@article{ZahoGhirlandoAlfonsoetal.2015, author = {Zaho, Huaying and Ghirlando, Rodolfo and Alfonso, Carlos and Arisaka, Fumio and Attali, Ilan and Bain, David L. and Bakhtina, Marina M. and Becker, Donald F. and Bedwell, Gregory J. and Bekdemir, Ahmet and Besong, Tabot M. D. and Birck, Catherine and Brautigam, Chad A. and Brennerman, William and Byron, Olwyn and Bzowska, Agnieszka and Chaires, Jonathan B. and Chaton, Catherine T. and Coelfen, Helmbut and Connaghan, Keith D. and Crowley, Kimberly A. and Curth, Ute and Daviter, Tina and Dean, William L. and Diez, Ana I. and Ebel, Christine and Eckert, Debra M. and Eisele, Leslie E. and Eisenstein, Edward and England, Patrick and Escalante, Carlos and Fagan, Jeffrey A. and Fairman, Robert and Finn, Ron M. and Fischle, Wolfgang and Garcia de la Torre, Jose and Gor, Jayesh and Gustafsson, Henning and Hall, Damien and Harding, Stephen E. and Hernandez Cifre, Jose G. and Herr, Andrew B. and Howell, Elizabeth E. and Isaac, Richard S. and Jao, Shu-Chuan and Jose, Davis and Kim, Soon-Jong and Kokona, Bashkim and Kornblatt, Jack A. and Kosek, Dalibor and Krayukhina, Elena and Krzizike, Daniel and Kusznir, Eric A. and Kwon, Hyewon and Larson, Adam and Laue, Thomas M. and Le Roy, Aline and Leech, Andrew P. and Lilie, Hauke and Luger, Karolin and Luque-Ortega, Juan R. and Ma, Jia and May, Carrie A. and Maynard, Ernest L. and Modrak-Wojcik, Anna and Mok, Yee-Foong and M{\"u}cke, Norbert and Nagel-Steger, Luitgard and Narlikar, Geeta J. and Noda, Masanori and Nourse, Amanda and Obsil, Thomas and Park, Chad K and Park, Jin-Ku and Pawelek, Peter D. and Perdue, Erby E. and Perkins, Stephen J. and Perugini, Matthew A. and Peterson, Craig L. and Peverelli, Martin G. and Piszczek, Grzegorz and Prag, Gali and Prevelige, Peter E. and Raynal, Bertrand D. E. and Rezabkova, Lenka and Richter, Klaus and Ringel, Alison E. and Rosenberg, Rose and Rowe, Arthur J. and Rufer, Arne C. and Scott, David J. and Seravalli, Javier G. and Solovyova, Alexandra S. and Song, Renjie and Staunton, David and Stoddard, Caitlin and Stott, Katherine and Strauss, Holder M. and Streicher, Werner W. and Sumida, John P. and Swygert, Sarah G. and Szczepanowski, Roman H. and Tessmer, Ingrid and Toth, Ronald T. and Tripathy, Ashutosh and Uchiyama, Susumu and Uebel, Stephan F. W. and Unzai, Satoru and Gruber, Anna Vitlin and von Hippel, Peter H. and Wandrey, Christine and Wang, Szu-Huan and Weitzel, Steven E and Wielgus-Kutrowska, Beata and Wolberger, Cynthia and Wolff, Martin and Wright, Edward and Wu, Yu-Sung and Wubben, Jacinta M. and Schuck, Peter}, title = {A Multilaboratory Comparison of Calibration Accuracy and the Performance of External References in Analytical Ultracentrifugation}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {10}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {5}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0126420}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151903}, pages = {e0126420}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) is a first principles based method to determine absolute sedimentation coefficients and buoyant molar masses of macromolecules and their complexes, reporting on their size and shape in free solution. The purpose of this multi-laboratory study was to establish the precision and accuracy of basic data dimensions in AUC and validate previously proposed calibration techniques. Three kits of AUC cell assemblies containing radial and temperature calibration tools and a bovine serum albumin (BSA) reference sample were shared among 67 laboratories, generating 129 comprehensive data sets. These allowed for an assessment of many parameters of instrument performance, including accuracy of the reported scan time after the start of centrifugation, the accuracy of the temperature calibration, and the accuracy of the radial magnification. The range of sedimentation coefficients obtained for BSA monomer in different instruments and using different optical systems was from 3.655 S to 4.949 S, with a mean and standard deviation of (4.304\(\pm\)0.188) S (4.4\%). After the combined application of correction factors derived from the external calibration references for elapsed time, scan velocity, temperature, and radial magnification, the range of s-values was reduced 7-fold with a mean of 4.325 S and a 6-fold reduced standard deviation of \(\pm\)0.030 S (0.7\%). In addition, the large data set provided an opportunity to determine the instrument-to-instrument variation of the absolute radial positions reported in the scan files, the precision of photometric or refractometric signal magnitudes, and the precision of the calculated apparent molar mass of BSA monomer and the fraction of BSA dimers. These results highlight the necessity and effectiveness of independent calibration of basic AUC data dimensions for reliable quantitative studies.}, language = {en} } @article{BuchinBuchinByrkaetal.2012, author = {Buchin, Kevin and Buchin, Maike and Byrka, Jaroslaw and N{\"o}llenburg, Martin and Okamoto, Yoshio and Silveira, Rodrigo I. and Wolff, Alexander}, title = {Drawing (Complete) Binary Tanglegrams}, series = {Algorithmica}, volume = {62}, journal = {Algorithmica}, doi = {10.1007/s00453-010-9456-3}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-124622}, pages = {309-332}, year = {2012}, abstract = {A binary tanglegram is a drawing of a pair of rooted binary trees whose leaf sets are in one-to-one correspondence; matching leaves are connected by inter-tree edges. For applications, for example, in phylogenetics, it is essential that both trees are drawn without edge crossings and that the inter-tree edges have as few crossings as possible. It is known that finding a tanglegram with the minimum number of crossings is NP-hard and that the problem is fixed-parameter tractable with respect to that number. We prove that under the Unique Games Conjecture there is no constant-factor approximation for binary trees. We show that the problem is NP-hard even if both trees are complete binary trees. For this case we give an O(n 3)-time 2-approximation and a new, simple fixed-parameter algorithm. We show that the maximization version of the dual problem for binary trees can be reduced to a version of MaxCut for which the algorithm of Goemans and Williamson yields a 0.878-approximation.}, language = {en} } @article{AtienzadeCastroCortesetal.2012, author = {Atienza, Nieves and de Castro, Natalia and Cort{\´e}s, Carmen and Garrido, M. {\´A}ngeles and Grima, Clara I. and Hern{\´a}ndez, Gregorio and M{\´a}rquez, Alberto and Moreno-Gonz{\´a}lez, Auxiliadora and N{\"o}llenburg, Martin and Portillo, Jos{\´e} Ram{\´o}n and Reyes, Pedro and Valenzuela, Jes{\´u}s and Trinidad Villar, Maria and Wolff, Alexander}, title = {Cover contact graphs}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-78845}, year = {2012}, abstract = {We study problems that arise in the context of covering certain geometric objects called seeds (e.g., points or disks) by a set of other geometric objects called cover (e.g., a set of disks or homothetic triangles). We insist that the interiors of the seeds and the cover elements are pairwise disjoint, respectively, but they can touch. We call the contact graph of a cover a cover contact graph (CCG). We are interested in three types of tasks, both in the general case and in the special case of seeds on a line: (a) deciding whether a given seed set has a connected CCG, (b) deciding whether a given graph has a realization as a CCG on a given seed set, and (c) bounding the sizes of certain classes of CCG's. Concerning (a) we give efficient algorithms for the case that seeds are points and show that the problem becomes hard if seeds and covers are disks. Concerning (b) we show that this problem is hard even for point seeds and disk covers (given a fixed correspondence between graph vertices and seeds). Concerning (c) we obtain upper and lower bounds on the number of CCG's for point seeds.}, subject = {Informatik}, language = {de} } @article{WagnerDrouetTeschnerWolschkeetal.2021, author = {Wagner-Drouet, Eva and Teschner, Daniel and Wolschke, Christine and Sch{\"a}fer-Eckart, Kerstin and G{\"a}rtner, Johannes and Mielke, Stephan and Schreder, Martin and Kobbe, Guido and Hilgendorf, Inken and Klein, Stefan and Verbeek, Mareike and Ditschkowski, Markus and Koch, Martina and Lindemann, Monika and Schmidt, Traudel and Rascle, Anne and Barabas, Sascha and Deml, Ludwig and Wagner, Ralf and Wolff, Daniel}, title = {Comparison of cytomegalovirus-specific immune cell response to proteins versus peptides using an IFN-γ ELISpot assay after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation}, series = {Diagnostics}, volume = {11}, journal = {Diagnostics}, number = {2}, issn = {2075-4418}, doi = {10.3390/diagnostics11020312}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228843}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Measuring CMV-specific cellular immunity may improve the risk stratification and management of patients. IFN-γ ELISpot assays, based on the stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with CMV pp65 and IE-1 proteins or peptides, have been validated in clinical settings. However, it remains unclear to which extend the T-cell response to synthetic peptides reflect that mediated by full-length proteins processed by antigen-presenting cells. We compared the stimulating ability of pp65 and IE-1 proteins and corresponding overlapping peptides in 16 HSCT recipients using a standardized IFN-γ ELISpot assay. Paired qualitative test results showed an overall 74.4\% concordance. Discordant results were mainly due to low-response tests, with one exception. One patient with early CMV reactivation and graft-versus-host disease, sustained CMV DNAemia and high CD8\(^+\) counts showed successive negative protein-based ELISpot results but a high and sustained response to IE-1 peptides. Our results suggest that the response to exogenous proteins, which involves their uptake and processing by antigen-presenting cells, more closely reflects the physiological response to CMV infection, while the response to exogenous peptides may lead to artificial in vitro T-cell responses, especially in strongly immunosuppressed patients.}, language = {en} } @article{KaemmererTribiusCohrsetal.2023, author = {K{\"a}mmerer, Peer W. and Tribius, Silke and Cohrs, Lena and Engler, Gabriel and Ettl, Tobias and Freier, Kolja and Frerich, Bernhard and Ghanaati, Shahram and Gosau, Martin and Haim, Dominik and Hartmann, Stefan and Heiland, Max and Herbst, Manuel and Hoefert, Sebastian and Hoffmann, J{\"u}rgen and H{\"o}lzle, Frank and Howaldt, Hans-Peter and Kreutzer, Kilian and Leonhardt, Henry and Lutz, Rainer and Moergel, Maximilian and Modabber, Ali and Neff, Andreas and Pietzka, Sebastian and Rau, Andrea and Reichert, Torsten E. and Smeets, Ralf and Sproll, Christoph and Steller, Daniel and Wiltfang, J{\"o}rg and Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich and Kronfeld, Kai and Al-Nawas, Bilal}, title = {Adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx and solitary ipsilateral lymph node metastasis (pN1) — a prospective multicentric cohort study}, series = {Cancers}, volume = {15}, journal = {Cancers}, number = {6}, issn = {2072-6694}, doi = {10.3390/cancers15061833}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-311024}, year = {2023}, abstract = {(1) Background: Evaluation of impact of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity/oropharynx (OSCC) of up to 4 cm (pT1/pT2) and solitary ipsilateral lymph node metastasis (pN1). A non-irradiated group with clinical follow-up was chosen for control, and survival and quality of life (QL) were compared; (2) Methods: This prospective multicentric comprehensive cohort study included patients with resected OSCC (pT1/pT2, pN1, and cM0) who were allocated into adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) or observation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and QL after surgery; (3) Results: Out of 27 centers, 209 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 3.4 years. An amount of 137 patients were in the observation arm, and 72 received adjuvant irradiation. Overall survival did not differ between groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98 [0.55-1.73], p = 0.94). There were fewer neck metastases (HR 0.34 [0.15-0.77]; p = 0.01), as well as fewer local recurrences (HR 0.41 [0.19-0.89]; p = 0.02) under adjuvant RT. For QL, irradiated patients showed higher values for the symptom scale pain after 0.5, two, and three years (all p < 0.05). After six months and three years, irradiated patients reported higher symptom burdens (impaired swallowing, speech, as well as teeth-related problems (all p < 0.05)). Patients in the RT group had significantly more problems with mouth opening after six months, one, and two years (p < 0.05); (4) Conclusions: Adjuvant RT in patients with early SCC of the oral cavity and oropharynx does not seem to influence overall survival, but it positively affects progression-free survival. However, irradiated patients report a significantly decreased QL up to three years after therapy compared to the observation group.}, language = {en} }