Traumatic brain injury Is a principal cause for Death and disability on the planet. Blunt force trauma for the brain, often from a nasty fall or a traffic accident, makes the death of deaths Over 61,000 Americans Every 12 months. Over 80,000 will develop long -term disability.

While a big a part of the physical brain damage occurs immediately – known as the first stage of injuries – additional brain damage may end up from the destructive chemical processes that arise within the minutes to weeks after initial impact. In contrast to the first stage of injuries Secondary level Could possibly be prevented by aligning the molecules that drive damage.

I’m a Material scientistAnd my colleagues and I work to design treatments as a way to neutralize the damage to a secondary traumatic brain injury and reduce neurodegeneration. We have designed A New material That could Goals and neutralize For mice that improve their cognitive recovery and offer potential recent treatment for humans.

Biochemical Fallout

The primary stage of traumatic brain injury can Damage and even destroy the blood-brain barrier – An interface that protects the brain by restricting what it could actually enter.

The disturbance of this barrier triggers damaged neurons or the immune system to release certain chemicals that result in destructive biochemical processes. A process called Excitotoxicity occurs when too many calcium ions are approved in neurons, which prompts enzymes which can be fragmentation of DNA and damage cells, which results in death. Another process, NeuroinflammationResults from the activation of cells which can be often called microglia and may trigger inflammation in damaged areas of the brain.

These secondary phase processes also create harmful molecules which can be called Reactive oxygen species. These molecules that include free radicals, modify and deform essential proteins in cells chemically and deform them unusable. You can even break DNA strands, which results in potentially harmful genetic mutations.

If you stay deactivated, damage Oxidative stress Can have devastating consequences for long -term health and neurocognitive rest. Researchers have associated the biochemical changes and by -products AlzheimerPresent Parkinson's And Whenamongst other things.

Connections Called antioxidants Can aim at this oxidative stress and improve long -term neurocognitive rest through chemical interaction with reactive oxygen species in a way that may neutralize its harmful properties.

Find the best antioxidant

My team and I studied whether an antioxidant called A Thiol group Could help treat traumatic brain injuries.

Thiol groups are chemical compounds that contain a sulfur atom that’s sure to a hydrogen atom. Sulfur atoms are much larger than hydrogen atoms, which suggests that the sulfur atom in a thiol has a powerful pull on a single electron of a hydrogen atom. This weakens the bond between hydrogen and its electron Just hand over his electron to other atoms.

As a result, thiols interact With many alternative reactive oxygen species, including those that damage the DNA. We not only chosen Thiols for his or her antioxic properties, but additionally for his or her ability to bind and neutralize others as brain as brain Lipid peroxidation products. These neurotoxic compounds are formed as by -products when reactive oxygen species damage fats within the body.

To put these thiols into the body, now we have installed them in materials Called polymers. These are long chains of organic molecules from individual units called monomers. So that the monomers can connect with one another, a lonely electron – or free radical – initiates a bond with a monomer, causing a series response. Imagine this process to change off plenty of domino stones: The thrust of your hand (the free radical radical on this case) hits a domino (the monomer) after which incorporates the remainder of the domino stones to a line (the polymer ) to form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwrvj9rz2qq

Since Thiole can inhibit this polymerization process, we needed to do a monomer with a so -called Protection of the group This may be chemically removed after polymerization to turn out to be our thiole. Since A-lipoic acidA standard addition present in pharmacies incorporates such a protective Thiol group. We used it to make our monomer.

We then made a series of those monomers RAFTA controlled process through which polymers may be designed in such a way that the body is left by the urine. For this purpose, a water -soluble mit monoma may be added to the chain in order that the polymer can dissolve within the bloodstream.

Finally, we treated the polymers to remove the protective group and produce thiololymers that were ready for further tests.

Tests on TBI

Next we tested how well our thiololymers have neutralized reactive oxygen species.

First we called a technology UV-visible spectrophotometryWhich lights up a laser in a cell sample that incorporates each our polymer and our brain damage molecules. If there may be reactive oxygen species within the sample, the sunshine is minimally absorbed. But if our polymer neutralizes these connections, the sunshine is severely absorbed. Through these studies we found that our Thiolpolymer neutralized reactive oxygen species Like hydrogen peroxide by as much as 50%and other neurotoxic molecules Like acrolein by as much as 100%, which protects neurons from damage.

We carried out additional tests by having suspended fluorescence proteins free of charge radicals and have found that proteins that weren’t treated with our thiololymers were destroyed. Proteins treated proceed to be fluorescentThis indicates that our thiol polymer radically neutralized the free and guarded the protein.

After all, we injected the Thiolpolymers into mice right into a traumatic brain injury. Brain scans showed that our polymer not only successfully focused on the damaged area of ​​the brain, but additionally prepared immediate protection of further injuries. Our Thiolpolymer was capable of reduce reactive oxygen species in injured mice to only 3% via the conventional values ​​present in unhurt mice. Untreated mice with a traumatic brain injury had a rise of 45%in comparison with unhurt mice.

Future work on thiololymers

Our results suggest that these thiololymers can function potential treatment for the secondary stage of a traumatic brain injury. Further tests will help to find out whether this material may reduce the chance of long -term disability.

We are currently developing A Cheap process To incorporate the thiole with tiny nanoparticles. This will help increase the variety of thiols in the fabric and at the identical time improve the power to flow into within the bloodstream for longer protection.

Many additional studies on animals are required to substantiate the effectiveness of our material within the treatment of traumatic brain injuries. If our results are still positive, we wish to check the effectiveness of our material in people in clinical studies. We hope that these treatments could improve the long -term results for victims of automotive accidents, falls and even sports -related injuries to the brain.

MARINA – Joby Aviation recently announced that it has entered the ultimate phase of certification of its electric air taxi after completing its initial Federal Aviation Administration testing under a kind inspection approval. The company expects to start flight testing for type inspection approval in 2025, with its first FAA-compliant aircraft currently under construction in Marina.

The testing involved Federal Aviation Administration pilots evaluating human aspects of flight safety using an FAA-compliant flight deck in a Joby simulator at Marina.

According to Joby, the kind inspection authorization test is taken into account the ultimate phase of the kind certification process, paving the best way for an aircraft to enter industrial passenger operations. In this phase, FAA test pilots conduct tests to validate an aircraft's performance and safety in line with previously approved certification test plans.

“This milestone demonstrates Joby’s continued industry leadership and reflects the maturity of our testing program and the rigorous corporate testing we have already completed,” JoeBen Bevirt, founder and CEO of Joby Aviation, said in a press release.

“In addition to continuing credit-based testing of components, aerostructures and systems already underway, we aim to start flight testing with type inspection approval in 2025 with our first FAA-compliant aircraft currently under construction at our facility in Marina, California. “

Joby Aviation has been operating in Marina for about seven years and started producing its aircraft at its pilot production facility there, with the primary aircraft rolling off the assembly line in June 2023.

The type approval approval tests were conducted in line with a set of criteria outlined in an FAA-approved human aspects certification test plan and measured pilot workload under various expected flight conditions, the physical ergonomics of the flight deck, and other human aspects facets of aircraft safety. Four FAA test pilots accomplished the kind approval test for 3 days through the deployment.

Earlier this month, Joby Aviation successfully accomplished static load testing of the tail structure. This is the primary time the corporate has credit tested a big aircraft structure of its aircraft within the presence of FAA officials, the corporate said. The testing took place in Santa Cruz as a part of a rigorous testing campaign that covered all the aircraft's structures, components and systems and provided data obligatory for the aircraft's FAA type certification.

During static load testing, Joby engineers applied loads to the aircraft's tail structure that far exceeded the utmost forces the structure can be expected to experience during flight. The FAA-compliant tail structure utilized in the test, in addition to the test procedure, instrumentation and loads applied, are described in Joby's certification documents, which were approved by the FAA as a part of the certification process.

Joby Aviation has offices and workshops and is headquartered in Santa Cruz with branches in San Carlos, Washington, DC and Munich, Germany. In September 2023, Joby chosen Dayton, Ohio as the placement for its latest manufacturing facility.

In addition to its integrated test laboratory and flight test capabilities, Joby can also be constructing a world-class manufacturing facility in Marina, where the primary of its aircraft rolled out of the pilot production facility in 2023.

In April this yr, Joby broke ground on its latest 220,000 square meter manufacturing facility in Marina, which is predicted to start operations in 2025. The second production aircraft prototype rolling off the corporate's pilot production line provided the backdrop for the groundbreaking ceremony.

The company said the expansion will greater than double Joby Aviation's total footprint at Marina Airport and permit the corporate to deliver 25 aircraft per yr.

Originally published: December 29, 2024 at 5:11 am PST

Bruins

On Saturday, the Boston Bruins entered uncharted territory under Jim Montgomery.

After three disappointing games in a row against Utah, Nashville and Dallas, the Bruins entered their first game of the season against the equally struggling Toronto Maple Leafs with a record of 3-4-1.

The three-game skid dropped the Bruins below the .500 mark for the primary time under Montgomery. In the previous two years, the Bruins used an 8-1-0 begin to the 2022-23 season to propel their record-setting regular season and followed with an 8-0-1 mark to finish a transitional a hundredth anniversary season to start.

This yr, the Bruins didn't have the posh of a productive first month. But between Jeremy Swayman's late arrival, some injuries in training camp and an adjustment period for newcomers like Elias Lindholm and Nikita Zadorov, the B's are more likely to face some transitional difficulties as Montgomery's third term begins.

In fact, the growing pains were manifested by a scarcity of depth on the wings, poorly timed penalties, turnovers, sloppy passing, defensive errors, a stagnant power play, errors in game management and declining goal performance from some core players. Saturday night they were still having a few of those hiccups.

But of their first Original Six match of the yr, the Bruins finally put together a productive performance lasting greater than 60 minutes.

“I don't think we're worried about the goal as much as more [about] The way we wanted to play,” forward David Pastrnak said after Boston’s 4-3 extra time win over the Leafs. “We know why we don't score is because we didn't spend enough time in the offensive zone, and we also know why we didn't. Of course we want to get better at it, but that doesn't happen overnight. So we have to take it day by day, step by step, and today is a great day. A great win to move forward.”

Unlike the primary eight games, the Bruins spent a lot of the game on offense. But they didn't reap the immediate advantages.

Although the Bruins held every 5-on-5 advantage in the primary 20 minutes, they fell just 35 ticks behind within the second minute after Matthew Knies pounced on a loose puck within the slot after Auston Matthews went hard to the highest of the web had shot.

Boston's fast-paced power play responded 2:22 later when Pastrnak scored his sixth goal of the season. But faced with a 1-2 deficit, they stagnated again on the next two attempts and were unable to convert William Nylander's double minor for strongly sticking pastry.

Some nights you could discover a struggling team faltering. Instead, the Bruins responded.

Shortly after Nylander's penalty expired, Justin Brazeau and Marc Kastelic capitalized on their second scoring possibilities from Anthony Stolarz just 36 seconds apart to offer the Bruins their first lead of the night.

“It was great, especially after the last short stretch we had,” Brazeau said after the Bruins overcame two second-period deficits. “It was nice for us to stick with it and not let that stuff get us down, but just go out on the next shift and give it our all.”

In fact, the Bruins stayed focused as they entered shutdown mode over the ultimate 20 games. But their efforts were almost in vain.

Matthews forced extra time after getting past Boston's D to guide Mitch Marner's feed past Jeremy Swayman. His equalizer got here just seconds after Pavel Zacha went offside, canceling out Brad Marchand's attempt at an empty net ball.

Still, the Bruins remained calm. And Marchand had a golden likelihood for redemption after Matthews turned the puck over on Boston's offense.

Amid a 2-on-1 sequence with Pastrnak, the snake-bitten Marchand knocked the puck out of the air on a rebound and got it off the hook at 2:26 of extra time.

“It was nice for the group to be rewarded for playing the right way,” Marchand said. “Sometimes you do it once or twice and it doesn't go the way you want, and then you switch things up and develop bad habits. We didn't do that tonight when they scored late. We just kept playing like that and it paid off.”

“The boys were calm. Trainers were put together. We were confident we could do it…” Brad Marchand on the Ottawa team's confidence after allowing Matthews' equalizer late in regulation time. pic.twitter.com/8a4ik1k4Km

— Bruins Daily (@BruinsDaily) October 27, 2024

The Bruins can breathe a little bit easier now that the proverbial bleeding has been stopped. But they know it should take greater than a win over a heated rival to beat this turnaround early within the season.

The ups and downs will proceed throughout your complete 82-game stretch. This time, they may need to face adversity early of their regular season.

As they proceed to expand their identity – and maybe add needed depth in the center (a minimum of temporarily) while Tyler Johnson waits patiently to sign a short-term deal – the Bruins have a superb plan in place after persevering their solution to victory on Saturday have.

“It's a game, and it's not going to change things completely,” Marchand said. “But it's a great way to realize that we're a good team when we play the right way. That’s a great group over there, a great offense, and it’s a great way to start building our foundation and understanding how we need to play to be successful.”

Local News

Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Republican challenger John Deaton met on Tuesday evening for the primary of two scheduled debates before Election Day.

Over the course of the hour-long debate, co-sponsored by WBZ-TV and WBZ-TV, Warren and Deaton traded contradictions and fleshed out their positions on a variety of key issues, from housing to health care to foreign policy.

Deaton tried to portray himself as a moderate outsider able to disrupt the established order in Washington, a Republican disloyal to former President Donald Trump. Warren urged the audience to not trust Deaton, linking him to Trump policies unpopular in deep-blue Massachusetts, while praising her work in Congress and her willingness to achieve across the aisle.

The two will see one another again on Thursday evening. In the meantime, listed here are three insights into key issues Warren and Deaton debated.

The focus is on immigration

The issue of immigration looms large within the presidential race and played a big role in the controversy between Deaton and Warren.

Deaton said immigration is the problem that separates him from Warren greater than another. The surge in migrants coming to the U.S. has led to each a “national security crisis” and a “humanitarian crisis,” he said, describing his opponent as an “extreme” left-wing politician who supports “open borders.”

Deaton attacked Warren for not supporting the recent bipartisan border bill, which might have provided tougher immigration policies but was killed by congressional Republicans on the behest of Trump. Deaton said he voted for the bill despite the fact that it was “not perfect.”

Warren responded that she “didn’t buy a ticket on a boat that Donald Trump had already sunk.” By the time she was capable of solid her vote, it was clear the bill was dead and Republican support had been withdrawn, Warren said.

The senator acknowledged that a scarcity of immigration reform is putting real pressure on Massachusetts, but criticized Trump's strategy of demonizing migrants and the willingness of congressional Republicans to kill the bill so Trump could run on the problem. While Deaton doesn't repeat Trump's now-debunked claims about Haitian migrants eating pets, Warren said Deaton is “taking a page from the same playbook.”

Deaton made clear that he didn’t support Trump's stated plan to perform mass deportations of migrants, but said there was room for some deportations and that there have been serious national security concerns, even assuming just one percent of illegal ones Migrants coming to the US are “bad guys”.

Warren said she desires to see “comprehensive” immigration reform that might fully reimburse individual states for the prices of housing migrants.

A divide over MCAS

This yr, Massachusetts voters might be asked to weigh whether or not MCAS standardized test scores should proceed for use as a requirement for top school graduation. Asked how they’d vote on Question 2, Warren and Deaton were in sharp contrast on a problem that would have massive implications for one in every of the nation's leading public education systems.

Deaton said he would vote against the measure, adding that it could disproportionately harm “inner city” students and cause chaos if every school district had different standards for measuring students.

“We can’t have 351 standards,” Deaton said. “If you don’t have the MCAS and standards, you’re going to have high school graduates in this state who can’t speak full English, and that puts them at a disadvantage.”

Deaton floated the concept of ​​giving tax credits to teachers who “go to inner cities to teach,” claiming that passing Question 2 could be tantamount to “abandoning” students there.

Warren said she would vote “yes” on Question 2, raising concerns that students with special needs and people just learning English are disproportionately prevented from receiving their diplomas as a result of inadequate MCAS scores. She said the state's elite education system isn’t as a result of MCAS, but slightly to its teachers and public support for them. Because of existing demands, these educators are teaching students more about taking tests than in regards to the actual topics that matter most, she argued.

Deaton said it boils right down to an old mantra: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” There's no point in changing the state's education system when it's already probably the greatest within the country, he said.

“I believe it is our teachers who create this system,” Warren replied. “They are the ones on the ground, with our children, and they are the ones telling us how terrible this test is making the lives of many of our children and many of our teachers.”

How to repair the case

Representatives across the political spectrum in Massachusetts agree that the associated fee of living within the state is simply too high. When asked how best to unravel this problem, Warren and Deaton offered competing visions.

According to Warren, the issue is easy: a scarcity of housing. Warren reiterated Vice President Kamala Harris' plan to construct three million homes across the country, including “tens of thousands” in Massachusetts. To bring down house prices and help first-time buyers secure a brand new home, Warren said she would support raising taxes on billionaires to take a position in constructing more homes.

Deaton claimed that Warren's plans weren’t financially feasible in Massachusetts, at the very least within the Boston area. He agreed that the center of the issue was a “supply issue” but said builders had told him how difficult it was to get the permits needed to construct recent homes. He said he supports tax credits for low-income families and renters to assist them secure housing.

Deaton also said he desires to encourage builders to construct and that “the private sector can do this.”

“They've been saying that for decades, and the price goes up and up and up,” Warren said in response to Deaton's reference to the private sector. She said reducing regulations like Deaton advocates could possibly be a part of the answer, but local leaders have to be equal partners they usually can determine how best to administer regulations of their communities.

In the run-up to the controversy between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in End of June 2024 has brought memories concerning the first televised presidential debate – and the way Vice President Richard Nixon's sweaty, worn-out appearance on that autumn evening in 1960 paved the best way for the tanned and telegenic Senator John F. Kennedy to enter the White House.

At least, that is the common opinion concerning the Kennedy-Nixon debate of September 26, 1960: Image won, Kennedy was rewarded and Nixon was punished.

“Kennedy won the election by a narrow margin, although most people believe he would never have had a chance without that first debate,” Time magazine said. declared in 2016when he lists the most important missteps in political debates. “It seems that Nixon's fatal mistake was that he failed to recognize the power of the visual image.”

Or as Max Frankel, then editor-in-chief of the New York Times, wrote sarcastically several months After Nixon's death in 1994, “Nixon lost a televised debate and the presidency to John F. Kennedy in 1960 because he didn't follow the rules.”

Nixon could have been sweating under the new studio lights, but few pundits and analysts focused their comments on the vice chairman's appearance on the time. In a telling example of the fickleness of judgments within the moment, many pundits and analysts thought each candidates appeared nervous and unsure. Some of them said Nixon, still recovering from the consequences of a infected knee who had admitted him to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center at the tip of August 1960, had the upper hand within the confrontation.

At the time, the prevailing opinion was that this debate had not made any decision concerning the 1960 presidential election campaign.

The debate as a draw

What is commonly told to the general public today about this primary debate of its kindwhich took place without an audience in a Chicago television studio, doesn’t quite match the reactions and perceptions circulating on the time. As the aftermath of the controversy made clear, initial assessments could be fleeting and result in dramatic revisions.

I actually have examined quite a few newspaper articles, editorials and commentaries written immediately after the controversy to organize a chapter for “Doing it wrong”, my 2017 book about Media-driven myths. I discovered that there was no consensus amongst newspaper columnists and editorial writers about Nixon's performance. Not everyone thought Nixon's performance was terrible or necessarily liked Kennedy.

Two days after the controversy, the Washington Post stated in an editorial: “Of the two performances, Mr. Nixon's was probably the smoother. He is an accomplished debater with professional elegance, and he managed to convey the slightly condescending impression of a master teaching his pupil.”

The moderator of the controversy, Howard K. Smith of ABC News, was later quoted as saying that he thought Nixon was “slightly better” than Kennedy.

Saul Petta well known columnist for the Associated Press, praised Nixon's radiant warmth. “In terms of popular approval, both before and during the debate,” Pett wrote in an article published the following day, “my scorecard showed Nixon slightly ahead, at least 8 to 1. … He smiled more often and more broadly, especially at the beginning and end of remarks. Kennedy only occasionally allowed himself the luxury of a quarter smile.”

Walter Lippmann, a number one newspaper commentator of the time, mentioned Nixon's behavior at length in his column the day after the controversy, saying the tv cameras “were very hard on Mr. Nixon. … They made him look sick, which he is not, and they made him look older and more worn out than he is.”

This effect, Lippmann wrote, “was a misrepresentation and we need to ensure for the future that the cameras are indeed impartial.”

Doubts concerning the impact of television

However, one other columnist, William S. White, questioned the powerful impact of television on politics, writing: “There is, after all, no magic formula for getting to the presidency on electronic waves: no gold mine of easily won votes in television heaven.” Television was nothing recent in 1960. About 87% of American households Back then, everyone owned not less than one television set. But the role of television in American politics was still changing.

Of greater importance, not less than to some analysts, was Nixon's tactics throughout the debate. For example, he seemed inclined to debate things the best way Kennedy had presented them. In his opening statement, Kennedy said: expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country Amid the uncertainties of the Cold War, he said, “This is a great country, but I think it could be an even greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it could be an even more powerful country.” He concluded his opening remarks by stating, “I think it's time for America to get moving again.”

Nixon, speaking after Kennedy, denied that the country had “stood still” throughout the Eisenhower years, but said, “I fully agree with the spirit that Senator Kennedy expressed tonight, the spirit that the United States should move forward.”

He concluded his opening speech with the words: “I do know that Senator Kennedy feels these issues just as deeply [facing the country] like me, but our disagreement will not be concerning the goals for America, only concerning the means to attain those goals.”

Whether Nixon was attempting to curb his combative tendencies or appeal to wavering Democrats, his remarks seemed strangely defensive and respectful.

“Nixon was so insistent that he shared all of Senator Kennedy's worthy goals that one could expect Nixon to support the Democratic program at any moment,” columnist Joseph Alsop wrote sarcastically just a few days after the controversy.

So what modified the consensus on the primary debate from a tie to Nixon's on-air destroy? The answer undoubtedly lies within the seek for a post-election explanation for Kennedy's victory. He won the referendum by 0.2 percentage points or around 118,000 votes.

Historian of Campaign 1960 have identified that numerous variables could have influenced the end result in such an in depth race. But political journalist Theodore H. White writes in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book “The Making of the President, 1960”, argued that the televised broadcast of the primary debate was crucial.

“Until the cameras were on the Senator and the Vice President,” White wrote in his 1961 book, “Kennedy was the boy the Vice President had attacked and harassed as immature, young and inexperienced. Now he was obviously the Vice President's equal in flesh and blood and in behavior.”

Whether television was so enlightening and conclusive is debatable. Less controversial, nonetheless, is the sensation today that television made a difference. As historian David Greenberg wrote about this primary televised debate, “the perception The influence of television changed American politics and shaped the behavior of politicians and candidates for decades.”

One could easily add to this remark: the perception of the influence of television similarly modified the overall opinion concerning the very first presidential debate.