TCS
Kolkata, India
TCS
Kolkata, India

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.nature.com

All mice were females from a mixed background, housed under standard laboratory conditions, and received food and water ad libitum. All experiments were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Animal Welfare Committee of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Netherlands. R26-Confetti;R26-CreERT2, R26-TdTomato;R26-CreERT2, and R26-mTmG;R26-CreERT2 mice were injected intraperitoneally with tamoxifen (Sigma Aldrich), diluted in sunflower oil, to activate Cre recombinase at 3 weeks of age. To achieve clonal density labelling (<1 MaSC per duct), R26-Confetti mice were injected with 0.2 mg tamoxifen per 25 g body weight. To label multiple MaSCs per TEB, R26-Confetti mice were injected with 1.5 mg/25 g at 3 weeks. The clonal dose for R26-mTmG and R26-TdTomato reporter mice was 0.2 mg tamoxifen per 25 g body weight and 0.05 mg/25 g tamoxifen, respectively. Lineage-traced mice were euthanized at mid-puberty (5 weeks of age) or at the end of puberty (8 weeks of age) and mammary glands were collected. Experiments were not randomized, sample size was not determined a priori, and investigators were not blinded to experimental conditions except where indicated. Imaging of whole-mount mammary glands was performed using a Leica TCS SP5 confocal microscope, equipped with a 405 nm laser, an argon laser, a DPSS 561 nm laser and a HeNe 633 nm laser. Different fluorophores were excited as follows: DAPI at 405 nm, CFP at 458 nm, GFP at 488 nm, YFP at 514 nm, RFP at 561 nm and Alexa-647 at 633 nm. DAPI was collected at 440–470 nm, CFP at 470–485 nm, GFP at 495–510 nm, YFP at 540–570 nm, RFP at 610–640 nm and Alexa-647 at 650–700 nm. All images were acquired with a 20× (HCX IRAPO N.A. 0.70 WD 0.5 mm) dry objective using a Z-step size of 5 μm (total Z-stack around 200 μm). All pictures were processed using ImageJ software (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/). Quantitative analysis of the whole-gland reconstructions induced with 0.2 mg tamoxifen per 25 g body weight was performed on 36 glands from nine mice at 8 weeks of age. We counted 11 luminal and 8 basal clones in subtrees starting from level 6. Quantitative analysis of the whole-gland reconstructions induced with 1.5 mg tamoxifen per 25 g body weight was performed for 10 glands from five mice at 8 weeks of age, 5 glands from three mice at 5 weeks of age, and 3 glands from two mice at 8 weeks of age (traced from 5 weeks of age). Clonal analysis and modelling were based on 606 subclones (157 basal subclones and 449 luminal subclones) from four glands from mice at 8 weeks of age. Data were collected at random and all glands induced at a clonal level were included. Subclones were defined as the density of epithelial cells of the same type (basal or luminal) and confetti colour in a given branch of a given level. Although our theoretical description models the distribution of the number of MaSCs in a TEB of level l, as we cannot access this quantity directly experimentally, we use as a proxy the density of labelled cells of a given type and confetti colour in the corresponding branch of level l (that is, the branch that was formed by the TEB considered in the model). Taking the density instead of the absolute number of labelled cells allowed us to correct for the stochastic variation of branch length that we observed (Extended Data Fig. 1e). The fourth and fifth mammary glands were dissected and incubated in a mixture of collagenase I (1 mg/ml, Roche Diagnostics) and hyaluronidase (50 μg/ml, Sigma Aldrich) at 37 °C for optical clearance, fixed in periodate–lysine–paraformaldehyde (PLP) buffer (1% paraformaldehyde (PFA; Electron Microscopy Science), 0.01M sodium periodate, 0.075 M l-lysine and 0.0375 M P-buffer (0.081 M Na HPO and 0.019M NaH PO ; pH 7.4) for 2 h at room temperature, and incubated for 2 h in blocking buffer containing 1% bovine serum albumin (Roche Diagnostics), 5% normal goat serum (Monosan) and 0.8% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS. Primary antibodies were diluted in blocking buffer and incubated overnight at room temperature. Secondary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer were incubated for at least 4 h. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (0.1 μg/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS. Glands were washed with PBS and mounted on a microscopy slide with Vectashield hard set (H-1400, Vector Laboratories). Primary antibodies: anti-K14 (rabbit, Covance, PRB155P, 1:700) or anti-E-cadherin (rat, eBioscience, 14-3249-82, 1:700). Secondary antibodies: goat anti-rabbit or goat anti-rat, both conjugated to Alexa-647 (Life Technologies, A21245 and A21247 respectively, 1:400). For 5-ethynyl-2-deoxyuridine (EdU) cell-proliferation staining of whole-mount mammary glands, a click-it stain (Click-iT EdU, Invitrogen) was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions before staining with primary antibodies as described above. Kidneys were dissected from embryos at embryonic day 16, fixed in PLP buffer overnight at 4 °C, and incubated for 4 h in blocking buffer containing 1% bovine serum albumin (Roche Diagnostics), 5% normal goat serum (Monosan) and 0.8% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS. Primary antibodies were diluted in blocking buffer and incubated overnight at room temperature. Secondary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer were incubated for at least 6 h. Nuclei were stained with DAPI (0.1 μg/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS. 3.5-, 5- or 8-week-old mice (n = 3 mice for each age) were injected intraperitoneally with 0.5 mg EdU (Invitrogen) diluted in PBS. For the EdU pulse-chase experiments, EdU (0.5 mg) was injected intraperitoneally in 4-week-old mice (n = 3). Mice were euthanized 4 or 72 h after EdU injection and the fourth and fifth mammary glands were collected and processed as whole-mount glands. For analysis, 3D tile-scan images of the whole-mount glands were taken and the number of EdU+ TEBs was scored. For the quantification of the fraction of EdU+ cells, 10 EdU+ TEBs per time point were selected in a blinded manner and the number of EdU+ cells was counted manually for each selected TEB. For the pulse-chase experiment, 3 EdU+ TEBs per mouse were selected in a blinded manner and the intensity of 10 randomly picked EdU+ cells was measured for both the tip and the border area of the selected TEB and a two-tailed t-test was performed. Normal distribution was confirmed using a d’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test. The variance between the groups was tested with an F-test and was found to be not significantly different. Three-dimensional tile-scan images of whole-mount mammary glands and embryonic kidneys were used to manually reconstruct the ductal network by outlining the ducts. Labelled confetti cells were annotated in the schematic outline of the mammary tree, including information on the confetti colour for the mammary glands (GFP, green; YFP, yellow; RPF, red; and CFP, cyan). Using custom-made. NET software (available upon request from J.v.R.), the length and width of all the ducts, the coordinates of the branch points, and the position of the labelled cells in ducts and in TEBs were scored in these schematic outline images, which was used as input for a schematic representation of the lineage tree. Custom-made Python software (available upon request from E.H.) and the ETE2 python toolkit were used for the conversion and visualization of the schematic mammary gland lineage tree, including linkage between branches, their respective length and number of cells of each confetti colour. To depict the topology of the resulting tree, the Newick format was used to represent hierarchical structures using nested parentheses to encode information about the linkage between branches, their respective length and number of cells of each confetti colour. The origin of the gland was always located at the top of the reconstruction. R26-CreERT2;R26-mTmG mice were intraperitoneally injected with 0.2 mg tamoxifen per 25 g body weight diluted in sunflower oil (Sigma) at 3 weeks of age. At 5 weeks of age, a mammary window was inserted near the fourth and fifth mammary glands (for details, see ref. 31). Mice were anaesthetized using isoflurane (1.5% isoflurane/medical air mixture) and placed in a facemask with a custom designed imaging box. Mice were intraperitoneally injected with AZD-7762 (0.5 mg in PBS, Sigma) every 5 h during the time-lapse imaging. Imaging was performed on an inverted Leica SP8 multiphoton microscope with a chameleon Vision-S (Coherent Inc.), equipped with four HyD detectors: HyD1 (<455 nm), HyD2 (455–490 nm), HyD3 (500–550 nm) and HyD4 (560–650 nm). Different wavelengths between 700 nm and 1,150 nm were used for excitation; collagen (second harmonic generation) was excited with a wavelength of 860 nm and detected in HyD1. GFP and Tomato were excited with a wavelength of 960 nm and detected in HyD3 and HyD4. TEBs and ducts were imaged every 20–30 min using a Z-step size of 3 μm over a minimum period of 8 h. All images were in 12 bit and acquired with a 25× (HCX IRAPO N.A. 0.95 WD 2.5 mm) water objective. Single TEBs and ducts were isolated from 5-week-old MMTV-Cre;R26-loxP-stop-loxP-YFP mice. YFP expression was used to determine the localization and structure of the mammary gland. Single TEBs and pieces of ducts were micro-dissected from the fourth and fifth mammary glands. Single TEBs and ducts were digested in DMEM/F12 (GIBCO, Invitrogen Life Technologies) supplemented with hyaluronidase (300 μg/ml, Sigma Aldrich), and collagenase I (2 mg/ml, Roche Diagnostics) at 37 °C, followed by centrifugation at 550g for 10 min. The fatty layer on top and the aqueous layer in the middle were aspirated, and the remaining pellet was dissolved in 5 mM EDTA/PBS with 5% fetal bovine serum (Sigma) and kept on ice for 10 min before labelling with the following antibodies: anti-mouse CD45-Pacific blue (clone 30-F11, Biolegend), anti-mouse CD31-Pacific blue (clone 390, Biolegend), and rat anti-mouse CD140a-Pacific blue (Clone APA5, BD Bioscience). Cells were incubated for 30 min on ice in the dark, washed once in 5 mM EDTA/PBS with 5% fetal bovine serum (Sigma), and centrifuged at 250g for 5 min. Pellet was dissolved in 5 mM EDTA/PBS with 7-AAD, and sorted on a FACS AriaII Special Ordered Reseach Product (BD Biosciences). A broad FSC SSC gate was followed by a gate excluding doublets. Next, 7-AAD negative cells were gated, and from this population Lin− (CD45−, CD31−, CD140a−) and YFP+ cells were sorted into 384-well plates containing 5 μl of mineral oil that contained a 200-nl droplet of primers, dNTPs and synthetic mRNA molecules (ERCC). Single-cell mRNA sequencing was performed as described previously32. In brief, cells were sorted into 5 μl of mineral oil containing a 200-nl droplet of primers, dNTPs and synthetic mRNA molecules (ERCC). Cells were fused with this droplet by centrifugation and lysed at 65 °C, followed by room temperature and second-strand synthesis aided by a Nanodrop II liquid handling platform. The resulting cDNA was processed following the CEL-Seq2 protocol33. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq with 75-bp paired-end reads. The 5′ mate was used to identify cells and libraries while the 3′ mate was aligned to the mm10 RefSeq mouse transcriptome using BWA34. Analysis was performed using StemID (for details of the methodology, see ref. 26). Endothelial cells, erythrocytes and lymphocytes were filtered from the data based on expression of Cd36 (5 unique transcripts), Beta-s (1,000 unique transcripts) and Cd74 (2 unique transcripts)/Cd52 (1 unique transcript), respectively (27 cells in total). The remaining cells were normalized by down sampling to 3,000 transcripts, after which StemID26 was used for clustering and cell type annotation. Cells with fewer than 3,000 unique transcripts were discarded. In total, 91 cells were included, of which we could assign 36 cells to the luminal lineage (cluster 1 contained 9 cells, cluster 2 contained 17 cells, cluster 3 contained 2 cells and cluster 5 contained 8 cells), 51 cells to the basal lineage (cluster 5 contained 2 cells, cluster 6 contained 14 cells, cluster 7 contained 10 cells, cluster 8 contained 8 cells and cluster 9 contained 17 cells), and 4 cells to a non-epithelial origin (cluster 4). After identifying luminal and basal cell clusters, three cells that were erroneously annotated as basal cells belonging to cluster 8 were manually annotated to belong to luminal cluster 2, based on luminal and basal markers such as K8/K18 and K5/Acta2, respectively. Cluster 5 expressed higher levels of the pre-ribosomal 45S RNA, which is often found in cells of low quality. We therefore chose to omit cluster 5 from further analysis. Differential gene expression between clusters was based on a previous method35 and performed as described previously32. All data analysis with StemID and custom scripts was performed with Rstudio, version 0.99.491. The sequencing data discussed in this publication have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus, and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE85875. Source data are available for Figs 1c–f, 2f, 3b, c, e, 4a–c and Extended Data Figs 1e–k, 2c, e–h, 3b–g, 4e, f, 6d, 8f. All other data are available from the author upon reasonable request. Custom-made. NET software to score the length and width of all the ducts, the coordinates of the branch points and the position of the labelled cells in ducts and in TEBs used as input for a schematic representation of the lineage tree is available upon request from J.v.R. Custom-made Python software and the ETE2 Python toolkit used for the conversion and visualization of the schematic mammary gland lineage tree are available upon request from E.H.


News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

Everest Group—a consulting and research firm focused on strategic IT, business services and sourcing—today announced the winners of the 2017 PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year™ awards for IT services. The awards, now in their second year, recognize IT service providers who have demonstrated consistent leadership in the PEAK Matrix reports issued by Everest Group in the previous year. In 2016, Everest Group published 21 PEAK Matrix reports, evaluating a total of 73 service providers in various segments of the IT services market. Twenty of the 73 providers are recognized in the 2017 PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year Awards. “Our PEAK Matrix reports evaluate market success—using factors like revenue growth, deals won or renewed, margins generated, and so forth—as well as service capabilities, where the emphasis is on innovation, because that is how providers are differentiating themselves in the eyes of enterprises today,” said Jimit Arora, partner at Everest Group. “Throughout the year, Everest Group examines what providers are investing in, what type of intellectual capital they have, how they’re devising their sourcing strategies, and whether they are experimenting with new service models or engagements with their customers. By taking all of that into account, these PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year awards recognize the IT providers that truly set themselves apart.” The 2017 PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year Awards for IT Services comprise: Accenture, Cognizant, IBM, TCS and Wipro won the top five spots (in that order). Accenture (which held the second position in 2016) has moved to the top of the list above Cognizant. Companies recognized either as Leaders of the Year, Star Performers of the Year, or both, include Accenture, Atos, Capgemini, Cognizant, HCL, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, IBM, Tata Consultancy Services, VirtusaPolaris, and Wipro. Accenture had a dominant presence in the 2017 honors, claiming the No.1 spot in the ITS Top 20 list as well as being “Leader of the Year” in the Overall IT Services and ADS categories. Accenture shared “Leader of the Year” honors with Cognizant in the HLS category. Cognizant once again made a particularly strong showing, earning the No. 2 spot in the ITS Top 20 list as well as sharing “Leader of the Year” honors in two categories: BFSI and HLS. In addition, Cognizant was named “Star Performer of the Year” in the ADS category. Capgemini and VirtusaPolaris shared the Star Performer of the Year award in the Overall IT Services category. New entrants to the ITS Top 20 list include Syntel (#17), Hexaware (#18) and NTT DATA (#20). Conversely, Fujitsu, Luxoft and Unisys dropped out of the Top 20 leaderboard. ***All winners are listed in the report, “2017 PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year Awards” available for complimentary download here.*** “Today’s enterprises must navigate a complex landscape of next-generation and legacy technologies, a global business footprint, and a complex provider portfolio,” said Abhishek Singh, practice director at Everest Group. “The PEAK Matrix Service Provider of the Year Awards are designed to help enterprise buyers identify the best of the best – the IT service providers with strong, broad-based capabilities and successful service strategies that align well with the evolving enterprise IT demand.” About the PEAK Matrix™ The Everest Group PEAK Matrix is a proprietary framework for assessing the relative market success and overall capability of service providers based on Performance, Experiences, Ability and Knowledge. Each service provider is comparatively assessed on two dimensions: market success and delivery capabilities. Market success is measured by revenue, number of clients and year-over-year growth. Delivery capability is measured by scale of operations, scope, technology and innovation, delivery footprint and buyer satisfaction. The resulting matrix categorizes service providers as Leaders, Major Contenders, and Aspirants. Companies that demonstrate strong upward movement in successive reports are recognized as Star Performers. About Everest Group Everest Group is a consulting and research firm focused on strategic IT, business services, and sourcing. We are trusted advisors to senior executives of leading enterprises, providers, and investors. Our firm helps clients improve operational and financial performance through a hands-on process that supports them in making well-informed decisions that deliver high-impact results and achieve sustained value. Our insight and guidance empower clients to improve organizational efficiency, effectiveness, agility and responsiveness. What sets Everest Group apart is the integration of deep sourcing knowledge, problem-solving skills and original research. Details and in-depth content are available at http://www.everestgrp.com.


News Article | February 23, 2017
Site: www.prnewswire.com

LONDON and MUMBAI, India, Feb. 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), (BSE: 532540, NSE: TCS) a leading global IT services, consulting and business solutions organisation, has broken into the list of the Top 3 most valuable brands in the IT Services industry, in an...


News Article | February 22, 2017
Site: www.prnewswire.com

NEW YORK and MUMBAI, India, Feb. 22, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), (BSE: 532540, NSE: TCS) a leading global IT services, consulting and business solutions organization, today announced that it has been officially certified as a 'Top Employer in North America 2017'...


This report studies sales (consumption) of Manufacturing Executions Systems in Global market, especially in United States, China, Europe and Japan, focuses on top players in these regions/countries, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player in these regions, covering Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales (consumption), revenue, market share and growth rate of Manufacturing Executions Systems in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like Split by product Types, with sales, revenue, price and gross margin, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Manufacturing Executions Systems in each application, can be divided into Automotive Aerospace and Defense Electronics and Semiconductor Manufacturing Medical Equipment Technology Global Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales Market Report 2017 1 Manufacturing Executions Systems Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Manufacturing Executions Systems 1.2 Classification of Manufacturing Executions Systems 1.2.1 Type I 1.2.2 Type II 1.3 Application of Manufacturing Executions Systems 1.3.1 Automotive 1.3.2 Aerospace and Defense 1.3.3 Electronics and Semiconductor Manufacturing 1.3.4 Medical Equipment Technology 1.4 Manufacturing Executions Systems Market by Regions 1.4.1 United States Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Manufacturing Executions Systems (2012-2022) 1.5.1 Global Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.5.2 Global Manufacturing Executions Systems Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 9 Global Manufacturing Executions Systems Manufacturers Analysis 9.1 Emerson Electric 9.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.1.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.1.2.1 Product A 9.1.2.2 Product B 9.1.3 Emerson Electric Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.2 GE 9.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.2.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.2.2.1 Product A 9.2.2.2 Product B 9.2.3 GE Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.3 Rockwell Automation 9.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.3.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.3.2.1 Product A 9.3.2.2 Product B 9.3.3 Rockwell Automation Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.4 Schneider Electric 9.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.4.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.4.2.1 Product A 9.4.2.2 Product B 9.4.3 Schneider Electric Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.5 Siemens 9.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.5.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.5.2.1 Product A 9.5.2.2 Product B 9.5.3 Siemens Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.6 ABB 9.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.6.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.6.2.1 Product A 9.6.2.2 Product B 9.6.3 ABB Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.7 Accenture 9.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.7.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.7.2.1 Product A 9.7.2.2 Product B 9.7.3 Accenture Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.8 Dassault Systemes 9.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.8.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.8.2.1 Product A 9.8.2.2 Product B 9.8.3 Dassault Systemes Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.9 Honeywell International 9.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.9.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.9.2.1 Product A 9.9.2.2 Product B 9.9.3 Honeywell International Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.10 Hitachi 9.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.10.2 Manufacturing Executions Systems Product Type, Application and Specification 9.10.2.1 Product A 9.10.2.2 Product B 9.10.3 Hitachi Manufacturing Executions Systems Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.11 MPDV 9.12 Parsec Automation 9.13 SAP 9.14 TCS 9.15 Wipro For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/961601-global-manufacturing-executions-systems-sales-market-report-2017


News Article | February 16, 2017
Site: www.techtimes.com

The richest man of India, Mukesh Ambani, is of the belief that American President Donald Trump is a "blessing in disguise" for India. Ambani, who has already spent around 1.3 trillion Indian rupees (around $193 billion) for Reliance Jio, a new network carrier for mobiles and tablets, spoke during the NASSCOM summit on Feb. 15. "Trump can actually be a blessing in disguise. The domestic IT industry can focus on solving problems right here, which is a huge market," he said. NASSCOM delayed its annual projection report to May this year, awaiting the details of President Trump's plan of doubling the minimum salary of H1-B visa holders and restraining visa issuance to the techies. Ambani, who is the Chairman of Reliance Industries, which is one the major telecom companies in India, believes that Trump's order to stop the outsourcing of American jobs will ultimately help his home country. How? As India will regain the IT talent, which has shifted to U.S. shores in search of better opportunities. With people possibly returning to India as a result of the new administration's visa policies, the issues plaguing the telecom industry in the country would be resolved. India's IT outsourcing sector, which has a net worth of $150 billion, is in particular jeopardy due to the Trump administration's decision. The outsourcing firms in the country also get about 65 percent of their revenue from the U.S. and, therefore, are heavily dependent on the work visa provided by America. The decision taken by the Trump administration may hamper Indians working in the U.S. Nearly 9.5 percent of the GDP in India comes from the outsourcing industry, which employs 3.7 million people. The decision taken by the Trump administration has led to trouble for IT companies like Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Infosys. "The world might want to build walls around. I think it is very important for us not to be influenced by those developments," added Ambani, addressing all Indian companies and individuals who are bearing the brunt of the decision. He emphasized on the importance of keeping business partnerships open, which Ambani believes will lead to the strengthening of domestic industries. Ambani's message come at a time when many Indians in the U.S. are perhaps resenting the decision taken by the Trump administration. The future of these Indians and many other immigrants remain unsure for now. However, the words spoken by the Chairman of Reliance Industries suggests that employment opportunities in India may be higher, especially in the IT sector. © 2017 Tech Times, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.


News Article | February 16, 2017
Site: marketersmedia.com

— This report studies Location-based Services (LBS) System in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Location-based Services (LBS) System in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Location-based Services (LBS) System in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Location-based Services (LBS) System Market Research Report 2016 1 Location-based Services (LBS) System Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Location-based Services (LBS) System 1.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Location-based Services (LBS) System by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Type I 1.2.3 Type II 1.2.4 Type III 1.3 Location-based Services (LBS) System Segment by Application 1.3.1 Location-based Services (LBS) System Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Application 1 1.3.3 Application 2 1.3.4 Application 3 1.4 Location-based Services (LBS) System Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Location-based Services (LBS) System (2011-2021) 7 Global Location-based Services (LBS) System Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Ericsson 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.1.2.1 Type I 7.1.2.2 Type II 7.1.3 Ericsson Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Syniverse 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.2.2.1 Type I 7.2.2.2 Type II 7.2.3 Syniverse Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Ekahau 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.3.2.1 Type I 7.3.2.2 Type II 7.3.3 Ekahau Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Galigeo 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.4.2.1 Type I 7.4.2.2 Type II 7.4.3 Galigeo Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Masternaut 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.5.2.1 Type I 7.5.2.2 Type II 7.5.3 Masternaut Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Pitney Bowes 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.6.2.1 Type I 7.6.2.2 Type II 7.6.3 Pitney Bowes Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 Tomtom International 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.7.2.1 Type I 7.7.2.2 Type II 7.7.3 Tomtom International Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Polaris Wireless 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.8.2.1 Type I 7.8.2.2 Type II 7.8.3 Polaris Wireless Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 TCS 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.9.2.1 Type I 7.9.2.2 Type II 7.9.3 TCS Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 Ruckus 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 Location-based Services (LBS) System Product Type, Application and Specification 7.10.2.1 Type I 7.10.2.2 Type II 7.10.3 Ruckus Location-based Services (LBS) System Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 DigitalGlobe For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/670617-global-location-based-services-lbs-system-market-research-report-2016


News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.marketwired.com

MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwired - Feb. 15, 2017) - TECSYS Inc. (TSX:TCS) will release its financial results for the third quarter ended January 31, 2017 after the market close on February 28, 2017. TECSYS' President and CEO, Mr. Peter Brereton, and Mr. Berty Ho-Wo-Cheong, Vice President, Finance and Administration and CFO, will host a conference call on March 1 at 8:30 a.m. EST to present and discuss the results with the analysts. The call can be replayed by calling (416) 626-4100 or (800) 558-5253 (access code: 21846834). TECSYS provides transformative supply chain solutions that equip our customers to succeed in a rapidly-changing omni-channel world. TECSYS solutions are built on a true enterprise supply chain platform, and include warehouse management, distribution and transportation management, as well as complete financial management and analytics. Customers running on TECSYS' Supply Chain Platform are confident knowing they can execute, day in and day out, regardless of business fluctuations or changes in technology, they can adapt and scale to any business needs or size, and they can expand and collaborate with customers, suppliers and partners as one borderless enterprise. From demand planning to demand fulfillment, TECSYS puts power into the hands of both front line workers and back office planners, and unshackles business leaders so they can see and manage their supply chains like never before. TECSYS is the market leader in supply chain solutions for health systems and hospitals. Over 600 mid-size and Fortune 1000 customers trust their supply chains to TECSYS in the healthcare, service parts, third-party logistics, and general wholesale high-volume distribution industries. TECSYS' shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol TCS. The statements in this news release relating to matters that are not historical fact are forward looking statements that are based on management's beliefs and assumptions. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties, including but not limited to future economic conditions, the markets that TECSYS Inc. serves, the actions of competitors, major new technological trends, and other factors beyond the control of TECSYS Inc., which could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. More information about the risks and uncertainties associated with TECSYS Inc.'s business can be found in the MD&A section of the Company's annual report and annual information form for the fiscal year ended April 30th, 2016. These documents have been filed with the Canadian securities commissions and are available on our website (www.tecsys.com) and on SEDAR (www.sedar.com). Copyright © TECSYS Inc. 2017. All names, trademarks, products, and services mentioned are registered or unregistered trademarks of their respective owners.


MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC--(Marketwired - 15 fév. 2017) - TECSYS Inc. (TSX:TCS), rendra publics ses résultats financiers du troisième trimestre se terminant le 31 janvier 2017 le 28 février 2017 après la fermeture des marchés. TECSYS tiendra une conférence téléphonique à l'intention des analystes animée par M. Peter Brereton, président et chef de la direction de TECSYS, et M. Berty Ho-Wo-Cheong, Vice-président, finance et administration et chef de la direction financière, à 8h30 HNE, le 1 mars 2017, afin de présenter et de commenter les résultats. Objet: Conférence téléphonique sur les résultats du troisième trimestre de l'année fiscale 2017 La conférence pourra être réentendue en composant le (416) 626-4100 ou le (800) 558-5253 (code d'accès : 21846834). Par ses solutions transformatrices de gestion de la chaîne d'approvisionnement, TECSYS fournit à ses clients des outils de réussite dans un monde en mutation omni-canal. Reposant sur une véritable plateforme de gestion de la chaîne d'approvisionnement, les solutions de TECSYS comprennent la gestion d'entrepôt, de la distribution et des transports, ainsi que des fonctions complètes de gestion et d'analyse financières. Les utilisateurs de la plateforme TECSYS sont sûrs de pouvoir accomplir leur mission jour après jour, malgré les fluctuations économiques et les changements technologiques. Ils savent qu'ils pourront s'adapter à tous les besoins, petits et grands, et qu'ils pourront se développer et collaborer avec leurs clients, leurs fournisseurs et leurs partenaires sans limite géographique ni frontalière. De la planification à l'exécution des commandes, TECSYS remet le pouvoir entre les mains des intervenants de première ligne et du personnel administratif, libérant les dirigeants d'entreprise de tout carcan afin qu'ils puissent accomplir leur travail d'encadrement mieux que jamais. TECSYS est chef de file en solutions de gestion de la chaîne d'approvisionnement pour les réseaux de santé et les hôpitaux. Plus de 600 PME et sociétés figurant au palmarès Fortune 1000 lui font confiance, que ce soit dans les secteurs des soins de santé, des pièces de rechange, de la logistique tierce ou des marchés généraux de distribution en gros à haut volume. Les actions de TECSYS sont cotées à la Bourse de Toronto sous le symbole TCS. Les déclarations contenues dans ce communiqué traitent de questions qui ne sont pas des faits historiques mais des énoncés prospectifs qui sont fondés sur les croyances et les hypothèses de l'équipe de gestion. Ces déclarations ne sont pas des garanties de rendement futur et sont assujetties à un certain nombre d'incertitudes, y compris mais non limité à la conjoncture économique future, aux marchés servis par TECSYS Inc., aux actions des concurrents, aux nouvelles tendances technologiques, et à d'autres facteurs hors du contrôle de TECSYS et qui pourraient entraîner des résultats éventuels considérablement différents de ces déclarations. De plus amples renseignements sur les risques et les incertitudes associés aux activités de TECSYS Inc. sont contenus dans la section commentaires et analyse de la direction du rapport annuel de la société et sa notice annuelle pour l'exercice terminé le 30 avril 2016. Ces documents ont été déposés auprès des commissions canadiennes des valeurs mobilières et sont disponibles sur notre site Web (www.tecsys.com) et sur celui de SEDAR (www.sedar.com). Copyright © TECSYS Inc. 2017. Tous les noms, marques, produits et services mentionnés sont des marques de commerce déposées ou non de leurs propriétaires respectifs.


News Article | February 28, 2017
Site: www.marketwired.com

MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwired - Feb. 28, 2017) - TECSYS Inc. (TSX:TCS), an industry-leading supply chain management software company, today announced its results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, ended January 31, 2017. All dollar amounts are expressed in Canadian currency and are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and are unaudited. "The third quarter of fiscal 2017 showed strong additional sales from our base accounts in healthcare along with two new contracts added by our complex distribution team," said Peter Brereton, President and CEO of TECSYS Inc. "This momentum drove an 11% increase in revenue, which our continued discipline on operating expenses allowed us to leverage into earnings growth and a 45% increase in EBITDA. While we continue to see some effect from the uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act, we are pleased with the continuing investment from our hospital customers as they expand their utilization of our product suite. We were also successful in winning another government sector project, this time in the UK." "We have seen the same positive trends when we look at our progress on a trailing twelve month basis, with a 15% increase in revenue and a 76% increase in EBITDA," added Berty Ho-Wo-Cheong, VP Finance & Administration and CFO. "We expect further positive results as we continue to penetrate our base accounts and deliver operating leverage." The Company has declared a dividend of $0.045 per share to be paid on April 11, 2017 to shareholders of record at the close of business on March 21, 2017. Pursuant to the Canadian Income Tax Act, dividends paid by the Company to Canadian residents are considered to be "eligible" dividends. TECSYS provides transformative supply chain solutions that equip our customers to succeed in a rapidly- changing omni-channel world. TECSYS solutions are built on a true enterprise supply chain platform, and include warehouse management, distribution and transportation management, as well as complete financial management and analytics. Customers running on TECSYS' Supply Chain Platform are confident knowing they can execute, day in and day out, -regardless of business fluctuations or changes in technology, they can adapt and scale to any business needs or size, and they can expand and collaborate with customers, suppliers and partners as one borderless enterprise. From demand planning to demand fulfillment, TECSYS puts power into the hands of both front line workers and back office planners, and unshackles business leaders so they can see and manage their supply chains like never before. TECSYS is the market leader in supply chain solutions for health systems and hospitals. Over 600 mid-size and Fortune 1000 customers trust their supply chains to TECSYS in the healthcare, service parts, third- party logistics, and general wholesale high-volume distribution industries. TECSYS' shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol TCS. The statements in this news release relating to matters that are not historical fact are forward looking statements that are based on management's beliefs and assumptions. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties, including but not limited to future economic conditions, the markets that TECSYS Inc. serves, the actions of competitors, major new technological trends, and other factors beyond the control of TECSYS Inc., which could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. More information about the risks and uncertainties associated with TECSYS Inc.'s business can be found in the MD&A section of the Company's annual report and annual information form for the fiscal year ended April 30th, 2016. These documents have been filed with the Canadian securities commissions and are available on our website (www.tecsys.com) and on SEDAR (www.sedar.com). Copyright © TECSYS Inc. 2017. All names, trademarks, products, and services mentioned are registered or unregistered trademarks of their respective owners.

Loading TCS collaborators
Loading TCS collaborators