
- 2006
-
In: Physics Reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 427:5-6, s. 257-454
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We report on the final electroweak measurements performed with data taken at the Z resonance by the experiments operating at the electron-positron colliders SLC and LEP. The data consist of 17 million Z decays accumulated by the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments at LEP, and 600 thousand Z decays by the SLID experiment using a polarised beam at SLC. The measurements include cross-sections, forward-backward asymmetries and polarised asymmetries. The mass and width of the Z boson, m(Z) and Gamma(Z), and its couplings to fermions, for example the p parameter and the effective electroweak mixing angle for leptons, are precisely measured: m(Z) = 91.1875 +/- 0.0021 GeV, Gamma(Z) = 2.4952 +/- 0.0023 GeV, rho(l) = 1.0050 +/- 0.0010, sin(2)theta(eff)(lept) = 0.23153 +/- 0.00016. The number of light neutrino species is determined to be 2.9840 +/- 0.0082, in agreement with the three observed generations of fundamental fermions. The results are compared to the predictions of the Standard Model (SM). At the Z-pole, electroweak radiative corrections beyond the running of the QED and QCD coupling constants are observed with a significance of five standard deviations, and in agreement with the Standard Model. Of the many Z-pole measurements, the forward-backward asymmetry in b-quark production shows the largest difference with respect to its SM expectation, at the level of 2.8 standard deviations. Through radiative corrections evaluated in the framework of the Standard Model, the Z-pole data are also used to predict the mass of the top quark, m(t) = 173(+10)(+13) GeV, and the mass of the W boson, m(W) = 80.363 +/- 0.032 GeV. These indirect constraints are compared to the direct measurements, providing a stringent test of the SM. Using in addition the direct measurements of m(t) and m(W), the mass of the as yet unobserved SM Higgs boson is predicted with a relative uncertainty of about 50% and found to be less than 285 GeV at 95% confidence level. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schael, S., et al.
(author)
-
Electroweak measurements in electron positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP
- 2013
-
In: Physics Reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 532:4, s. 119-244
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Electroweak measurements performed with data taken at the electron positron collider LEP at CERN from 1995 to 2000 are reported. The combined data set considered in this report corresponds to a total luminosity of about 3 fb(-1) collected by the four LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, 13 and OPAL, at centre-of-mass energies ranging from 130 GeV to 209 GeV. Combining the published results of the four LEP experiments, the measurements include total and differential cross-sections in photon-pair, fermion-pair and four-fermion production, the latter resulting from both double-resonant WW and ZZ production as well as singly resonant production. Total and differential cross-sections are measured precisely, providing a stringent test of the Standard Model at centre-of-mass energies never explored before in electron positron collisions. Final-state interaction effects in four-fermion production, such as those arising from colour reconnection and Bose Einstein correlations between the two W decay systems arising in WW production, are searched for and upper limits on the strength of possible effects are obtained. The data are used to determine fundamental properties of the W boson and the electroweak theory. Among others, the mass and width of the W boson, m(w) and Gamma(w), the branching fraction of W decays to hadrons, B(W -> had), and the trilinear gauge-boson self-couplings g(1)(Z), K-gamma and lambda(gamma), are determined to be: m(w) = 80.376 +/- 0.033 GeV Gamma(w) = 2.195 +/- 0.083 GeV B(W -> had) = 67.41 +/- 0.27% g(1)(Z) = 0.984(-0.020)(+0.018) K-gamma - 0.982 +/- 0.042 lambda(gamma) = 0.022 +/- 0.019. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 4. |
- Moortgat-Pick, G., et al.
(author)
-
Polarized positrons and electrons at the linear collider
- 2008
-
In: Physics reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 460:4-5, s. 131-243
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The proposed International Linear Collider (ILC) is well-suited for discovering physics beyond the Standard Model and for precisely unraveling the structure of the underlying physics. The physics return can be maximized by the use of polarized beams. This report shows the paramount role of polarized beams and summarizes the benefits obtained from polarizing the positron beam, as well as the electron beam. The physics case for this option is illustrated explicitly by analyzing reference reactions in different physics scenarios. The results show that positron polarization, combined with the clean experimental environment provided by the linear collider, allows to improve strongly the potential of searches for new particles and the identification of their dynamics, which opens the road to resolve shortcomings of the Standard Model. The report also presents an overview of possible designs for polarizing both beams at the ILC, as well as for measuring their polarization.
|
|
| 5. |
- Shimwell, T. W., et al.
(author)
-
The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey: II. First data release
- 2019
-
In: Astronomy and Astrophysics. - : EDP Sciences. - 0004-6361 .- 1432-0746. ; 622
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey (LoTSS) is an ongoing sensitive, high-resolution 120-168 MHz survey of the entire northern sky for which observations are now 20% complete. We present our first full-quality public data release. For this data release 424 square degrees, or 2% of the eventual coverage, in the region of the HETDEX Spring Field (right ascension 10h45m00s to 15h30m00s and declination 45°00′00″ to 57°00′00″) were mapped using a fully automated direction-dependent calibration and imaging pipeline that we developed. A total of 325 694 sources are detected with a signal of at least five times the noise, and the source density is a factor of ∼10 higher than the most sensitive existing very wide-area radio-continuum surveys. The median sensitivity is S144 MHz = 71 μJy beam -1 and the point-source completeness is 90% at an integrated flux density of 0.45 mJy. The resolution of the images is 6″ and the positional accuracy is within 0.2″. This data release consists of a catalogue containing location, flux, and shape estimates together with 58 mosaic images that cover the catalogued area. In this paper we provide an overview of the data release with a focus on the processing of the LOFAR data and the characteristics of the resulting images. In two accompanying papers we provide the radio source associations and deblending and, where possible, the optical identifications of the radio sources together with the photometric redshifts and properties of the host galaxies. These data release papers are published together with a further ∼20 articles that highlight the scientific potential of LoTSS.
|
|
| 6. |
- Beyer, J., et al.
(author)
-
Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer
- 2013
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 24:4, s. 878-888
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, similar to 50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.
|
|
| 7. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
In: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.
|
|
