FTA:
The first such agents to hit the market were strictly for obtaining images of tissues within the body. Using relatively benign, short-lived isotopes, these products enabled the precise illumination of cancerous tissues on PET scans, helping doctors diagnose and map the location of malignant cells with greater accuracy.
Better targeting for surgery sounds promising, too:
Oh! New fancy dinosaur!
What’s the subscript n-1? I recognize all the other notation, not that I can verify the accuracy of it.
I… have no idea. It seems to be a standard notation for something or other in the paper.
(a + b)m(a - b)m = Π_{k=0}^{m-1} {(a + k)² - b²}
is in there as well, so maybe its some sort of alternative product notation?
Not a mathematician, me.
I had to look that up too, but it appears to be this.
Well, that clears everything up…(/s)
That would exactly my face. No maths me.
“Our new representation will also be useful in connecting with celestial holography,” the pair adds, referring to an intriguing but still-hypothetical paradigm seeking to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity through holographic projections of spacetime.
Article is interesting, if way beyond my depth in describing the mechanism. BUT I post this out of nerdy fascination with the description of transposons as “bacterial parasites.” I’ve never seen this before. Maybe in the way for protoviruses? Or at least proto-dsDNA viruses? (I am of the opinion that the various virus "families (RNA, ssDNA, dsDNA) represent different viral genesis, with the RNA type (maybe) being leftovers from RNA world, and dsDNA being derived from dsDNA in bacteria (probably). Can i back this up. No, no I cannot. But it’s my story and I am sticking to it, until someone proves me wrong. 
I’m afraid I don’t feel up to sorting through the literature right now, but there have been a few papers determining some virus groups were left over from before the LUCA (last common universal ancestor) of modern cellular life. So I think you probably could back it up if you wanted.
Also by the way, those major “families” of viruses are called realms, and are now being broken up into kingdoms that are believed to actually be monophyletic. Any more detailed look at viral origins should probably start with those. 
True, I think that one is pretty well researched, if not entirely established. The idea of dsDNA viruses being “escaped transposons” has been percolating at least since my college days when “jumping genes” and Barbara McClintock were cutting edge, but has not been convincingly established to the best of my knowledge. It makes a ton of sense, but we both know how much that matters in science.
Because I was curious, I ran across this little gem:
We also found that nematode Mavericks captured a new fusogen, MFUS-1 (for Maverick fusogen), which is structurally most similar to the glycoprotein B from Herpes simplex virus 1. This event likely fueled the spread of Mavericks through the formation of enveloped infective particles, analogous to the inception of retroviruses from genomic retroelements.
curiouser and curiouser. Fascinating field, and (IMHO) tends to support the “viruses are life, but different” POV.
Whether viruses are life is semantics, and kind of depends on what you are interested in – they have all the genetics but none of the metabolism. I think they don’t belong on the usual tree of life because they aren’t part of the same pattern of descent, but definitely are related, probably being pieces of living things that went rogue. I share your fascination with them as remnants from early life, though so stripped down they are only tantalizing glimpses…any answers about how all these complex molecules were actually made are still hidden further back.
