To extent our knowledge on the cytokines possibly involved in the pathophysiology of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL), the mRNA expression of a panel of 10 cytokines was investigated on purified B-CLL cells using a reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction method. Whereas negative RT-PCR signals were recorded for interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1 alpha), IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-7, tumor necrosis factor beta (TNF beta), and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, we detected the expression of IL-1 beta, IL-6 and TNF alpha. Furthermore, the constitutive expression of IL-8 mRNA was observed in all 17 B-CLL samples analyzed. mRNA expression was associated with the capacity of the leukemic cells to release IL-8 both constitutively (4.6 +/- 8.1 SD ng/mL) and, to a further extent, after stimulation (14.5 +/- 19.4 ng/mL). The circulating levels of IL-8 were also evaluated in 12 untreated B-CLL sera samples and the overall mean level was significantly higher (P <.01) than in normal sera. In addition, supernatants of purified B-CLL cells cultured in the presence of 12-O- tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate showed chemotactic activity towards neutrophils; this activity was neutralized in the presence of an anti- IL-8 antiserum. The mRNA for IL-8 was absent in five B-cell preparations from hairy cell leukemia cases and in four B-cell lines. Normal tonsil CD5+ B cells showed a low expression of IL-8 mRNA only in two of the nine preparations tested and the overall quantity of IL-8 released by these cells after 3 days' incubation was significantly lower compared with that released by B-CLL cells (0.4 +/- 0.3 and 1.6 +/- 0.9 ng/mL under basal and stimulated conditions, respectively). These findings point to an involvement of a member of the proinflammatory chemokine supergene family in human CD5+ B lymphocytes. The different IL-8 behavior observed between B-CLL cells and their normal counterpart is likely to reflect an activation state of the leukemic population.

This paper presents an ontology-driven representation of knowledge for geological maps. The ontological formal language allows for a machine-readable encoding of the Earth scientist's interpretation through semantic categories and properties and is credited to support knowledge sharing and interoperability. We introduce an ontology-driven method for the interpretation and the encoding of the map data that employs shared vocabularies and resources encoded through ontologies in order to prevent the use of ambiguous terms. The approach relies on a computational ontology of the geological knowledge (OntoGeonous), which formalizes a number of geological knowledge sources (including GeoScienceML), to guide the interpretation process. The design of the database underlying the map (OntoGeoBase) constrains the process of data entry to refer to the terminology conveyed by the taxonomic-axiomatic nature of the ontology. This reduces the amount of implicit knowledge favouring a conceptual alignment of the ancillary documentation with the map, leading to a better comprehension of map and allowing the traceability of the interpretation.

&lt;p&gt;The notion of geoheritage counts numerous attempts of definition in literature, all based on the value that a given element of the environment has for humanity. The major differences concern the values that allow an element of geodiversity to be considered as geoheritage. In particular, the values that every author lists are different from the values of the other authors. In particular, only some values are shared by all the authors (namely Scientific, Educational, Cultural and Aesthetic values), while others are only partially shared (e.g., the Recreational or the Economic values). Our work aims at representing these differences in the definition of geoheritage, starting from a formal representation of the elements of geodiversity, useful for both geosites recognition and geoparks management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first&amp;#160; phase in the organisation of the information that is necessary for describing the elements of geodiversity is supported by ontological and semantic study, to prove the coherence of the conceptual model. The &amp;#8220;elements of geodiversity&amp;#8221; and the &amp;#8220;elements of geoheritage&amp;#8221; are encoded into classes of an ontology for the description of geoheritage, and several properties describe the elements populating both the classes, also underlying their relations. In this phase, the use of the ontology supports&amp;#160; the design of a coherent structure to prevent ambiguity and vagueness in the definitions. Moreover, since some of the elements of geodiversity are geologic features, we can lean on ontologies for geosciences, in which these elements are already encoded and unambiguously described.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The second phase&amp;#160; is the transformation of the conceptual base into a user-friendly tool, through the support of the Omeka-s Content Management System, that provides tools for the creation of compilation masks that gosites/geopark operators can use to fill a database for the description of elements of geodiversity and geoheritage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Such an organisation of data can support the consistency of the representation of the data and easy further comparison and consultation of information. This brings to higher transparency in the identification of elements of geoheritage,, a relevant information for the proper management of geoparks or other protected areas. Last but not least, such structured data management can be helpful in the valuation of the changes in time of the condition of the evaluated elements of geodiversity, and consequently, of the global evaluated area (such as a geopark).&lt;/p&gt;

Evidence of hydrothermal activity is reported for the Mesozoic pre-and syn-rift successions of the western Adriatic palaeomargin of the Alpine Tethys, preserved in the Western Southalpine Domain (NW Italy). The products of hydrothermal processes are represented by vein and breccia cements, as well as dolomitization and silicification of the host rocks. F I G U R E 1 9 Montalto Dora sector (distal margin). Scheme of the inferred stratigraphic relationships between the Middle Triassic San Salvatore Dolostone and the other terms of the stratigraphic succession

&lt;p&gt;This contribution regards the encoding of an ontology for the GeologicStructure class. This is one of the sections of OntoGeonous, a bigger ontology for the geosciences principally devoted to the representation of the knowledge contained in the geological maps; the others regard the Geologic unit, Geomorphologic feature and Geologic event. OntoGeonous is developed by the University of Turin, Department of Computer Sciences, and the Institute of Geosciences and Earth Resources of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IGG).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The encoding of the knowledge is based on the definitions and hierarchical organization of the concepts proposed by the international standard: GeoScienceML directive(1) and INSPIRE Data Specification on Geology(2) drive the architecture at more general levels, while the broader/narrower representation by CGI vocabularies(3) provide the internal taxonomies of the specific sub-ontologies.&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The first release of OntoGeonous had a complete hierarchy for the GeologicUnit class, which is partly different from the organization of knowledge of the international standard, and taxonomies for GeologicStructure, GeologicEvent and GeomorphologicFeature. The encoding process of OntoGeonous is presented in Lombardo et al. (2018) and in the WikiGeo website(4), while a method of application to the geological maps is presented in Mantovani et al (2020).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This contribution shows how the international standard guided the encoding of the sub-ontology for the GeologicStructure and the innovations introduced in the general organization of OntoGeonous compared to the OntoGeonous first release.&amp;#160; The main differences come from the analysis of the UML schemata for the GeologicStructure subclasses(5): first, the presence of the FoldSystem class inspired the creation of more general class for the associations of features; second, the attempt to describe the NonDirectionalStructure class made us group all the remaining classes into a new class with opposite characteristics. Similar modification have been made all over the GeologicStructure ontology.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Our intent is to improve the formal description of geological knowledge in order to practically support the use of ontology-driven data model in the geological mapping task.&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Refereces&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Lombardo, V., Piana, F., Mimmo, D. (2018). Semantics&amp;#8211;informed geological maps: Conceptual modelling and knowledge encoding. Computers &amp; Geosciences. 116. 10.1016/j.cageo.2018.04.001.&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Mantovani, A., Lombardo, V., Piana, F. (2020). Ontology-driven representation of knowledge for geological maps. (Submitted)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;(1) http://www.geosciml.org.&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;(2) http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/INSPIRE_DataSpecification_GE_v3.0.pdf&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;(3) http://resource.geosciml.org/def/voc/&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;(4) https://www.di.unito.it/wikigeo/index.php?title=Pagina_principale&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;(5) http://www.geosciml.org/doc/geosciml/4.1/documentation/html/EARoot/EA1/EA1/EA4/EA4/EA356.htm&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;