a b s t r a c tThe development of dynamic building envelope technologies, which adapt to changing outdoor and indoor environments, is considered a crucial step towards the achievement of the nearly Zero Energy Building target. It is currently not possible to evaluate the energy saving potential of innovative adaptive transparent building envelopes in an accurate manner. This creates difficulties in selecting between competing technologies and is a barrier to systematic development of these innovative technologies.The main aim of this work is to develop a method for devising optimal adaptive glazing properties and to evaluate the energy saving potential resulting from the adoption of such a technology. The method makes use of an inverse performance-oriented approach, to minimize the total primary energy use of a building. It is applied to multiple case studies (office reference room with 4 different cardinal orientations and in three different temperate climates) in order to evaluate and optimise the performance of adaptive glazing as it responds to changing boundary conditions on a monthly and daily basis. A frequency analysis on the set of optimised adaptive properties is subsequently performed to identify salient features of ideal adaptive glazing.The results show that high energy savings are achievable by adapting the transparent part of the building envelope alone, the largest component being the cooling energy demand. As expected, the energy savings are highly sensitive to: the time scale of the adaptive mechanisms; the capability of the façade to adapt to the outdoor climatic condition; the difference between outdoor climatic condition and the comfort range. Moreover important features of the optimal thermo-optical properties are identified. Of these, one of the most important findings is that a unique optimised technology, varying its thermo-optical properties between a limited number of states could be effective in different climates and orientations.
Certain vaccines are more effective than others against microbial infections, but the molecular mechanisms separating the two types of vaccines are largely undefined. Here, by comparing two vaccines of Streptococcus pneumoniae with identical antigens but different efficacies (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine – PCV13 and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine – PPV23), we reveal that superior vaccine protection against blood-borne bacteria is primarily achieved by activating pathogen capture of the sinusoidal endothelial cells (ECs) in the liver. Consistent with its superior protection in humans, PCV13 confers a more potent protection than PPV23 against pneumococcal infection in mice. In vivo real-time imaging and genetic mutagenesis revealed that PCV13 activates both liver ECs and resident macrophages Kupffer cells (KCs) to capture IgG-coated bacteria via IgG Fc gamma receptor (FcγR). In particular, the FcγRIIB-mediated capture by ECs is responsible for PCV13-induced superior protection. In contrast, PPV23 only activates KCs (but not ECs) to achieve a less effective pathogen capture and protection through complement receptor-mediated recognition of IgM- and C3-coated bacteria. These liver-based vaccine protection mechanisms are also found with the vaccines of Neisseria meningitidis and Klebsiella pneumoniae, another two important invasive human pathogens. Our findings have uncovered a novel EC- and FcγRIIB-mediated mechanism in the liver for more efficacious vaccine protection. These findings can serve as in vivo functional readouts to evaluate vaccine efficacy and guide the future vaccine development.One Sentence SummaryVaccine efficacy is defined by FcγRIIB-mediated capture of antibody-coated bacteria via liver sinusoidal endothelial cells.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.