Explore the vast range of titles available.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press's mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1960.

A scholarship student at prestigious St. Aidan the Great School, Greer is delighted by an invitation to an exclusive weekend of \"huntin' shootin' fishin'\" until she learns she and the other misfits are the prey.

In the last decade, single-cell RNA sequencing routinely performed on large numbers of single cells has greatly advanced our understanding of the underlying heterogeneity of complex biological systems. Technological advances have also enabled protein measurements, further contributing to the elucidation of cell types and states present in complex tissues. Recently, there have been independent advances in mass spectrometric techniques bringing us one step closer to characterizing single-cell proteomes. Here we discuss the challenges of detecting proteins in single cells by both mass spectrometry and sequencing-based methods. We review the state of the art for these techniques and propose that there is a space for technological advancements and complementary approaches that maximize the advantages of both classes of technologies. This Review covers the state of the art in applying mass spectrometry- or next-generation sequencing-based techniques for single-cell proteomics analysis, offering suggestions for maximizing the advantages of both approaches.

Many eukaryotes have obligate associations with microorganisms that are transmitted directly between generations. A model for heritable symbiosis is the association of aphids, a clade of sap-feeding insects, and Buchnera aphidicola , a gammaproteobacterium that colonized an aphid ancestor 150 million years ago and persists in almost all 5,000 aphid species. Symbiont acquisition enables evolutionary and ecological expansion; aphids are one of many insect groups that would not exist without heritable symbiosis. Receiving less attention are potential negative ramifications of symbiotic alliances. In the short run, symbionts impose metabolic costs. Over evolutionary time, hosts evolve dependence beyond the original benefits of the symbiosis. Symbiotic partners enter into an evolutionary spiral that leads to irreversible codependence and associated risks. Host adaptations to symbiosis (e.g., immune-system modification) may impose vulnerabilities. Symbiont genomes also continuously accumulate deleterious mutations, limiting their beneficial contributions and environmental tolerance. Finally, the fitness interests of obligate heritable symbionts are distinct from those of their hosts, leading to selfish tendencies. Thus, genes underlying the host–symbiont interface are predicted to follow a coevolutionary arms race, as observed for genes governing host–pathogen interactions. On the macroevolutionary scale, the rapid evolution of interacting symbiont and host genes is predicted to accelerate host speciation rates by generating genetic incompatibilities. However, degeneration of symbiont genomes may ultimately limit the ecological range of host species, potentially increasing extinction risk. Recent results for the aphid– Buchnera symbiosis and related systems illustrate that, whereas heritable symbiosis can expand ecological range and spur diversification, it also presents potential perils.

\"Saving the World tells the forgotten history of climatic botany, the idea that forests are essential for creating and recycling rain. Long before the spectre of global warming, societies recognized that deforestation caused drastic climate shifts - as early as 1770, concerns over deforestation spurred legislation to combat human-induced climate change. Throughout the twentieth century, climatic botany experienced fluctuating fortunes, influenced by technological advancements and evolving meteorological theories. Remarkably, contemporary scientists are rediscovering the crucial role of forests in rainfall recycling, unaware of the long history of climatic botany.\"-- Provided by publisher.

Bacteria have existed on Earth for three billion years or so and have become adept at protecting themselves against toxic chemicals. Antibiotics have been in clinical use for a little more than 6 decades. That antibiotic resistance is now a major clinical problem all over the world attests to the success and speed of bacterial adaptation. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are varied and include target protection, target substitution, antibiotic detoxification and block of intracellular antibiotic accumulation. Acquisition of genes needed to elaborate the various mechanisms is greatly aided by a variety of promiscuous gene transfer systems, such as bacterial conjugative plasmids, transposable elements and integron systems, that move genes from one DNA system to another and from one bacterial cell to another, not necessarily one related to the gene donor. Bacterial plasmids serve as the scaffold on which are assembled arrays of antibiotic resistance genes, by transposition (transposable elements and ISCR mediated transposition) and site‐specific recombination mechanisms (integron gene cassettes). The evidence suggests that antibiotic resistance genes in human bacterial pathogens originate from a multitude of bacterial sources, indicating that the genomes of all bacteria can be considered as a single global gene pool into which most, if not all, bacteria can dip for genes necessary for survival. In terms of antibiotic resistance, plasmids serve a central role, as the vehicles for resistance gene capture and their subsequent dissemination. These various aspects of bacterial resistance to antibiotics will be explored in this presentation. British Journal of Pharmacology (2008) 153, S347–S357; doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707607; published online 14 January 2008

Enasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) proteins. We evaluated the safety and activity of enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. This open-label, phase 1b/2 trial was done at 43 clinical sites in 12 countries (the USA, Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and South Korea). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. In the phase 1b dose-finding portion, patients received oral enasidenib 100 mg/day or 200 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles, plus subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 per day for 7 days of each cycle. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to enasidenib plus azacitidine or azacitidine-only, stratified by acute myeloid leukaemia subtype (de novo or secondary). The primary endpoint in the phase 2 portion was the overall response rate in the intention-to-treat population at a prespecified interim analysis (Aug 20, 2019) when all patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02677922, and is ongoing. Between June 3, 2016, and Aug 2, 2018, 322 patients were screened and 107 patients with mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia were enrolled. At data cutoff for the interim analysis, 24 patients (including two from the phase 1 portion) were still receiving their assigned treatment. Six patients were enrolled in the phase 1b dose-finding portion of the trial and received enasidenib 100 mg (n=3) or 200 mg (n=3) in combination with azacitidine. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred and the enasidenib 100 mg dose was selected for phase 2. In phase 2, 101 patients were randomly assigned to enasidenib plus azacitidine (n=68) or azacitidine only (n=33). Median age was 75 years (IQR 71–78). 50 (74%; 95% CI 61–84) patients in the enasidenib plus azacitidine combination group and 12 (36%; 20–55) patients in the azacitidine monotherapy group achieved an overall response (odds ratio 4·9 [95% CI 2·0–11·9]; p=0·0003). Common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with enasidenib plus azacitidine were thrombocytopenia (25 [37%] of 68 vs six [19%] of 32 in the azacitidine-only group), neutropenia (25 [37%] vs eight [25%]), anaemia (13 [19%] vs seven [22%]), and febrile neutropenia (11 [16%] vs five [16%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 29 (43%) patients in the combination group and 14 (44%) patients in the azacitidine-only group; serious treatment-related adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients in either group were febrile neutropenia (nine [13%] in the combination group vs five [16%] in the azacitidine-only group), differentiation syndrome (seven [10%] vs none), and pneumonia (three [4%] vs two [6%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Combination enasidenib plus azacitidine was well tolerated and significantly improved overall response rates compared with azacitidine monotherapy, suggesting that this regimen can improve outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia. Bristol Myers Squibb.