Search

Radiotherapy is an inevitable choice for cancer treatment that is applied as combinatorial therapy along with surgery and chemotherapy. Nevertheless, radiotherapy at high doses kills normal and tumor cells at the same time. In addition, some tumor cells are resistant to radiotherapy. Recently, many researchers have focused on high‐Z nanomaterials as radiosensitizers for radiotherapy. Among them, gold nanoparticles (GNPs) have shown remarkable potential due to their promising physical, chemical, and biological properties. Although few clinical trial studies have been performed on drug delivery and photosensitization with lasers, GNPs have not yet received Food and Drug Administration approval for use in radiotherapy. The sensitization effects of GNPs are dependent on their concentration in cells and x‐ray energy deposition during radiotherapy. Notably, some limitations related to the properties of the GNPs, including their size, shape, surface charge, and ligands, and the radiation source energy should be resolved. At the first, this review focuses on some of the challenges of using GNPs as radiosensitizers and some biases among in vitro/in vivo, Monte Carlo, and clinical studies. Then, we discuss the challenges in the clinical translation of GNPs as radiosensitizers for radiotherapy and proposes feasible solutions. And finally, we suggest that certain areas be considered in future research. This article is categorized under:Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > NA [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although less studied than interspecific interactions, interactions among members of the same species can influence space use and temporal activity. Using techniques commonly applied to the analysis of interspecific interactions—multispecies occupancy modeling and the analysis of temporal activity patterns—we studied intraspecific interactions within a high‐density population of Persian leopards (Panthera pardus saxicolor) in Tandoureh National Park, northeastern Iran. Using camera‐trap data, we investigated spatiotemporal interactions between male leopards, lone female leopards, and families (cubs/females with cubs). While we hypothesized that male and female leopards would display different temporal activity patterns, we did not predict spatial avoidance between these groups. We also predicted that leopard families would exhibit spatiotemporal avoidance from male leopards due to the risk of infanticide. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find any evidence for spatial or temporal avoidance between leopard families and adult male leopards. Male and lone female leopards exhibited positive pairwise co‐occurrence, consistent with reports of high overlap between male and female leopard home ranges. While a high level of overlap in temporal activity patterns was found between males/lone females and males/families, there was evidence for variation in the proportion of time each leopard group was active in particular periods of the diel cycle. Male leopards showed cathemeral activity, while lone females and families were more active during daylight hours. The application of these techniques to interactions within a species has improved understanding of the ecology and behavior of this endangered solitary carnivore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Davidson has attempted to offer his own solution to the problem of self‐knowledge, but there has been no consensus between his commentators on what this solution is. Many have claimed that Davidson's account stems from his remarks on disquotational specifications of self‐ascriptions of meaning and mental content, the account which I will call the "Disquotational Explanation." It has also been claimed that Davidson's account rather rests on his version of content externalism, which I will call the "Externalist Explanation." I will argue that not only are these explanations of self‐knowledge implausible, but Davidson himself has already rejected them. Thus, neither can be attributed to Davidson as his suggested account of self‐knowledge. I will then introduce and support what I take to be Davidson's official and independent account of self‐knowledge, that is, his "Transcendental Explanation." I will defend this view against certain potential objections and finally against the objections made by William Child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the phylogenetic, phylogeographic, and demographic relationships of Caspian cobra (Naja oxiana; Eichwald, 1831) populations based on a concatenated dataset of two mtDNA genes (cyt b and ND4) across the species' range in Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan, along with other members of Asian cobras (i.e., subgenus Naja Laurenti, 1768). Our results robustly supported that the Asiatic Naja are monophyletic, as previously suggested by other studies. Furthermore, N. kaouthia and N. sagittifera were recovered as sister taxa to each other, and in turn sister clades to N. oxiana. Our results also highlighted the existence of a single major evolutionary lineage for populations of N. oxiana in the Trans‐Caspian region, suggesting a rapid expansion of this cobra from eastern to western Asia, coupled with a rapid range expansion from east of Iran toward the northeast. However, across the Iranian range of N. oxiana, subdivision of populations was not supported, and thus, a single evolutionary significant unit is proposed for inclusion in future conservation plans in this region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does it take for Islam and science to engage in a genuine conversation with each other? This essay is an attempt to answer this question by clarifying the conditions which make having such a conversation possible and plausible. I will first distinguish between three notions of conversation: the trivial conversation (which requires sharing a common language and the meaning of its ordinary expressions), superficial conversation (in which although the language is shared, the communicators fail to share the meaning of their theoretical terms), and genuine conversation (which implies sharing the language and the meaning of ordinary as well as theoretical terms). I will then argue that our real concern with regard to the exchange between Islam and science is to be to specify the conditions under which their proponents can engage in a genuine conversation with each other and that such a conversation to take place essentially requires sharing a common ontology. Following Quine, I will argue that Muslims, like the followers of any religion, would have no other choice but to work from within science. Doing so, however, would not prevent Muslims from having a genuine conversation with the proponents of other worldviews because when the shared ontology fails to offer any potentially testable answer to our remaining questions about the world, the Islamic viewpoint can appear as a genuine alternative among other underdetermined ones, deciding between which would be a matter of pragmatic criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]