0Shares0000Manchester’s defender Luke Shaw (L) is challenged by Eindhoven’s Mexican defender Hector Moreno during the UEFA Champions League Group B football match in Eindhoven, Belgium on September 15, 2015. PHOTO/AFPEINDHOVEN, September 16- Manchester United saw their Champions League return turn into a nightmare on Tuesday as they not only fell 2-1 against PSV Eindhoven but also lost full-back Luke Shaw with a double fracture of the leg in their Group B opener.Despite an opening goal by winger Memphis Depay against his former club, United — who dominated throughout — failed to capitalise on their chances and goals from Hector Moreno and Luciano Narsingh gave the hosts victory. However, worse than the defeat was the injury to Shaw, which came just 15 minutes into the match following a crunching Moreno tackle, leaving the England international with a double fracture that requires an operation when he returns to Manchester and could put his participation at Euro 2016 next summer in jeopardy.Shaw was wheeled off the field breathing through an oxygen mask to loud applause from PSV’s fans before being substituted by Marcos Rojo for his first appearance of the season.Around half an hour later, though, Shaw took to Twitter to vow that he would make a full recovery.“Thank you everyone for your messages, words can’t describe how gutted I am, my road to recovery starts now, I will come back stronger,” he tweeted.The result continued United manager Louis Van Gaal’s poor record at the Philips Stadium with Ajax, Barcelona, AZ Alkmaar and now with United, winning just twice in 11 attempts.The former Netherlands coach, who took over the reins at Old Trafford last year, saw his run of bad luck continue in the southern Dutch city with PSV tenaciously clinging on to a narrow lead for an historic win.The 21-year-old Depay struck in the 41st minute when fellow Dutchman Daley Blind slid him in to slice past two PSV defenders and then find the back of PSV goalkeeper Jeroen Zoet’s net with a crisp left-foot finish.As promised, Depay celebrated his goal in front the fans who used to revere him, but United’s fortunes were short-lived when PSV struck back just before half-time.Mexico defender Moreno’s header from a Maxime Lestienne corner glanced off Blind’s head, before beating David de Gea’s and Ashley Young on the line.PSV laid their cards on the table in the second half, with right wing Luciano Narsingh heading in a beautifully-timed Lestienne cross past De Gea to find the left hand corner of the United goal.Although Depay impressed throughout the first half, United were rail-roaded by PSV’s dogged defence.PSV’s defence was up against the wall but impressed with their rigorous resistence, while United’s French multi-million pound signing Anthony Martial several times failed to capitalise in front of goal.Despite a furious United onslaught in the second half, led by Young, PSV’s defensive formation held firm to open their account with maximum points.The Philips Stadium erupted in huge celebrations at the final whistle with PSV celebrating a successful return to the competition for the first time since the 2008/09 season.It was also PSV’s first Champion’s League victory over United since 2000.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)
IDC recently made the following predictions for how IT will affect global manufacturing:Investment in IT will promote “customer centricity” and help businesses become more responsive to customers, boosting their market share by 2 to 3 percentage points.90 percent of manufacturers will dictate their company global standards on suppliers and outsourcers to decrease risk and increase market opportunity65 percent of manufacturers will implement metrics that will help them evaluate and drive change75 percent of manufacturers will digitally connect their processes to drive speed and responsiveness to customers50 percent of manufacturers will streamline their logistics network by using technology like 3D Printing, Robotics, and Cognitive Computing20 percent of manufacturers will reshape their IT portfolios and hire IT-savvy workers to enable digital-controlled manufacturingBy 2017, 40 percent of manufacturers will use virtual product modeling and simulation to improve product design and the manufacturing process.By 2017, 50 percent of manufacturers will be using the cloud, mobility and advanced analytics to facilitate innovation.By 2018, top 100 global manufacturers will have adopted a product innovation platform to improve product quality. The platform enables product, manufacturing, supply chain and service to all better work together, with improved decisions and collaborations.
Preconception screening can help couples prepare for the possibility their child may be born with a medical condition. Pregnancy comes with many unknowns. Perhaps one of the most harrowing is whether a child will be born healthy. Now, preconception screening—looking at the genetic risk factors of both partners before they conceive—is starting to answer that question.Many companies offer an array of screens to prospective parents. But these typically focus on a few hundred conditions, and couples often have to select which they’d like to be tested for. The problem is that some recessive conditions don’t show up in family histories, and the partners themselves may never have symptoms—making it unlikely they’ll ask the right questions. Now, researchers at the National Human Genome Research Institute’s Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium are trying to expand screening options using whole-genome sequencing, which allows researchers to look broadly for carrier risk rather than screening specific genes or targeted panels.Science spoke with Sue Richards, a clinical medical geneticist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and a leader of the project, about findings published today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Q: How is your screen different than other preconception screens?A: We screened for many genes that are not on any current carrier screening panel … using whole-genome sequencing. Laboratories like mine have been offering carrier screening for many, many years, [but] the paradigm is shifting now from doing screening for single genes and targeted well-known variants [for disorders such as cystic fibrosis] to really a very large number of genes. [With whole-genome sequencing], we had the opportunity to cast a very, very large net.Q: What did you want to find out from this study?A: We wanted to know how patients choose what they want to learn about. And then, when they get their results, how do they use that information? The goal is to really empower people so they can make informed decisions about reproductive choices.Q: What did you do?A: Anyone who chose to be in the study would be screened for any life-threatening … genetic disorders. Then those results would be reported back. Then, we gave them a whole list of other types of genetic disorders that they could get carrier testing for—more than 700—and asked them if they wanted to know their results … for severe disorders, mild disorders, adult-onset disorders, and unpredictable disorders, where you wouldn’t be able to be sure about the phenotype. One of the findings … was that most people, over 90%, wanted all categories returned.Q: What else did you find?A: We found that the majority of people carry a variant, at least one. Some [carry] up to five disease-causing variants for a rare disorder. Between 3% to 4% of people had findings that were medically important for themselves. They had some gene [variant] that [meant] later in life they could develop cancer or cardiac disease or something like that.Q: What are the upsides? Why would people want to get this new kind of testing?A: Because we were using this technology of whole-genome sequencing, we were able to screen and offer people additional information about their own personal health. If you have a clinically actionable variant that for example is going to predispose you to have breast cancer or colon cancer, then we would report that finding if they wanted that. It was interesting that 99% wanted [medically actionable] information back. I think it speaks loudly to the fact that people want to know this information when they’re given that choice.Q: What are the downsides?A: A general practice in genetics for diagnostic testing is to also report those variants we can’t interpret, and we don’t know if they actually cause disease or don’t cause disease. … This is a huge problem. What we wouldn’t want to end up doing is having patients with great anxiety or having a prenatal diagnosis done for a variant of uncertain significance because you wouldn’t be able to interpret anything and that’s not making an informed choice. That’s not good knowledge—that could be harmful.Q: When will whole-genome prescreens be commercially available?A: It might be a little premature yet to do that. It’s close to being ready, but there were some regions of the genome that even this technology doesn’t get yet. There’s some common genetic disorders where the genes are very similar to other genes … this doesn’t work well for that. If there’s a repeat region, like in a fragile X, or Huntington disease, those kinds of regions are hard to screen for. In a very few years, we’re going to be ready, certainly technology wise.Q: Would you recommend this new kind of testing?A: Just because you can do more, should you do more? In this study, we were conservative in our approach, and we only reported variants we were quite confident were pathogenic, disease-causing variants. There’s going to be a discussion that continues in the genetics community. … When is the appropriate time to offer it? Let’s [not] do it until we’re really ready to do it right, because we don’t want to make mistakes.*Correction, 11 May, 9:47 a.m.: The image has been updated; the previous image showed an incorrect DNA helix. Getty Images/iStockphoto By Roni DenglerMay. 10, 2018 , 11:25 AM Should you get a genetic screen before having kids?