Luria and Delbrück, in a seminal paper, introduced fluctuation analysis primarily as a means to elucidate the timing of mutation in relation to the imposition of selective conditions. Their work, and subsequently that of LEA and COULSON, established also a basis for measuring the frequency of mutational events. The several estimators proposed by these authors differ both in complexity and in efficiency, and the published literature relies mainly on the less efficient but computationally trivial estimators. The estimators as originally proposed assume that all mutants occurring in culture will be counted in the subsequent assay, but a relaxation of this assumption suggests an alternative experimental design and alternative estimators which offer advantages over those currently in common use.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

As improvements in neuroscience have enabled a better understanding of disorders of consciousness as well as methods to treat them, a hurdle that has become all too prevalent is the denial of coverage for treatment and rehabilitation services. In 2011, a settlement emerged from a Vermont District Court case, Jimmo v. Sebelius, which was brought to stop the use of an "improvement standard" that required tangible progress over an identifiable period of time for Medicare coverage of services. While the use of this standard can have deleterious effects on those with many chronic conditions, it is especially burdensome for those in the minimally conscious state (MCS), where improvements are unpredictable and often not manifested through repeatable overt behaviors. Though the focus of this paper is on the challenges of brain injury and the minimally conscious state, which an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 individuals suffer from in the United States, the post-Jimmo arguments presented can and should have a broad impact as envisioned by the plaintiffs who brought the case on behalf of multiple advocacy groups representing patients with a range of chronic care conditions.