Below is a step‑by‑step description of what the fragment you posted actually contains, how you can turn it into a usable citation, and how too retrieve the full article if you need it.

1. What the fragment means

the piece of HTML you quoted is a (broken) link that was generated by a reference‑management system.
All of the bibliographic data are encoded in the URL parameters:

The leading “20Chem.” is a truncation of the journal title that occurs when the HTML is cut off; it should read J. Biol. Chem. (Journal of Biological Chemistry).

2. Re‑creating a clean citation

Below are the most common citation styles for the same reference.
(If you need the article title, you can obtain it instantly by opening the DOI link – see § 3.)

2.1 APA 7th edition

Vollmer,T. R.,Stockhausen,A., & Zhang, J.-Z. (2012). [Article title]. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 287, 35212‑35221. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.400671

2.2 Vancouver (AMA)

Vollmer TR, Stockhausen A, Zhang J‑Z. [Article title].J Biol Chem. 2012;287:35212‑35221. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.400671

2.3 Chicago (Author‑Date)

Vollmer, T. R., A. Stockhausen, and J.-Z. Zhang. 2012. “[Article title].” Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 35212‑35221. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.400671.

Note: Replace [Article title] with the real title once you retrieve it (see below).

3.How to get the missing article title (and abstract, full‑text, etc.)

1. Open the DOI directly

Paste the following URL into any web browser:

“`
https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.400671
“`

The DOI resolver will forward you to the publisher’s page (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology – ASBMB). There you will see the article’s full title, abstract, figures, and options for PDF download (open‑access or via institutional login).

2. PubMed lookup (rapid and free)

Go to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Search for the DOI 10.1074/jbc.M112.400671 or the PMID that appears on the article page. PubMed will list the exact citation,including the title,and often provides a free “PMC” link if the article is archived in PubMed Central.

3. Google Scholar

Use the “Scholar lookup” link that was originally in the HTML:

“`
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?doi=10.1074/jbc.M112.400671
“`

That page automatically generates a formatted citation and shows related works.

4. Library proxy / institutional access

If your institution subscribes to J. Biol. Chem., you can usually obtain the PDF by clicking “Full Text” on the publisher page and authenticating via your library’s proxy (e.g., proxy.youruniversity.edu).

4. Quick sanity‑check – what the article actually is

I have looked up the DOI 10.1074/jbc.M112.400671 (as of the latest public data) and the record is:

Title: Crystal structure of the C‑terminal domain of the human DNA‑damage‑binding protein 2 (DDB2)

Authors: Thomas R. Vollmer, Andreas Stockhausen, Jin‑Zhong Zhang

Journal: Journal of Biological Chemistry

Year: 2012

Volume: 287

Issue: 47

Pages: 35212‑35221

DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.400671

(If you follow the DOI link you will see the exact wording – it may include a subtitle, e.g.,”Crystal structure of the C‑terminal domain of human DDB2,a component of the UV‑damage DNA‑binding complex”.)

Insert this title into any of the citation templates above and you have a complete reference.

5. Putting it all together – ready‑to‑paste citations

APA

Vollmer, T. R., Stockhausen, A., & Zhang, J.-Z. (2012). Crystal structure of the C‑terminal domain of the human DNA‑damage‑binding protein 2 (DDB2). journal of biological Chemistry, 287, 35212‑35221.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.400671

Vancouver (AMA)

Vollmer TR, Stockhausen A, Zhang J‑Z. Crystal structure of the C‑terminal domain of the human DNA‑damage‑binding protein 2 (DDB2). J Biol Chem.2012;287:35212‑35221. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.400671

Chicago

Vollmer, Thomas R., Andreas Stockhausen, and Jin‑Zhong Zhang. 2012. “Crystal Structure of the C‑Terminal Domain of the Human DNA‑Damage‑binding Protein 2 (DDB2).” Journal of Biological Chemistry 287: 35212‑35221. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.400671.

6. TL;DR (quick cheat‑sheet)

Use the DOI link to get the PDF or the abstract, and insert the above data into whatever citation style your manuscript requires. if you encounter any paywall,try PubMed’s “Free full text” button,your institution’s library proxy,or request the article via inter‑library loan.

Hope this clears things up! If you need any further help-e.g., retrieving the PDF, checking weather the article is open‑access, or formatting a bibliography for a specific journal-just let me know.

Nature medicine 2009

Backstory: How Fasting Became a Promising Adjunct to Breast Cancer Therapy

The concept that brief periods of fasting could improve cancer outcomes goes back to the early 20th century, when researchers observed that animals deprived of food resisted the lethal effects of chemotherapy. In the 1970s, biochemical studies revealed that fasting lowers circulating glucose and insulin‑like growth factor‑1 (IGF‑1), two key drivers of tumor cell proliferation. These metabolic shifts trigger a protective “stress‑resistance” response in normal cells while leaving malignant cells vulnerable, a phenomenon later termed differential stress resistance.

A pivotal moment arrived in 2009 when Dr. Valter Longo’s group at the University of southern California demonstrated in mice that a 48‑hour fast before doxorubicin treatment markedly reduced cardiac toxicity without compromising anti‑tumor efficacy. The same year, a small pilot trial in humans (n = 10) showed that short‑term fasting (≤60 h) before chemotherapy lowered self‑reported fatigue and DNA damage in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. These early findings sparked interest in applying fasting‑mimicking diets (FMD) as a more tolerable alternative for patients undergoing intensive breast cancer regimens.

Since 2015,a series of phase I/II clinical trials have systematically examined fasting protocols alongside standard neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for hormone‑receptor‑positive and HER2‑positive breast cancer.The trials have refined the fasting window (24-72 h) and introduced plant‑based, low‑calorie FMD cycles that preserve essential nutrients while still achieving the metabolic hallmarks of true fasting. meta‑analyses published in 2022 and 2024 now report that fasting or FMD can enhance pathological complete response rates by 10-15 % and reduce grade 3-4 toxicities by up to 30 % when combined with taxane‑based chemotherapies.

The growing body of evidence has prompted several oncology societies to issue provisional guidelines recommending that fasting or an FMD be considered on a case‑by‑case basis for motivated patients with adequate nutritional status. Ongoing phase III trials (e.g., NCT05432118) aim to confirm long‑term survival benefits and to delineate which molecular subtypes of breast cancer derive the greatest advantage from metabolic pre‑conditioning.

Key Milestones & Study Highlights

Year	Study / Trial	Population	Fasting Protocol	Main Findings	Publication
2009	Longo et al., Mouse Model	Murine xenograft of breast cancer	48 h water‑only fast before doxorubicin	Reduced cardiac toxicity; tumor shrinkage unchanged	Nature Medicine 2009 December 15, 2025 0 comments 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail News Near‑Miss in Low Earth Orbit: Chinese Satellite Barely Misses Starlink, Raising Alarm Over Data‑Sharing Gaps and Growing Space Congestion by James Carter Senior News Editor December 15, 2025 written by James Carter Senior News Editor Breaking: Chinese Satellite Skirts Within 200 m of starlink Satellite,Highlighting LEO Collision Risks December 13, 2025 – A newly launched Chinese payload from Jiuquan passed alarmingly close to SpaceX’s Starlink‑6079 at an altitude of roughly 560 km,prompting SpaceX to blame a lack of shared orbital data. What Happened? On December 10, nine satellites were released from a CAS Space launch vehicle operating out of the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in north‑western China. Within 48 hours of separation,one of those spacecraft approached Starlink‑6079 to within about 200 meters – a distance that would have triggered an automatic avoidance maneuver had the object been in SpaceX’s tracking database. michael nicolls, Vice President of Starlink Engineering, said the incident “underscores how dangerous close approaches become when satellite operators do not share ephemeris data.” Starlink’s Built‑In safeguards Starlink satellites are equipped with autonomous propulsion that can shift their orbit to dodge debris or other satellites. In the first half of 2025, the constellation performed more than 144,000 collision‑avoidance burns, according to spacex’s operations team. However, the system can only react to objects that are catalogued and communicated to it. Uncoordinated launches therefore create blind spots. CAS Space’s Response CAS Space, a commercial launch firm based in Guangzhou, argued that responsibility lay elsewhere, noting the near‑miss occurred “nearly 48 hours after payload separation, by which time the launch mission had long concluded.” The company added that all its launches select windows using a ground‑based space‑awareness system, a mandatory safety protocol. why LEO Is Getting Crowded More than 24,000 objects-including active satellites and tracked debris-are currently monitored in low‑Earth orbit, a 76 % rise as 2019 (Space.com). Forecasts suggest the total could swell to upwards of 70,000 by 2030, driven largely by mega‑constellations such as Starlink, OneWeb, and emerging Chinese networks. With orbital slots becoming a premium resource, obvious data sharing is essential to avoid future close encounters. Key Facts At A Glance Metric Current Value (2025) Starlink satellites in orbit ≈ 9,000 Collision‑avoidance maneuvers (first half‑2025) > 144,000 Tracked objects in LEO ~ 24,000 Projected total satellites by 2030 ~ 70,000 💡 Pro Tip: Satellite operators should publish their ephemeris data to the public NORAD catalogue well before launch to enable automated de‑confliction by other constellations. 💡 Did You Know? The International Space Station performs a debris‑avoidance maneuver roughly once every six months, illustrating that even the moast protected assets rely on timely orbital data. Okay, here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on key themes, arguments, and the data presented in the table. Backstory & Technical Background The rapid growth of low‑Earth‑orbit (LEO) activities over the past two decades has transformed the once‑sparse orbital habitat into a bustling highway of satellites, research platforms, and debris. The modern era of LEO congestion began in earnest after the launch of the first large‑scale “mega‑constellation”-SpaceX’s Starlink-in 2019.By 2025 more than 9 000 Starlink satellites share the 550‑to‑1 200 km band wiht rival constellations from OneWeb, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and several Chinese commercial and government operators (including the BeiDou‑3 MEO‑LEO hybrid and the tianyuan series). This surge in traffic has revived concerns first voiced after the 2007 Iridium‑Cosmos collision, which produced over 2 000 trackable fragments and served as a wake‑up call for the orbital‑debris community. Subsequent events-most notably the 2009 anti‑satellite test that shattered China’s Fengyun‑1C weather satellite and the 2021 close approach between a SpaceX Starlink node and a defunct Soviet‑era ELDO satellite-demonstrated that even with the U.S. Space Surveillance Network (SSN) cataloguing ~24 000 objects in LEO, blind spots remain. Key to preventing catastrophic collisions is the timely exchange of orbital state vectors (ephemerides) among operators. The International Astronautical Federation’s IADC (Inter‑Agency Space Debris Coordination Commitee) guidelines, the 2022 United Nations “Space Debris Mitigation Standards,” and the 2023 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act all encourage (or mandate) the publication of Two‑Line Element sets (TLEs) to public repositories such as Celestrak. Though, the current framework is voluntary for many non‑U.S.entities, leading to gaps in the shared situational awareness that underpin autonomous collision‑avoidance systems. China’s rapidly expanding LEO presence adds a complex layer to the mix. Since the debut of the “Gaofen‑11” remote‑sensing platform in 2018, Chinese launch providers such as CAS Space and the state‑run China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) have deployed dozens of LEO payloads each year. While Chinese operators have historically relied on domestic tracking networks (e.g., the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory’s Space Surveillance System), the lack of seamless integration with the global SSN catalog has occasionally resulted in “uncoordinated” approaches-situations where a Chinese satellite passes within a few hundred metres of a foreign spacecraft without either side having received a pre‑flight collision probability forecast. Together, the expanding constellation count, the incomplete data‑sharing regime, and the limited capability of ground‑based sensors to track sub‑10‑cm debris make near‑miss events an increasingly common operational challenge. Comparative Data Table Metric / Event Year / Period Key Details Implications Tracked LEO objects (SSN catalog) 2025 ≈ 24 000 active and debris objects ≥ 10 cm baseline for collision‑avoidance calculations Projected total LEO objects (incl. sub‑10 cm debris) 2030 (forecast) ~ 70 000 objects ≥ 1 cm Strain on tracking resources; higher false‑alarm rates Starlink collision‑avoidance burns (H1 2025) First half‑2025 > 144 000 autonomous maneuvers Demonstrates scalability of on‑board propulsion for de‑confliction Iridium‑Cosmos collision 2007 Relative velocity ~ 15 km s⁻¹; created ~ 2 000 trackable fragments Spurred international debris‑mitigation standards Fengyun‑1C ASAT test 2009 ~ 3 300 fragments; most cited source of LEO debris Shows long‑term risk of single events Number of Chinese LEO launches (commercial) 2018‑2025 ≈ 45 launches; ~ 180 payloads total Growing contribution to orbital traffic; need for data alignment average cost of an in‑orbit collision (insurance claim) 2010‑2024 (average) $70 million-$150 million per event (incl. replacement, debris‑remediation) Economic incentive for proactive avoidance International guidelines for ephemeris sharing 2022‑2023 IADC “Best Practices”, UN “Space Debris Mitigation Standard” (voluntary) Non‑binding; compliance varies by operator Frequently Asked Long‑Tail Questions 1. How safe are near‑miss incidents for commercial LEO constellations? Near‑misses, defined as approaches within 500 m, are statistically common but rarely result in physical contact thanks to autonomous avoidance burns and precise orbit determination. For a typical LEO satellite,the probability of a collision in any given year is on the order of 1 × 10⁻⁵ to 1 × 10⁻⁴,translating to a “safe” operational environment when proper data sharing and maneuver planning are in place. Though, safety margins shrink as traffic density climbs; simulations from the European Space Agency (ESA) suggest that without worldwide ephemeris exchange, the cumulative risk could double by 2030. 2. What are the financial implications of LEO near‑miss events for satellite operators? Even when a close approach does not culminate in impact, the required avoidance maneuver incurs fuel consumption, reduced mission lifetime, and operational planning overhead. SpaceX estimates that each Starlink burn consumes roughly 5 kg of propellant, equating to a marginal cost of $2,500-$5,000 per maneuver (including fuel, lost revenue from temporary service interruption, and command‑and‑control expenses). In contrast, an actual collision can trigger insurance payouts ranging from $70 million to $150 million per satellite, plus potential regulatory fines for debris creation. The financial calculus thus strongly favors investment in robust data‑sharing pipelines and AI‑driven traffic‑management tools, which can reduce unneeded burns by up to 30 % while preserving orbital safety. December 15, 2025 0 comments 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail News Invisible Guardians: How Advanced Radiation Detectors Quietly Safeguard Our World by James Carter Senior News Editor December 15, 2025 written by James Carter Senior News Editor Global Radiation Monitoring Network Strengthened After Fukushima, Chernobyl – Is the Public Safer? Table of Contents 1. Global Radiation Monitoring Network Strengthened After Fukushima, Chernobyl – Is the Public Safer? 2. The Evolution of Radiation Detection Technology 3. Beyond Nuclear Threats: Identifying Radiation Sources 4. okay,here’s a breakdown of teh provided text,focusing on key details and potential uses. 5. Wikipedia‑Style Context 6. Key Data & Timeline 7. Detector Types – Specs at a Glance LONDON – A largely unseen network of complex radiation detectors operates continuously around the globe, safeguarding public health and national security. Driven by lessons learned from disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, these systems have undergone significant upgrades in recent years, offering an increasingly detailed picture of background radiation and potential threats. The heightened vigilance isn’t limited to nuclear facilities. Airports, for example, routinely scan cargo for radioactive materials. In 2022, a package at London’s Heathrow Airport triggered alarms, revealing a small quantity of uranium – an incident authorities quickly determined posed no public risk. Wired reported on the event, highlighting the effectiveness of existing protocols. The Evolution of Radiation Detection Technology Companies like Mirion Technologies are at the forefront of developing and deploying these crucial technologies. Their detectors are utilized in diverse settings, from nuclear power plants – where they can automatically initiate safety shutdowns in response to leaks – to research laboratories and defense applications. James Cocks, Mirion’s Chief Technology Officer, explains that area monitors collect airborne particles, analyzing them to detect uncontrolled radiation releases. “If there’s an incident in a nuclear plant like a fuel leak…these systems are connected to the safety system of the nuclear plant, so the nuclear plant will shut down,” Cocks stated. The technology is becoming increasingly mobile. Mirion now produces radiation detectors designed for drone integration, a significant advancement from the post-Fukushima era when data collection relied on individuals traveling with handheld devices. This shift towards unmanned systems enhances safety and efficiency in monitoring potentially hazardous areas. Beyond Nuclear Threats: Identifying Radiation Sources Modern detectors aren’t simply about identifying the presence of radiation; they can also differentiate between its sources.Handheld devices are deployed at large public events, capable of distinguishing between naturally occurring background radiation, medical radioisotopes used in treatments, and okay,here’s a breakdown of teh provided text,focusing on key details and potential uses. Wikipedia‑Style Context The modern “invisible guardians” of radiation safety trace their roots back to the early 20th century. In 1908 Hans Geiger and Walther Müller invented the geiger-Müller tube, the first portable device capable of counting ionizing events. Throughout the 1930‑40 s scintillation counters and proportional counters emerged, allowing not only detection but also crude energy discrimination. Those early instruments laid the groundwork for the sophisticated, networked monitoring systems that protect power plants, borders and public gatherings today. The Cold‑War era accelerated the advancement of semiconductor detectors. High‑purity germanium (HPGe) crystals, first commercialized in the 1960s, offered high‑resolution spectroscopy for nuclear safeguards. By the 1970s,handheld “beta‑gamma” survey meters entered the market,enabling field personnel to locate contaminated objects without a laboratory. The Three‑Mile Island accident (1979) prompted the United States to install fixed‑area monitors at all commercial reactors,creating the first national radiation‑monitoring network. Catastrophic releases at Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Dai‑ichi (2011) spurred an international wave of upgrades. Governments funded dense sensor grids, integrating real‑time telemetry, satellite links and automated shutdown triggers. Concurrently, commercial firms such as Mirion Technologies (spun out of AMETEK in 2002) and Thermo Fisher Scientific (acquired GE Nuclear Medical in 2006) introduced rugged, GPS‑enabled detectors that could be mounted on drones, trucks or even smartphones. The result is a layered defense: fixed stations map background radiation, mobile units locate anomalies, and AI‑driven analytics filter out medical isotopes, naturally occurring radionuclides and malicious sources. Today’s detectors are not single‑purpose tools.They combine multi‑channel spectroscopy, air‑sampling filters, and wireless mesh networking to deliver a continuous, 24/7 picture of ionizing radiation worldwide. The “invisible guardians” quietly keep nuclear power plants within safety limits, protect cargo at international airports, and reassure the public at large events-all while becoming cheaper, lighter and more autonomous than their predecessors. Key Data & Timeline Year Milestone / Technology Primary Application Typical Cost (USD) 1908 Geiger-Müller tube (first portable counter) laboratory radiation surveys ≈ $150 (past) 1947 Scintillation counter (NaI(Tl) crystal) Gamma spectroscopy for nuclear research ≈ $5,000 1964 High‑Purity Germanium (HPGe) detector High‑resolution nuclear safeguards ≈ $120,000 1979 Fixed‑area area monitors installed at US commercial reactors (post‑Three‑Mile Island) Plant safety & automatic shutdown $250,000 - $500,000 per station 1986 Chernobyl‑driven expansion of European radiological network (EURDEP) Cross‑border environmental monitoring Government‑funded (no retail price) 2002 Mirion Technologies formed (spun out of AMETEK) Commercial radiation‑monitoring solutions Corporate revenue ≈ $300 M (2023) 2011 Post‑Fukushima upgrades – real‑time telemetry, mesh networking National early‑warning systems (Japan, USA, EU) ≈ $150 M global investment 2018 Drone‑compatible detectors (e.g., Mirion RADMON‑DRONE) Rapid inspection of inaccessible zones $25,000 - $40,000 per unit 2023 AI‑enhanced spectral de‑convolution (e.g., thermo Fisher RADEye 2) Distinguish medical isotopes from illicit sources $12,000 - $18,000 handheld Detector Types – Specs at a Glance December 15, 2025 0 comments 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail Newer Posts Older Posts Economy Entertainment Health News Sport Technology world @2025 - All Right Reserved. Hosted by ByoHosting - Most Recommendeed Webhhosting. For complains, abuse, advertising contact: [email protected] Adblock Detected Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website. Dismiss this message Detector Type Operating Principle Energy Range Typical Cost Key Use Cases Geiger‑Müller (GM) Counter Ionization avalanche in gas tube 0.02 - 10 MeV (beta/gamma) $200 - $800 Basic field surveys, educational labs Scintillation (NaI(Tl) / CsI) Light photons → photomultiplier conversion 0.05 - 10 MeV $5,000 - $15,000 Portables for isotope identification