362 research outputs found
Social Principles Underlying Traditional Inshore Fishery Management Systems in the Pacific Basin
No full textAmong fisheries management schemes, those based on sole ownership concepts have been relatively little studied. This concept has been most widely applied in the traditional fisheries management or sea tenure systems of the Pacific Basin, where, unlike the West, sole ownership resides in the community or other small social group. Information on Pacific Basin sea tenure systems remains largely anecdotal and unsynthesized. In a partial attempt to overcome that, this article defines and exemplifies six social principles common to many traditional systems of sea tenure in inshore fisheries management in the Pacific Basin, with reference to Oceanian islands, and based on an examination of the literature and supplementary field research. These principles are that: (1) sea rights depend on social status, (2) resource exploitation is governed by use rights, (3) resource territories are defined. (4) marine resources are controlled by traditional authorities, (5) conservation was traditionally widely practiced, and (6) sanctions and punishments are meted out for infringement of regulations. Most remaining systems are hybrids of traditional and modem components, with the latter becoming dominant. Interpretation of the literature without supplementary field verification is severely constrained by the use of the ''anthropological present'' tense.Environmental Economics and Policy, International Development, International Relations/Trade, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,
Human TUBB3 mutations perturb microtubule dynamics, kinesin interactions, and axon guidance
No full textWe report that eight heterozygous missense mutations in TUBB3, encoding the neuron-specific beta-tubulin isotype III, result in a spectrum of human nervous system disorders that we now call the TUBB3 syndromes. Each mutation causes the ocular motility disorder CFEOM3, whereas some also result in intellectual and behavioral impairments, facial paralysis, and/or later-onset axonal sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Neuroimaging reveals a spectrum of abnormalities including hypoplasia of oculomotor nerves and dysgenesis of the corpus callosum, anterior commissure, and corticospinal tracts. A knock-in disease mouse model reveals axon guidance defects without evidence of cortical cell migration abnormalities. We show that the disease-associated mutations can impair tubulin heterodimer formation in vitro, although folded mutant heterodimers can still polymerize into microtubules. Modeling each mutation in yeast tubulin demonstrates that all alter dynamic instability whereas a subset disrupts the interaction of microtubules with kinesin motors. These findings demonstrate that normal TUBB3 is required for axon guidance and maintenance in mammals.Max A. Tischfield, Hagit N. Baris, Chen Wu, Guenther Rudolph, Lionel Van Maldergem, Wei He, Wai-Man Chan, Caroline Andrews, Joseph L. Demer, Richard L. Robertson, David A. Mackey, Jonathan B. Ruddle, Thomas D. Bird, Irene Gottlob, Christina Pieh, Elias I. Traboulsi, Scott L. Pomeroy, David G. Hunter, Janet S. Soul, Anna Newlin, Louise J. Sabol, Edward J. Doherty, Clara E. de Uzca´ tegui, Nicolas de Uzca´ tegui, Mary Louise Z. Collins, Emin C. Sener, Bettina Wabbels, Heide Hellebrand, Thomas Meitinger, Teresa de Berardinis, Adriano Magli, Costantino Schiavi, Marco Pastore-Trossello, Feray Koc, Agnes M. Wong, Alex V. Levin, Michael T. Geraghty, Maria Descartes, Maree Flaherty, Robyn V. Jamieson, H.U. Møller, Ingo Meuthen, David F. Callen, Janet Kerwin, Susan Lindsay, Alfons Meindl, Mohan L. Gupta, Jr., David Pellman, and Elizabeth C. Engl
A geometric morphometric assessment of the optic cup in glaucoma
No full textThe morphologic appearance of the optic disc is of interest in glaucoma. In contrast to descriptive classification systems that are currently used, a quantitative approach to the analysis of optic disc morphology is required. Our goal was to determine the optimal method for quantifying optic cup shape by comparing traditional (ovality, form-factor and neuroretinal rim (NRR) width ratio) and geometric morphometric approaches. Left optic disc stereophotographs of 160 (80 normal and 80 glaucomatous (stratified by severity)) subjects were examined. The optic cup margins were stereoscopically delineated with a custom tracing system and saved as a series of discrete points. The geometric morphometric methods of elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA) and sliding semi-landmark analysis (SSLA) were used to eliminate variation unrelated to shape (e.g. size) and yield a series of shape variables. Differences in optic cup shape between normal and glaucoma groups were investigated. Discriminant functions were computed and the sensitivity and specificity of each technique determined. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for all methods and evaluated in their potential to discriminate between normal and glaucomatous eyes based on the shape variables. All geometric morphometric methods revealed differences between normal and glaucomatous eyes in optic cup shape, in addition to the traditional parameters of ovality, form-factor and NRR width ratio (p<0.0005). SSLA (minimum bending energy criterion - 18 points) had the best sensitivity (83%) and area under the curve (AUC) (0.91). EFA (72 points) performed similarly well (74%, 0.89) as did the set of traditional shape-based variables (76%, 0.86). This study demonstrated that a geometric morphometric approach for discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes in optic cup shape is superior to that provided by traditional single parameter shape measures. Such analytical techniques could be incorporated into future automated optic disc screening modalities. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
Whole exome sequencing implicates eye development, the unfolded protein response and plasma membrane homeostasis in primary open-angle glaucoma
No full textPurpose: To identify biological processes associated with POAG and its subtypes, high-tension (HTG) and normal-tension glaucoma (NTG), by analyzing rare potentially damaging genetic variants. Methods: A total of 122 and 65 unrelated HTG and NTG participants, respectively, with early onset advanced POAG, 103 non-glaucoma controls and 993 unscreened ethnicity-matched controls were included in this study. Study participants without myocilin disease-causing variants and non-glaucoma controls were subjected to whole exome sequencing on an Illumina HiSeq2000. Exomes of participants were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2000. Qualifying variants were rare in the general population (MAF < 0.001) and potentially functionally damaging (nonsense, frameshift, splice or predicted pathogenic using SIFT or Polyphen2 software). Genes showing enrichment of qualifying variants in cases were selected for pathway and network analysis using InnateDB. Results: POAG cases showed enrichment of rare variants in camera-type eye development genes (p = 1.40×10–7, corrected p = 3.28×10–4). Implicated eye development genes were related to neuronal or retinal development. HTG cases were significantly enriched for key regulators in the unfolded protein response (UPR) (p = 7.72×10–5, corrected p = 0.013). The UPR is known to be involved in myocilin-related glaucoma; our results suggest the UPR has a role in non-myocilin causes of HTG. NTG cases showed enrichment in ion channel transport processes (p = 1.05×10–4, corrected p = 0.027) including calcium, chloride and phospholipid transporters involved in plasma membrane homeostasis. Network analysis also revealed enrichment of the MHC Class I antigen presentation pathway in HTG, and the EGFR1 and cell-cycle pathways in both HTG and NTG. Conclusion: This study suggests that mutations in eye development genes are enriched in POAG. HTG can result from aberrant responses to protein misfolding which may be amenable to molecular chaperone therapy. NTG is associated with impaired plasma membrane homeostasis increasing susceptibility to apoptosis.Tiger Zhou, Emmanuelle Souzeau, Shiwani Sharma, John Landers, Richard Mills, Ivan Goldberg, Paul R. Healey, Stuart Graham, Alex W. Hewitt, David A. Mackey, Anna Galanopoulos, Robert J. Casson, Jonathan B. Ruddle, Jonathan Ellis, Paul Leo, Matthew A. Brown, Stuart MacGregor, David J. Lynn, Kathryn P. Burdon, Jamie E. Crai
Marine Resources Management in the Context of Customary Tenure
No full textAlthough customary marine tenure (CMT) systems for the management of local marine resources occur throughout the world, compared with other models of fisheries management they remain relatively little known. The Pacific Basin is especially rich in CMT systems, which play key roles in overall social, economic and cultural life of societies. Based on a Solomon Island example, we examine the organizational principles and potentials of CMT systems to provide sustainable yields and equitable access to resources, their resilience to external pressures, and mechanisms for ensuring local autonomy in resource control. Next we demonstrate that CMT systems are an expression of traditional ecological knowledge, and show the importance of such knowledge to scientific research and the planning of resource management. Finally, we suggest priorities for research on CMT systems.community-based management, fisheries management, traditional environmental knowledge, traditional conservation, Pacific Basin, Solomon Islands, Environmental Economics and Policy, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,
Genome-wide association study of intraocular pressure uncovers new pathways to glaucoma
No full textPublished online: 27 July 2018Intraocular pressure (IOP) is currently the sole modifiable risk factor for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide1. Both IOP and POAG are highly heritable2. We report a combined analysis of participants from the UK Biobank (n = 103,914) and previously published data from the International Glaucoma Genetic Consortium (n = 29,578)3,4 that identified 101 statistically independent genome-wide-significant SNPs for IOP, 85 of which have not been previously reported4-12. We examined these SNPs in 11,018 glaucoma cases and 126,069 controls, and 53 SNPs showed evidence of association. Gene-based tests implicated an additional 22 independent genes associated with IOP. We derived an allele score based on the IOP loci and loci influencing optic nerve head morphology. In 1,734 people with advanced glaucoma and 2,938 controls, participants in the top decile of the allele score were at increased risk (odds ratio (OR) = 5.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.1-7.6) of glaucoma relative to the bottom decile.Stuart MacGregor, Jue-Sheng Ong, Jiyuan An, Xikun Han, Tiger Zhou, Owen M. Siggs, Matthew H. Law, Emmanuelle Souzeau, Shiwani Sharma, David J. Lynn, Jonathan Beesley, Bronwyn Sheldrick, Richard A. Mills, John Landers, Jonathan B. Ruddle, Stuart L. Graham, Paul R. Healey, Andrew J. R. White, Robert J. Casson, Stephen Best, John R Grigg, Ivan Goldberg, Joseph E. Powell, David C. Whiteman, Graham L. Radford-Smith, Nicholas G. Martin, Grant W. Montgomery, Kathryn P. Burdon, David A. Mackey, Puya Gharahkhani, Jamie E. Craig and Alex W. Hewit
Individualized Prediction of Drug Response and Rational Combination Therapy in NSCLC Using Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Studies of Acute Phosphoproteomic Changes
No full textWe hypothesize that the study of acute protein perturbation in signal transduction by targeted anticancer drugs can predict drug sensitivity of these agents used as single agents and rational combination therapy. We assayed dynamic changes in 52 phosphoproteins caused by an acute exposure (1 hour) to clinically relevant concentrations of seven targeted anticancer drugs in 35 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines and 16 samples of NSCLC cells isolated from pleural effusions. We studied drug sensitivities across 35 cell lines and synergy of combinations of all drugs in six cell lines (252 combinations). We developed orthogonal machine-learning approaches to predict drug response and rational combination therapy. Our methods predicted the most and least sensitive quartiles of drug sensitivity with an AUC of 0.79 and 0.78, respectively, whereas predictions based on mutations in three genes commonly known to predict response to the drug studied, for example, EGFR, PIK3CA, and KRAS, did not predict sensitivity (AUC of 0.5 across all quartiles). The machine-learning predictions of combinations that were compared with experimentally generated data showed a bias to the highest quartile of Bliss synergy scores (P = 0.0243). We confirmed feasibility of running such assays on 16 patient samples of freshly isolated NSCLC cells from pleural effusions. We have provided proof of concept for novel methods of using acute ex vivo exposure of cancer cells to targeted anticancer drugs to predict response as single agents or combinations. These approaches could complement current approaches using gene mutations/amplifications/rearrangements as biomarkers and demonstrate the utility of proteomics data to inform treatment selection in the clinic
Ophthalmic complications of targeted cancer therapy and recently recognized ophthalmic complications of traditional chemotherapy
No full textAs our understanding of cancer pathophysiology has increased, so have the number of targeted therapeutic agents available. By targeting specific molecules involved in tumorigenesis, targeted therapeutic agents offer the potential for significant efficacy against tumor cells while minimizing the adverse effects. We highlight the recently recognized ophthalmic complications of targeted cancer therapy, as well as recently recognized complications of traditional chemotherapeutic agents. © 2014 Elsevier Inc.Akinleye A, 2013, J HEMATOL ONCOL, V6, DOI 10.1186-1756-8722-6-27; Anforth R, 2013, LANCET ONCOL, V14, pE11, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70413-8; Arnault JP, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, pE59, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2009.23.4823; Babu K. Govind, 2007, International Ophthalmology, V27, P43, DOI 10.1007-s10792-007-9038-9; Belum VR, 2013, CURR ONCOL REP, V15, P249, DOI 10.1007-s11912-013-0308-6; Bonner JA, 2006, NEW ENGL J MED, V354, P567, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa053422; Borkar DS, 2013, SUPPORT CARE CANCER, V21, P1167, DOI 10.1007-s00520-012-1645-y; Borodic G, 2011, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V27, pE87, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e3181ef72a1; Boussemart L, 2013, ANN ONCOL, V24, P1691, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdt015; Bouwhuis MG, 2011, CURR OPIN ONCOL, V23, P170, DOI 10.1097-CCO.0b013e328341edff; Burris HA, 2011, J CLIN ONCOL, V29, P398, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2010.29.5865; Burstein HJ, 2000, J CLIN ONCOL, V18, P1212; Bussone Guillaume, 2010, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V28, P90; Chu EY, 2012, J AM ACAD DERMATOL, V67, P1265, DOI 10.1016-j.jaad.2012.04.008; Demetri GD, 2002, NEW ENGL J MED, V347, P472, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa020461; De Vita F, 2010, CANCER TREAT REV, V36, pS11, DOI 10.1016-S0305-7372(10)70014-1; Di Giacomo AM, 2010, SEMIN ONCOL, V37, P499, DOI 10.1053-j.seminoncol.2010.09.007; Dogan SS, 2009, HEMATOL ONCOL CLIN N, V23, P109, DOI 10.1016-j.hoc.2008.11.003; Esmaeli B, 2004, EYE, V18, P760, DOI 10.1038-sj.eye.6701315; Esmaeli B, 2002, ANN ONCOL, V13, P218, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdf036; Esmaeli Bita, 2005, Clin Breast Cancer, V5, P455, DOI 10.3816-CBC.2005.n.004; Esmaeli B, 2006, J CLIN ONCOL, V24, P3619, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2005.04.4453; Esmaeli B, 2003, OPHTHALMIC PLAST REC, V19, P305, DOI 10.1097-01.IOP.0000075016.29682.E0; Esmaeli B, 2002, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V120, P1180; Esmaeli B, 2002, CANCER, V95, P881, DOI 10.1002-cncr.10729; Esmaeli B, 2003, CANCER, V98, P504, DOI 10.1002-cncr.11527; Esmaeli B, 2005, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V140, P325, DOI 10.1016-j.ajo.2005.01.052; Fabre-Guillevin E, 1999, LANCET, V354, P1181, DOI 10.1016-S0140-6736(99)03019-6; Falchook GS, 2012, LANCET, V379, P1893, DOI 10.1016-S0140-6736(12)60398-5; Falchook GS, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P782, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70269-3; Flaherty KT, 2012, NEW ENGL J MED, V367, P107, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa1203421; Foerster CG, 2008, CORNEA, V27, P612, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e318166f483; Fraunfelder FW, 2003, NEW ENGL J MED, V348, P1187, DOI 10.1056-NEJM200303203481225; Fraunfelder FT, 2012, CUTAN OCUL TOXICOL, V31, P195, DOI 10.3109-15569527.2011.636118; Fraunfelder FW, 2003, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V19, P371, DOI 10.1089-108076803322279426; Garibaldi DC, 2007, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V23, P62, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e31802d9025; Guarneri V, 2010, CANCER TREAT REV, V36, pS62, DOI 10.1016-S0305-7372(10)70022-0; Haura EB, 2010, CLIN CANCER RES, V16, P2450, DOI 10.1158-1078-0432.CCR-09-1920; Hemmati I, 2012, CLIN RHEUMATOL, V31, P1403, DOI 10.1007-s10067-012-2035-z; Ho WL, 2013, ACTA OPHTHALMOL, V91, P604, DOI 10.1111-j.1755-3768.2012.02518.x; Hong DS, 2008, ARCH DERMATOL, V144, P779, DOI 10.1001-archderm.144.6.779; Huang WH, 2009, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V25, P519, DOI 10.1089-jop.2009.0060; Infante JR, 2013, EUR J CANCER, V49, P2077, DOI 10.1016-j.ejca.2013.03.020; Infante JR, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P773, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70270-X; Johnson KS, 2009, CORNEA, V28, P706, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e31818fdbc6; Kaur Harpreet, 2011, Endocr Pract, V17, pe101, DOI 10.4158-EP11081.CR; Keenan JD, 2010, CORNEA, V29, P583, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e3181b55cd8; Kim N, 2012, ANN ONCOL, V23, P2065, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mds106; Kusumi E, 2004, LEUKEMIA, V18, P1138, DOI 10.1038-sj.leu.2403364; Kwon SI, 2008, JPN J OPHTHALMOL, V52, P331, DOI 10.1007-s10384-008-0561-7; Lacouture ME, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P329, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2011.38.2895; Larson JSM, 2007, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V125, P985, DOI 10.1001-archopht.125.7.985; Leyssens B, 2010, ANN ONCOL, V21, P419, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdp319; Long GV, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P1087, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70431-X; LoRusso PM, 2010, CLIN CANCER RES, V16, P1924, DOI 10.1158-1078-0432.CCR-09-1883; Macarulla T., 2012, ANN ONCOL, V23, piv19; Maker AV, 2006, J IMMUNOTHER, V29, P455, DOI 10.1097-01.cji.0000208259.73167.58; Maloney DG, 1997, BLOOD, V90, P2188; Masood I, 2005, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V31, P2427, DOI 10.1016-j.jcrs.2005.10.029; McClelland Collin M, 2010, Clin Ophthalmol, V4, P427; Methvin AB, 2007, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V23, P63, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e31802d97f0; Moore MJ, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, P1960, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2006.07.9525; Morris LGT, 2011, CURR ONCOL, V18, P145; MURILLAS R, 1995, EMBO J, V14, P5216; Musolino A, 2011, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V117, P1837, DOI 10.1002-cncr.25771; Nakamura Y, 2001, EXP EYE RES, V72, P511, DOI 10.1006-exer.2000.0979; Ng JD, 2011, MD ANDERSON SOLID TU, P327, DOI 10.1007-978-1-4419-0374-7_27; Olsen E, 2001, J CLIN ONCOL, V19, P376; Oribe Naoya, 2004, Haematologica, V89, pEIM14; Park M, 2007, LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA, V48, P808, DOI 10.1080-10428190701268783; Pascual JC, 2004, BRIT J DERMATOL, V151, P1111, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2133.2004.06265.x; Patel DV, 2013, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V120, P773, DOI 10.1016-j.ophtha.2012.10.028; Pazianas M, 2013, J BONE MINER RES, V28, P455, DOI 10.1002-jbmr.1783; Perez-Fidalgo JA, 2008, AN MED INTERN, V25, P178; Phillips PM, 2008, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V126, P137, DOI 10.1001-archophthalmol.2007.17; Pietras K, 2001, CANCER RES, V61, P2929; Procianoy F, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P1057, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-1048-1; Radaelli F, 2007, INT J HEMATOL, V86, P390, DOI 10.1532-IJH97.E0741; Ravnan MC, 2012, CLIN THER, V34, P1474, DOI 10.1016-j.clinthera.2012.06.009; Reid IR, 2010, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V95, P4380, DOI 10.1210-jc.2010-0597; Renouf DJ, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P3277, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2011.41.5851; Robert C, 2011, CURR OPIN ONCOL, V23, P177, DOI 10.1097-CCO.0b013e3283436e8c; Robinson MR, 2004, J IMMUNOTHER, V27, P478, DOI 10.1097-00002371-200411000-00008; Rodt SA, 1996, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V495, P193; Roth Daniel B, 2009, Retin Cases Brief Rep, V3, P161, DOI 10.1097-ICB.0b013e318177f9d7; Ruddle JB, 2007, LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA, V48, P655, DOI 10.1080-10428190601186192; Ruddle JB, 2006, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V90, P1070, DOI 10.1136-bjo.2006.091165; Saleh M, 2011, ACTA ONCOL, V50, P477, DOI 10.3109-0284186X.2011.555781; Sasaki T, 2012, JPN J OPHTHALMOL, V56, P214, DOI 10.1007-s10384-012-0127-6; Savar A, 2011, MD ANDERSON SOLID TU, P251, DOI 10.1007-978-1-4419-0374-7_20; Sharma NS, 2008, NEW ENGL J MED, V359, P1410, DOI 10.1056-NEJMc0803366; Shepherd FA, 2005, NEW ENGL J MED, V353, P123, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa050753; Shome D, 2008, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V115, P483, DOI 10.1016-j.ophtha.2007.11.016; Skolnick Craig A, 2003, Eye Contact Lens, V29, P134, DOI 10.1097-01.ICL.0000062464.79558.5A; Smith KJ, 2009, DERMATOL SURG, V35, P1766, DOI 10.1111-j.1524-4725.2009.01289.x; Specenier P, 2007, Ann Oncol, V18, P961, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdm116; Stahl JL, 1999, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V117, P493; Subramanian PS, 2003, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V121, P1335, DOI 10.1001-archopht.121.9.1335; Teitelbaum BA, 2003, OPTOMETRY VISION SCI, V80, P277, DOI 10.1097-00006324-200304000-00004; Telander David G, 2007, Semin Ophthalmol, V22, P151, DOI 10.1080-08820530701457373; Tobinai K, 1998, ANN ONCOL, V9, P527, DOI 10.1023-A:1008265313133; Tsalic M, 2006, MED ONCOL, V23, P57, DOI 10.1385-MO:23:1:57; Tsoucalas GI, 2012, HELL J NUCL MED, V15, P159, DOI 10.1967-s002449910037; Tullo AB, 2005, EYE, V19, P729, DOI 10.1038-sj.eye.6701630; Vaccaro M, 2009, CLIN EXP DERMATOL, V34, P402, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2230.2008.02842.x; Van Cutsem E, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, P1658, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2006.08.1620; Vano-Galvan S, 2010, J AM ACAD DERMATOL, V62, P531, DOI 10.1016-j.jaad.2009.02.023; Voskens CJ, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371-journal.pone.0053745; Weber J, 2009, CANCER IMMUNOL IMMUN, V58, P823, DOI 10.1007-s00262-008-0653-8; Yeo Jennifer, 2010, N Z Med J, V123, P50; Zhang G, 2007, CORNEA, V26, P858, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e318064584a0
- …
