Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are characterized by deregulation of mature blood cell production and increased risk of myelofibrosis (MF) and leukemic transformation. Numerous driver mutations have been identified but substantial disease heterogeneity remains unexplained, implying the involvement of additional as yet unidentified factors. The inflammatory microenvironment has recently attracted attention as a crucial factor in MPN biology, in particular whether inflammatory cytokines and chemokines contribute to disease establishment or progression. Here we present a large-scale study of serum cytokine profiles in more than 400 MPN patients and identify an essential thrombocythemia (ET)-specific inflammatory cytokine signature consisting of Eotaxin, GRO-α, and EGF. Levels of 2 of these markers (GRO-α and EGF) in ET patients were associated with disease transformation in initial sample collection (GRO-α) or longitudinal sampling (EGF). In ET patients with extensive genomic profiling data (n = 183) cytokine levels added significant prognostic value for predicting transformation from ET to MF. Furthermore, CD56+CD14+ pro-inflammatory monocytes were identified as a novel source of increased GRO-α levels. These data implicate the immune cell microenvironment as a significant player in ET disease evolution and illustrate the utility of cytokines as potential biomarkers for reaching beyond genomic classification for disease stratification and monitoring.

This paper provides a comparative sketch of two emergent creoles: St. Lucia Creole English and Dominica Creole English. With very similar circumstances surrounding their formation and emergence, it is expected that they will have many features in common. While this is generally the case, however, this paper also outlines some areas in which their grammars diverge. This research represents original data for varieties that are somewhat under-documented and calls for further data collection and fieldwork to confirm the patterns found here. INTRODUCTIONIn the last 150 years, two new languages have emerged in the Caribbean under very similar circumstances: St. Lucia Creole English and Dominica Creole English. With such closely matched formation processes and varieties contributing to its emergence, it would be reasonable to assume that the language varieties share many of their features. Recent fieldwork in St. Lucia revealed a perception amongst some participants, however, that Dominica's 'dialect' is less 'Standard English-like' than that of St. Lucia. This paper aims to begin exploring whether there are any significant morphosyntactic differences between St. Lucia Creole English and Dominica Creole English. The description below therefore presents a number of features found in both Dominica Creole English and St. Lucia Creole English, followed by some features which appear to be in Dominica Creole English but are infrequent or unattested in St. Lucia Creole English. Due to current data availability, it would not be fruitful to present features that are present in St. Lucia Creole English but not (or not yet) attested in Dominica Creole English. This paper also represents one of very few descriptions available on Dominica Creole English (and St. Lucia Creole English to a lesser extent).The goals of the paper are as follows:a) to provide new data from two currently under-documented varieties, b) to establish the similarities and differences in some of their features, and c) to highlight the need for further documentation, particularly in Dominica.It is also hoped that this new data will eventually contribute to discussions on contact language formation processestheories of creole genesis have been plagued by a lack of evidence due to the scarcity of data from creoles in the early

No abstract

This work presents initial data from Avaipa, a previously undocumented language of central Bougainville. In the sparse literature that exists on this variety, it is anecdotally described as a mixed language. It will be demonstrated that the perception of language mixing is due to lexical borrowing, both from Papuan and from Oceanic sources, though a large-scale lexical comparison suggests a significant connection to the South Bougainville group. A tentative classification of Avaipa as a Papuan language is offered, where the language can be shown to be most closely related to the South Bougainville group, but because of the presence of certain lexical and structural features, the possibility is raised whereby Avaipa serves as a bridge to the North Bougainville group.