Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Churyumov Gerasimenko (1)
- Cometary dust (1)
- Cosmic vision (1)
- Dust collector (1)
- IMF (1)
- Induced seismicity (1)
- Interplanetary dust (1)
- Interstellar dust (1)
- Mass spectrometry (1)
- Sample return (1)
Institute
The Stardust mission returned cometary, interplanetary and (probably) interstellar dust in 2006 to Earth that have been analysed in Earth laboratories worldwide. Results of this mission have changed our view and knowledge on the early solar nebula. The Rosetta mission is on its way to land on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and will investigate for the first time in great detail the comet nucleus and its environment starting in 2014. Additional astronomy and planetary space missions will further contribute to our understanding of dust generation, evolution and destruction in interstellar and interplanetary space and provide constraints on solar system formation and processes that led to the origin of life on Earth. One of these missions, SARIM-PLUS, will provide a unique perspective by measuring interplanetary and interstellar dust with high accuracy and sensitivity in our inner solar system between 1 and 2 AU. SARIM-PLUS employs latest in-situ techniques for a full characterisation of individual micrometeoroids (flux, mass, charge, trajectory, composition()) and collects and returns these samples to Earth for a detailed analysis. The opportunity to visit again the target comet of the Rosetta mission 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimeenternko, and to investigate its dusty environment six years after Rosetta with complementary methods is unique and strongly enhances and supports the scientific exploration of this target and the entire Rosetta mission. Launch opportunities are in 2020 with a backup window starting early 2026. The comet encounter occurs in September 2021 and the reentry takes place in early 2024. An encounter speed of 6 km/s ensures comparable results to the Stardust mission.
As significant differences between sexes were found in the susceptibility to alcoholic liver disease in human and animal models, it was the aim of the present study to investigate whether female mice also are more susceptible to the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Male and female C57BL/6J mice were fed either water or 30% fructose solution ad libitum for 16 wks. Liver damage was evaluated by histological scoring. Portal endotoxin levels and markers of Kupffer cell activation and insulin resistance, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) and phosphorylated adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (pAMPK) were measured in the liver. Adiponectin mRNA expression was determined in adipose tissue. Hepatic steatosis was almost similar between male and female mice; however, inflammation was markedly more pronounced in livers of female mice. Portal endotoxin levels, hepatic levels of myeloid differentiation primary response gene (88) (MyD88) protein and of 4-hydroxynonenal protein adducts were elevated in animals with NAFLD regardless of sex. Expression of insulin receptor substrate 1 and 2 was decreased to a similar extent in livers of male and female mice with NAFLD. The less pronounced susceptibility to liver damage in male mice was associated with a superinduction of hepatic pAMPK in these mice whereas, in livers of female mice with NAFLD, PAI-1 was markedly induced. Expression of adiponectin in visceral fat was significantly lower in female mice with NAFLD but unchanged in male mice compared with respective controls. In conclusion, our data suggest that the sex-specific differences in the susceptibility to NAFLD are associated with differences in the regulation of the adiponectin-AMPK-PAI-1 signaling cascade. Online address: http://www.molmed.Org doi: 10.2119/molmed.2012.00223
Various techniques are utilized by the seismological community, extractive industries, energy and geoengineering companies to identify earthquake nucleation processes in close proximity to engineering operation points. These operations may comprise fluid extraction or injections, artificial water reservoir impoundments, open pit and deep mining, deep geothermal power generations or carbon sequestration. In this letter to the editor, we outline several lines of investigation that we suggest to follow to address the discrimination problem between natural seismicity and seismic events induced or triggered by geoengineering activities. These suggestions have been developed by a group of experts during several meetings and workshops, and we feel that their publication as a summary report is helpful for the geoscientific community. Specific investigation procedures and discrimination approaches, on which our recommendations are based, are also published in this Special Issue (SI) of Journal of Seismology.