Explore the vast range of titles available.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has proven to be the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical settings. The most common approaches rely on nasopharyngeal specimens obtained from swabs, followed by RNA extraction, reverse transcription and quantitative PCR. Although swab-based PCR is sensitive, swabbing is invasive and unpleasant to administer, reducing patient compliance for regular testing and resulting in an increased risk of improper sampling. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a non-invasive one-step RT-qPCR assay performed directly on saliva specimens. The University of Nottingham Asymptomatic Testing Service protocol simplifies sample collection and bypasses the need for RNA extraction, or additives, thus helping to encourage more regular testing and reducing processing time and costs. We have evaluated the assay against the performance criteria specified by the UK regulatory bodies and attained accreditation (BS EN ISO/IEC 17,025:2017) for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. We observed a sensitivity of 1 viral copy per microlitre of saliva, and demonstrated a concordance of > 99.4% between our results and those of other accredited testing facilities. We concluded that saliva is a stable medium that allows for a highly precise, repeatable, and robust testing method.

Since mid-2020 there have been complexities and difficulties in the standardisation and administration of nasopharyngeal swabs. Coupled with the variable and/or poor accuracy of lateral flow devices, this has led to increased societal ‘testing fatigue’ and reduced confidence in test results. Consequently, asymptomatic individuals have developed reluctance towards repeat testing, which remains the best way to monitor COVID-19 cases in the wider population. On the other hand, saliva-based PCR, a non-invasive, highly sensitive, and accurate test suitable for everyone, is gaining momentum as a straightforward and reliable means of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Here, we provide an itemised list of the equipment and reagents involved in the process of sample submission, inactivation and analysis, as well as a detailed description of how each of these steps is performed.

The exhibition catalogue \"Samuel William Fores, satirist : caricatures from the Reform Club,\" by Mark Bills is reviewed (Gainsboroughs House Society, 2014). It is a biography and study of the 18th- to 19th-century printseller.

The book \"Wallpaper : a history of style and trends,\" by Carolle Thibaut-Pomerantz is reviewed (Flammarion, 2009). It focuses on French wallpapers and makers in America.

The book \"The first panoramas : visions of British imperialism,\" by Denise Oleksijczuk is reviewed (University of Minnesota Press, 2011). It examines panoramas displaying British cities and military power.

The catalog \"Guckkastenbilder aus dem Augsburger Verlag von Georg Balthasar Probst, 1732-1801 : Gesamtkatalog,\" by Sixt von Kapff, is reviewed (Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 2010). It examines topographical images, known as \"Guckkastenbilder,\" which were reversed and designed to be viewed in, or with, a machien incorporating a diagonal mirror.

A history and catalogue of Calendarium Londinense - also known as William Monk's Calendar - which was published yearly between 1903 and 2000. The author explains that the calendar was produced by William Monk (1863-1937), who etched and printed it himself in his studio in Amersham, England, and published it jointly with a friend until 1922, and notes that the format of the calendar incorporates as its headpiece an etching of a London scene or landmark. He describes how in 1933 Monk ceased to be so actively involved in the production of the calendar, but continued to supply etchings until his death, noting that his successors as the prime suppliers of etchings for the calendar were Leonard Squirrell until 1966, Harry Eccleston (b.1923) until 1971, Lawrence Josset (1910-95), then Anthony Dyson (b.1931), who made the decision to cease producing the calendar due to it being no longer commercially viable. He provides a brief account of Dyson's Black Star Press, which published the calendar from 1995, and of the modifications Dyson made to the format and production of the calendar from 1990, when he took over responsibility for etching and printing it.