"... In PAGE 12: ... Genes involved in multicellularity To investigate the origin of gene families involved in multicellularity in Metazoa, we searched our protistan EST data as well as publicly available data for the occurrence of developmental and other genes relevant to multicellularity (see Supplementary Material for details). We found that both amoebozoans and unicellular opisthokonts share with metazoans a number of genes involved in cell signaling or cell adhesion (see Table2 and Supplementary Material). Capsaspora and the choanoflagellate Monosiga express a significantly wider range of these genes (Table 2).... In PAGE 12: ... We found that both amoebozoans and unicellular opisthokonts share with metazoans a number of genes involved in cell signaling or cell adhesion (see Table 2 and Supplementary Material). Capsaspora and the choanoflagellate Monosiga express a significantly wider range of these genes ( Table2 ). Of note is the Hedgehog homolog of Monosiga (Snell et al.... In PAGE 13: ... To better understand the selective forces at work in this scenario, more detailed functional investigations of the Capsaspora MAGI-like protein will be required. We have detected the presence of other genes involved in cell adhesion in Capsaspora, and, in some cases, in Monosiga ovata, Mastigamoeba balamuthi and Acanthamoeba castellanii (see Table2... In PAGE 14: ... More importantly, our comparisons of EST and genomic data indicate that unicellular opisthokont and amoebozoan lineages possess a number of genes involved in cell signaling and cell adhesion. Some of these genes have already been described in Dictyostelium or fungi ( Table2 ), some have a unique domain organization in unicellular opisthokont (e.g.... ..."

"... In PAGE 44: ... The joint concept also has a flush transition along the interior, simplifying frame configuration and attachment. An analysis of the joint is given in Table4 , with comparison to a conventional lap joint configuration with three fastener rows of the same pitch, but a constant skin thickness of 0.06 inches.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... DSO 904 served as a vehicle for the verification and elucidation of human factors principles and tools in the microgravity environment. Over six flights, twelve top- ics were investigated ( Table6 -1). This study documented the strengths and limitations of human operators in a complex, multifaceted, and unique environment.... In PAGE 5: ... Response variables included preflight and postflight Pro- cedures Completion Times, task performance correlates, and task interruptions. Although the experiments took approximately the amount of time budgeted, malfunction procedures took longer in microgravity than estimated beforehand ( Table6 -2). Interruptions were caused by malfunctions or other problems with the Gas Analyzer Mass Spectrometer (GAMS II) (which necessitated a repeat of E198), the Orbiter refrigerator/freezer, the indi- cators on E066, the electromyogram (EMG) amplifier for the rotating dome, the operation of temperature strips, experiment E022 calibration, unclear intravenous (IV) pump procedures, incorrect E066/E294 measurement procedures, high noise levels caused by some experi- ment-specific equipment, the text and graphics system (TAGS), and reconfiguration of the communications loop.... In PAGE 5: ... Flight experiment E294 was a difficult procedure that never worked as planned. The cuff could not find 6-4 Table6 -2. Approximations of Microgravity Experiment Crew Time Usage (STS-40/SLS-1) Crew Member Minutes Experiment 1-g Time Microgravity FD-2 FD-5 FD-9 Estimate Actual Time Actual Time Actual Time E198+setup 140 222 200 210 E198 140 168 155 E294 192 384 330 370 370 E066 Calibration 25 27 25 30... In PAGE 8: ... Audiometric data acquired 10 days prior to launch were compared with audiograms obtained within 2 hours after landing [32, 33]. Crew member perceptions of noise on board the Shuttle and within the laboratories differed from one mission to the next ( Table6 -3). In all cases the major noise source was from the Environmental Control and 6-7 Table 6-3.... In PAGE 8: ... Crew member perceptions of noise on board the Shuttle and within the laboratories differed from one mission to the next (Table 6-3). In all cases the major noise source was from the Environmental Control and 6-7 Table6 -3. Comparison of Measured Sound Levels for STS-40, STS-50 and STS-57 FLIGHT DECK Flight Source Location Conditions dB(A) Design Limit 63 STS-40 Flight Deck (Center) nominal systems (ECLSS) 61.... In PAGE 9: ... Figure 6-4 depicts a computer simulation graphic illustrating that, even at only the background noise level, a crew member cannot communicate effectively with someone at the other end of the Spacelab. Payload operations exceeded the acoustic design limit on each of the flights and in each of the modules ( Table6 -3). On STS-40 the Spacelab refrigerator/freez- ers (SR/F) emitted excessive noise: 69.... ..."

"... In PAGE 21: ... The data from the vehicles are presented collectively in tabular and graphic formats in order to provide a greater understanding than would likely be achieved by studying the vehicles individually. Table3 shows the basic data along with some of the significant physical characteristics of the vehicles. The minimum drag coefficients are tabulated as derived using the reference areas published by the respective reference authors.... In PAGE 21: ... Figure 6 shows the equivalent parasite drag area for each of the subject vehicles as a function of total wetted area. Table3 shows the range of equivalent parasite drag area for the subject vehicles is quite large, from 6.5 ft2 to 164 ft2.... In PAGE 22: ...02) at flight Mach and Reynolds numbers, is , which can also be considered as a reference value of (see the dashed line in figure 6). Table3 shows the explicit values of equivalent skin friction coefficient for each of the subject vehicles at each flight condition considered herein. These values result from equation (5), as shown in the Methods of Analysis section.... In PAGE 22: ...02 from reference 39. Table3 shows corresponding values of this ratio for every flight condition considered. The preceding discussion revealed that the lowest of the equivalent skin friction coefficients among the several vehicles was approximately 4 times greater than CFe CF 0.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...stimated FDR for a threshold of 0.5 or 0.7 is 0, for all tissues. Looking at the first tissue in Table2 , adipose, the average number of ESTs from the randomized dataset which passed the statistical threshold was 127, the number which passed the specificity threshold of 0.2 was 43 (not shown), and the number which passed both was 0.... ..."