This time, the 42-year-old front woman had zipped her boyfriend Thom Evans off for a birthday trip to Hawaii.
Even though it was Easter weekend and the rugby champs special day, that didn't stop the couple from getting in their daily fitness goals.
The power pair took on a gruelling hike in the blistering heat, exploring Nicole's country of birth.
Looking scorching hot, the Masked Singer judge wowed as she rocked a flimsy but supportive sports bra, which showed off her impressive cleavage.
She teamed her look with a skintight pair of lycra shorts and tied a waterproof jacket around her midriff region.
Nicole's rippling abs looked even more prominent as she stretched up high to celebrate their epic trek.
Stood next to her was boyfriend Thom, who also showcased his bare chest and muscular frame in the loved up snap.
Just two days ago, Nicole uploaded a glorious beach picnic for the former Warriors player which looked incredibly lavish.
Captioning an image in a brief video snippet, Nicole said: "Just caught the end of this beautiful rainbow!
While you're here...
Look: Paige Spiranac's New Golf Apparel Went Viral This Week
Former college golfer turned social media personality Paige Spiranac unveiled some new golf apparel that went crazy viral on Twitter this week.
Spiranac, who played golf collegiately before becoming a social media sensation, put a golf towel on sale this week that immediately turned heads.
“No one will ever take you seriously if you keep posting pictures with cleavage,” she wrote in quotation marks on Instagram earlier today.
Spiranac then had a message for the golf courses that wouldn’t let her play in outfits like the one shown above.
“I’m laughing thinking of all the golf courses who wouldn’t let me play because I was wearing a tank top and now they will have to see me on a towel with my b–bs out. You love to see it,” she tweeted this week.
Spiranac, who has more than 3 million followers on Instagram, certainly knows how to market herself to the golf world.
Broad Files Motion in Opposition to CVC Priority Motion | McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff
Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") filed its motion in opposition to Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") motion for priority in Interference No. 106,115. Although Broad argued in its own priority motion that the invention as defined by the Count was one that could only be conceived once it was reduced to practice (a standard originally applied to since-invalidated claims to isolated DNA) and, not coincidentally that Broad's earliest actual reduction to practice (ARTP) antedated CVC's ARTP, in its opposition to CVC's priority motion, Broad takes a more conservative albeit more strongly supported tack.
Although stated differently (and in a way that is supported by the Board's decision in prior Interference No. 106,048 as affirmed by the Federal Circuit), Broad's argument is that CVC's conception was flawed as evidenced by repeated failures to reduce the invention to practice. Broad also supports this assertion by contemporaneous statements by CVC's named inventors as well as statements by experts CVC recruited in its efforts to achieve ARTP from the time of its asserted conception (March 1, 2012) to the priority date accorded by the Board in this interference, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/757,640, January 28, 2013.
Broad references its own priority motion for the comparator of having achieved ARTP "no later than July 31, 2012, followed by further ARTP in its October 5, 2012." This is Broad's line in the sand, establishing that CVC be required to show conception prior to the July 31, 2012 date followed by diligence until actual or constructive reduction to practice. This, of course, Broad argues CVC cannot do.
Broad's brief argues three grounds for its assertion that CVC's conception failed. First, Broad argues that CVC lacked a reasonable expectation of successfully targeting and cleaving DNA in a eukaryotic cell. Second, Broad argues CVC lacked a definite and permanent idea of the operative invention as of their alleged conception date. Third, Broad argues that CVC did not have possession of a system that could target and cleave eukaryotic DNA as required by the Count. Broad further argues that CVC's asserted ARTP (when finally achieved) failed for proof that DNA was cleaved in zebrafish cells on August 9, 2012, and further failed to show DNA cleavage in human cells on October 31, November 1, 5 and 18, 2012.
The brief characterizes CVC's priority evidence as "no more than an ill-defined research plan" constituting "a laundry list of possible techniques enlisting at least six different highly-skilled research labs" that failed. Indeed, the brief alleges that only one of the six research lab collaborations were revived and that one only after Zhang published Broad's results in the Cong et al. Science article, nicely turning back on CVC its allegations that Broad derived their invention from information disclosed publicly by the Doudna/Charpentier group. These efforts amounted to "failure after failure" according to the brief, due to the obstacles of "RNA degradation, misfolding, complexation, localization, and chromatin access," just the obstacles Broad has maintained prevented the person of ordinary skill in the art from having a reasonable expectation of successfully adapting CRISPR to a eukaryotic cell context, here and in the prior '048 Interference. The brief relies on the earlier PTAB determinations as affirmed by the Federal Circuit but here prudently also asserts evidence that neither CVC's conception nor ARTP had succeeded in time to be entitled to priority over Broad's invention. The Broad contends that CVC's arguments here are the same as in the previous interference, and the outcome here is the same based on CVC's priority evidence which was not assessed in the earlier interference. As it has in other contexts, Broad puts forth statements by the inventors (including by Jennifer Doudna in her book, A Crack In Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution and Walter Issacson's book, The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race ) which the brief characterizes as admissions, including:
• "this will be fabulous if it works " (Ex. 4406)
• "test whether the strategy can be used to induce DSBs in mammalian cells" (Ex. 4381 at 65)
• "there is a hint it [CRISPR-Cas9] might work but we shouldn't be overexcited now" (Ex. 4911)
• "aspects of the RNA expression/stability/Cas9/assembly/ localization are problematic " (Ex. 5041)
• " I wonder if having a too-efficient NLS on Cas9 is actually counterproductive" (Ex. 4988)
In addition, the brief contains reference to statements by several other scientists supporting Broad's assertions that complete conception of eukaryotic CRISPR required actual reduction to practice (including Dr. Luciano Marraffini, perhaps anticipating his deposition or at least providing Broad with a basis for cross-examining any testimony he provides that support CVC's allegations set forth in their granted motion for leave from the Board to depose him).
With regard to the Jinek laboratory notebook evidence CVC proffered to show its earliest conception date, March 1, 2012, the brief calls it a "cartoon" without any accompanying disclosure regarding how adaptation of CRISPR to the eukaryotic cell context would be achieved. The brief then goes through the evidence provided by CVC regarding these efforts (including the Board's prior determination that CVC was not entitled to priority to its earliest provisional applications (USSN 61/652,086, filed May 25, 2012 (P1) and USSN 61/716,256, filed October 19, 2012 (P2)) for failing to provide sufficient disclosure of eukaryotic embodiments of CRISPR. The brief sets forth with specificity the identities and efforts (failed according to Broad) by third parties to achieve ARTP of eukaryotic embodiments of CRISPR technology encompassed by the Count, specifically:
• Worms – Dr. Meyer, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology at University of California and her student Te-Wen Lo
• Yeast – Dr. Jamie Cate, Professor of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Structural 1 Biology in Microbiology Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology at University of California
• Mice – Dr. Dirk Hockemeyer, Assistant Professor Department of Molecular & Cell Biology at University of California
• Plants – Drs. Chris and Shauna Somerville, Professors, Plant & Microbial Biology, at University of California
• Medaka fish – Dr. Kristin Teßmar-Raible, Professor and Group Leader Max Perutz Labs, at University of Vienna
• Zebrafish – Dr. Florian Raible, Professor and Group Leader Max Perutz Labs, at University of Vienna, and his post-doctoral researcher Dr. Stephanie Bannister
• Human – Dr. David Drubin, Department Co-Chair and Ernette Comby Chair in Microbiology Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology at University of California
The Science Advisory Board
Our aim is to improve the dialogue between scientific and medical professionals and the companies developing the tools to expedite the next generation of discoveries. To achieve this, we offer you the chance to participate in studies that explore innovations and solutions within your workflow. Your participation will be rewarded via ViewPoints which can be redeemed for a wide variety of gift cards and items in our online catalog.
*Take time and care when entering your information; a staff member will be reviewing it to confirm your eligibility to become a member.
While you're here...
Justice League: 10 Ways The Snyder Cut Saved Wonder Woman | CBR
There were many, many rightful criticisms of Joss Whedon's theatrical release of Justice League when it came out in 2017. Among these criticisms were many comments on the way that Wonder Woman was depicted in the film. Her dialogue was unlike her previous appearances, the way other characters treated her was ridiculous, and the way she was framed in every shot was insulting to the character and to women as a whole.
While Whedon's Justice League tore Diana apart, Zack Snyder's Justice League saved the character, and then some. While her characterization was one of the worst parts of the original film, she actually became the hero audiences know her to be in the Snyder Cut.
Joss Whedon has had many issues over the years, not the least of which has been the way he depicts women in his media. The way that Wonder Woman was portrayed in Justice League felt shockingly unlike any portrayal of Diana in any medium.
Not only was she unlike herself, but she didn't even resemble the way she was depicted in any other DCEU film. Instead, she was a flat character used to service Batman 's plot more than anything else. In the Snyder Cut, Wonder Woman was finally treated like a human being and a whole character.
While Justice League was initially being made and Joss Whedon was brought on to finish the film, there were reports that Whedon continuously referred to Diana not by her name, but as "Natasha." This just shows how little Whedon thought of any of his female characters and the fact that they were essentially interchangeable and not distinct characters for him.
There have been many different interpretations of the dynamics that the Justice League has with one another over the years. Sometimes, the main members of the League become romantically interested in one another. In Justice League, it was made painfully clear that Batman and Wonder Woman were supposed to have a thing for one another.
It is almost comical the way that other characters interacted with Wonder Woman in Justice League. Few could even believe it when the Flash literally tripped and face-planted directly into Wonder Woman's cleavage at one point.
Each of the Justice League members kind of filled in a standard plot device role in the initial Justice League, and Wonder Woman, by virtue of being a woman, was assigned the role of nagging mother.
She disagrees with everything the Justice League does and is constantly at odds with them . Not only that, but she and Bruce are always at each other's throats for no apparent reason. Instead, Diana actually works with the team, as she wants to work with the team and wants to be there.
Kylie Jenner Shows Off Major Cleavage & New Bob Haircut on Instagram - E! Online
In a photo posted by her makeup artist Ariel Tejada , the Keeping Up With the Kardashians star is showing off a new bob haircut, sultry makeup and most notably, some serious cleavage!
Wearing just a robe in the boob-baring snapshot, a freshly made up Kylie is giving the camera a fierce, all-knowing stare. And thanks to Ariel—better known as makeupbyariel on Instagram—who used neutral tones to achieve a chiseled contoured look, all of Kylie's facial features are perfectly accentuated.
Ariel captioned the sultry photo, "Almost XXIII," referencing the number 23, since 22-year-old Kylie is about to celebrate her birthday in a matter of days.
Just the other day, Kylie debuted her Vogue Hong Kong cover , in which she was wearing an alluring maroon Yves Saint Laurent latex outfit, paired with thigh-high boots.
New covid-19 strains: Act fast to avoid catastrophe | The Daily Star
Coronavirus, scientifically known as SARS-Cov-2, is an RNA virus that naturally changes its structure over times by mutations and gives birth to new strains or variants. The mutation often favours viruses for their fitness to survive and spread within the community more efficiently. Not all mutations are harmful for the host. The genomic location and the number of mutations dictate the nature of the new emergent variants.
Coronavirus docks with host cells by its surface Spike protein. The Spike protein has a tiny active region called the 'receptor binding domain (RBD)' which anchors with its corresponding receptor ACE2 on human cells and causes infection- a clinical condition known as COVID-19. Any alteration of the 'receptor-binding domain' can enhance virulence and transmissibility of the virus. Moreover, as the Spike protein is the target of most of the current vaccines, mutations on the Spike protein can potentially transform the new strains as vaccine resistant.
Although the available vaccines, including Oxford/AstraZeneca, are effective on this strain, due to its extremely high transmissibility, this new strain poses a real threat towards global pandemic control. In fact, B.1.1.7 variant is believed to be responsible for the recent surge of infection in Europe, including Germany and France. According to the GISAID database, B.1.1.7 has spread to 109 countries including Bangladesh and India.
The Brazil variant P.1 has N501Y, E484K and K417T mutations on the Spike protein along with additional 14 other mutations. This variant has also spread to 36 countries and has a propensity for causing reinfections and rapid transmission. A recent surge in Brazil has been attributed to this highly contagious variant, which creates the biggest crisis in the region since the pandemic began.
According to the IEDCR, only 450 genome sequencing have been done in a scattered manner, among which 30 are of the UK variant (B.1.1.7), two are of the South African variant (B.1.351), and no Brazilian variant (P.1) has been detected. GISAID database, however, shows submission of only 9 UK variant and 5 South African variant on behalf of Bangladesh. So, there is a clear lag between detection of new strains and reporting it to the Global Consortium for nCov variant tracker.
Recently, a news published in several online and print media stating that the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) conducted a genome sequencing on 120 samples, among which 70% were found to be the UK variant. This report has not been published yet, and there is no record of it in the GISAID repository; therefore, it is difficult to make any assumption on its implications. Nevertheless, if this is true, it is certainly a very alarming news. This level of high frequency of positive mutation detection is an indicator of wider spread.
The UK variant was first detected on January 6, 2021 from a 50-year-old symptomatic patient at Dhaka. A team at the icddr,b screened a total of 5,250 nasal swabs by RT-PCR and chose 191 samples for variant surveillance. One of these matched with the UK variant with a 99% similarity. This study was published in the journal 'Microbiology Resource Announcement' on February 25 this year, but the paper did not disclose if those samples were collected from travellers or from the community.
Amidst uncertainty of spread and extent of the new coronavirus strains in the community, Bangladesh saw the highest daily rise of cases with over five thousand positive cases daily in the last seven consecutive days, whereas over seven thousand cases were detected on April 4 with 23% positive rate, which is by far the highest number since pandemic began in Bangladesh. The test positivity rate jumps from 3% to 23% in just last four weeks. On March1 this year, when the second wave began, the infection detection was just over 550 cases, which increased by almost 13-fold in just 35 days. Over ninety thousand new cases have been added to the total pool in this period (1 March – 4 April). Whereas it took 3 and a half months to reach the ninety thousand mark during the beginning of the first wave of pandemic last year.
According to the 'Our World in Data', the latest (1 April) reproduction rate (R0) of coronavirus infection in Bangladesh is 1.54, which is 88% higher than that during the month of February this year, when pandemic was under control. The R0 (R-not) implies how fast the infection is spreading in any given time. In simple term, R0 number tells us how many people are infected from one person. R0 is equal to 1 means spreading remains in steady state and is not increasing. If R0 is more than 1,it indicates spreading is increasing exponentially. And if R0 is less than 1, spreading is declining.
Chloe Ferry flaunts her heaving cleavage and taut abs | Daily Mail Online
And Chloe Ferry was showcasing the results of both on Thursday as she stepped out in just a tiny Adidas sports bra and high-waisted leggings.
The Geordie Shore star, 25, left very little to the imagination in the barely-there ensemble which flaunted her tiny waist and surgically-enhanced cleavage.
Chloe looked incredible in the racy look, as she flaunted her tiny waist through the peek of flesh showing between the gap in her leggings and bottom of her top.
She recently discussed her body image battles after losing two stone and her regrets over discussing plastic surgery in an exclusive interview with MailOnline.
She won praise from her fans as she carves out a new career as a fitness influencer, but admitted that she has days she feels less than satisfied with her body.
Chloe said: 'I have good and bad day days, sometimes I look at my body and I'm not happy. I'm like no, I don't like the way I look at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment