skip to main content

Title: What is phase in cellular clocks
Four inter-related measures of phase are described to study the phase synchronization of cellular oscillators, and computation of these measures is described and illustrated on single cell fluorescence data from the model filamentous fungus, Neurospora crassa. One of these four measures is the phase shift ϕ in a sinusoid of the form x(t) = A(cos(ωt + ϕ), where t is time. The other measures arise by creating a replica of the periodic process x(t) called the Hilbert transform x̃(t), which is 90 degrees out of phase with the original process x(t). The second phase measure is the phase angle FH(t) between the replica x̃(t) and X(t), taking values between -π and π. At extreme values the Hilbert Phase is discontinuous, and a continuous form FC(t) of the Hilbert Phase is used, measuring time on the nonnegative real axis (t). The continuous Hilbert Phase FC(t) is used to define the phase MC(t1,t0) for an experiment beginning at time t0 and ending at time t1. In that phase differences at time t0 are often of ancillary interest, the Hilbert Phase FC(t0) is subtracted from FC(t1). This difference is divided by 2π to obtain the phase MC(t1,t0) in cycles. Both the Hilbert Phase FC(t) and more » the phase MC(t1,t0) are functions of time and useful in studying when oscillators phase-synchronize in time in signal processing and circadian rhythms in particular. The phase of cellular clocks is fundamentally different from circadian clocks at the macroscopic scale because there is an hourly cycle superimposed on the circadian cycle. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1713746
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10100618
Journal Name:
The Yale journal of biology & medicine
Volume:
92
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
169-178
ISSN:
0044-0086
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The circadian clock in mammals regulates the sleep/wake cycle and many associated behavioral and physiological processes. The cellular clock mechanism involves a transcriptional negative feedback loop that gives rise to circadian rhythms in gene expression with an approximately 24-hour periodicity. To maintain system robustness, clocks throughout the body must be synchronized and their functions coordinated. In mammals, the master clock is located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus. The SCN is entrained to the light/dark cycle through photic signal transduction and subsequent induction of core clock gene expression. The SCN in turn relays the time-of-day information to clocks in peripheral tissues. While the SCN is highly responsive to photic cues, peripheral clocks are more sensitive to non-photic resetting cues such as nutrients, body temperature, and neuroendocrine hormones. For example, feeding/fasting and physical activity can entrain peripheral clocks through signaling pathways and subsequent regulation of core clock genes and proteins. As such, timing of food intake and physical activity matters. In an ideal world, the sleep/wake and feeding/fasting cycles are synchronized to the light/dark cycle. However, asynchronous environmental cues, such as those experienced by shift workers and frequent travelers, often lead to misalignment between the master and peripheral clocks.more »Emerging evidence suggests that the resulting circadian disruption is associated with various diseases and chronic conditions that further circadian desynchrony and accelerate disease progression. In this review, we discuss how sleep, nutrition, and physical activity synchronize circadian clocks and how chronomedicine may offer novel strategies for disease intervention.« less
  2. A bstract A comprehensive set of azimuthal single-spin and double-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive leptoproduction of pions, charged kaons, protons, and antiprotons from transversely polarized protons is presented. These asymmetries include the previously published HERMES results on Collins and Sivers asymmetries, the analysis of which has been extended to include protons and antiprotons and also to an extraction in a three-dimensional kinematic binning and enlarged phase space. They are complemented by corresponding results for the remaining four single-spin and four double-spin asymmetries allowed in the one-photon-exchange approximation of the semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering process for target-polarization orientation perpendicular to the direction of the incoming lepton beam. Among those results, significant non-vanishing cos ( ϕ−ϕ S ) modulations provide evidence for a sizable worm-gear (II) distribution, $$ {g}_{1\mathrm{T}}^q\left(x,{\mathrm{p}}_T^2\right) $$ g 1 T q x p T 2 . Most of the other modulations are found to be consistent with zero with the notable exception of large sin ( ϕ S ) modulations for charged pions and K + .
  3. The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmet is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert datamore »scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge.« less
  4. This study explores the feasibility of using the vortex impulse approach, based on experimen- tally generated velocity elds to estimate the energy harvesting performance of a sinusoidally apping foil. Phase-resolved, two-component particle image velocimetry measurements are conducted in a low-speed wind tunnel to capture the ow eld surrounding the apping foil at reduced frequencies of k = fc=U1 = 0.06 - 0.16, pitching amplitude of 0 = 70 and heaving amplitude of h0=c = 0:6. The model results show that for the conditions tested, a maximum energy harvesting eciency of 25% is attained near k = 0:14, agreeing very well with published numerical and experimental results in both accuracy and general trend. The vortex impulse method identi es key contributions to the transient power production from both linear and angular momentum e ects. The eciency reduction at larger values of reduced frequencies is shown to be a result of the reduced power output from the angular momentum. Further, the impulse formulation is decomposed into contributions from posi- tive and negative vorticity in the ow and is used to better understand the uid dynamic mechanisms responsible for producing a peak in energy harvesting performance at k = 0:14. At the largermore »k values, there is a reduction of the advective time scales of the leading edge vortex (LEV) formation. Consequently, the LEV that is shed during the previous half cycle interacts with the foil at the current half cycle resulting in a large negative pitching power due to the reversed direction of the kinematic motion. This vortex capture process signif- icantly decreases the total cycle averaged power output and energy harvesting eciency. These results show the link between the kinematic motion and LEV time scales that a ect the overall power production.« less
  5. Abstract The production of $$\pi ^{\pm }$$ π ± , $$\mathrm{K}^{\pm }$$ K ± , $$\mathrm{K}^{0}_{S}$$ K S 0 , $$\mathrm{K}^{*}(892)^{0}$$ K ∗ ( 892 ) 0 , $$\mathrm{p}$$ p , $$\phi (1020)$$ ϕ ( 1020 ) , $$\Lambda $$ Λ , $$\Xi ^{-}$$ Ξ - , $$\Omega ^{-}$$ Ω - , and their antiparticles was measured in inelastic proton–proton (pp) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $$\sqrt{s}$$ s = 13 TeV at midrapidity ( $$|y|<0.5$$ | y | < 0.5 ) as a function of transverse momentum ( $$p_{\mathrm{T}}$$ p T ) using the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. Furthermore, the single-particle $$p_{\mathrm{T}}$$ p T distributions of $$\mathrm{K}^{0}_{S}$$ K S 0 , $$\Lambda $$ Λ , and $$\overline{\Lambda }$$ Λ ¯ in inelastic pp collisions at $$\sqrt{s} = 7$$ s = 7  TeV are reported here for the first time. The $$p_{\mathrm{T}}$$ p T distributions are studied at midrapidity within the transverse momentum range $$0\le p_{\mathrm{T}}\le 20$$ 0 ≤ p T ≤ 20 GeV/ c , depending on the particle species. The $$p_{\mathrm{T}}$$ p T spectra, integrated yields, and particle yield ratios are discussed as a function of collision energy and compared with measurements at lower $$\sqrt{s}$$ smore »and with results from various general-purpose QCD-inspired Monte Carlo models. A hardening of the spectra at high $$p_{\mathrm{T}}$$ p T with increasing collision energy is observed, which is similar for all particle species under study. The transverse mass and $$x_{\mathrm{T}}\equiv 2p_{\mathrm{T}}/\sqrt{s}$$ x T ≡ 2 p T / s scaling properties of hadron production are also studied. As the collision energy increases from $$\sqrt{s}$$ s = 7–13 TeV, the yields of non- and single-strange hadrons normalized to the pion yields remain approximately constant as a function of $$\sqrt{s}$$ s , while ratios for multi-strange hadrons indicate enhancements. The $$p_\mathrm{{T}}$$ p T -differential cross sections of $$\pi ^{\pm }$$ π ± , $$\mathrm {K}^{\pm }$$ K ± and $$\mathrm {p}$$ p ( $$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$$ p ¯ ) are compared with next-to-leading order perturbative QCD calculations, which are found to overestimate the cross sections for $$\pi ^{\pm }$$ π ± and $$\mathrm{p}$$ p ( $$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$$ p ¯ ) at high $$p_\mathrm{{T}}$$ p T .« less