浙江宣城地区汉族人群18个STR基因座遗传多态性

目的 调查浙江宣城地区汉族人群5000例无关个体18个STR基因座多态性分布.方法 应用AmpFlSTR Identifiler荧光标记复合扩增系统检测,统计计算群体遗传学参数.结果 18个STR基因座的基因型分布均符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡（P＞0.05）,共检出270个等位基因,频率在0.0001～0.5260之间,共有1289种基因型,在13个基因座上检出共44个微变异等位基因.18个基因座的杂合度观察值（Ho）在0.6238～0.9120之间,杂合度理论值（He）在0.6961～0.9601之间,多态信息含量（PIC）在0.5578～0.9126之间,累计个人识别率（TDP）为0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 953,三联体累计非父排除概率（CPE）为0.999 999 993487 306,二联体累计非父排除率（CPE＊）为0.985819169.结论 本文调查结果与以往文献报道的不同地区民族的人群等位基因频率资料有一定程度的差异性.上述18个STR基因座适用于宣城地区汉族群体各类案件的法医学个体识别和亲权鉴定.     

应用DNA Typer15TM Direct试剂盒对河南地区汉族人群14个基因座遗传多态性的调查

目的调查河南地区汉族人群14个STR基因座的遗传多态性。同时简要介绍本实验室建库流程。方法应用DNA Typer15TM Direct试剂盒检测359名河南地区汉族无关个体14个STR基因座的等位基因频率,并应用统计软件计算群体遗传学参数。结果 14个STR基因座的基因型分布均符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡(P>0.05),14个基因座的杂合度(H)在0.694～0.922之间,匹配概率(Pm)在0.017～0.131之间,个人识别率(PD)在0.869～0.983之间,多态信息含量(PIC)在0.670～0.910之间,非父排除概率(PE)在0.418～0.841之间。结论 14个STR基因座在河南汉族人群中有较高的多态性,所得的群体遗传学数据可为法医学个人识别和亲子鉴定提供结果评估的依据。应用DNA Typer 15TM Direct试剂盒构建DNA数据库简单经济实用。     

云南玉溪汉族15个STR基因座多态性及遗传关系分析

目的调查玉溪汉族人群15个STR基因座的遗传多态性,并分析与国内部分地区汉族群体的遗传关系。方法采用AmpFLSTR Identifiler试剂盒,复合扩增15个STR基因座,计算基因频率及法医学参数;收集国内其他10个群体的遗传学资料进行遗传距离和聚类分析。结果玉溪汉族群体15个STR基因座等位基因及基因型分布符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡定律,PD值在0.790 6～0.968 1之间,PE值在0.315 9～0.733 5之间,PIC值在0.554 6～0.856 4之间,15个基因座累积个体识别力为0.999 999 999 999 999 99,累积非父排除率为0.999 998。不同地区汉族群体间遗传距离分析提示,玉溪汉族与成都汉族遗传距离最近(0.004 0),其次是河南(0.004 5)和潮汕(0.004 7);内蒙古最远(0.036 1)。结论云南玉溪汉族15个STR基因座具有较高的遗传多态性,适于该群体的法医学应用,遗传关系分析结果可为该群体的起源、迁徙及与其他群体的遗传关系分析提供参考。     

Goldeneye~(TM) DNA身份鉴定系统22NC试剂盒的法医遗传学调查

目的调查Goldeneye TM DNA身份鉴定系统22NC试剂盒中所包含的21个常染色体STR基因座在汉族人群中的遗传学数据,并考察该试剂盒的法医学应用价值。方法应用Goldeneye TM DNA身份鉴定系统22NC试剂盒对华东地区500名汉族健康无关个体进行常染色体STR基因座分型检测,统计分析21个常染色体STR基因座的频率数据、群体遗传学参数及连锁不平衡状况。结果 21个常染色体STR基因座在华东汉族人群中均符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡,各基因座之间相互独立。DP值均大于0.85,在群体中的CDP值为1-3.616 5×10-26,二联体累积非父排除率为1-2.786 81×10-6,三联体累积非父排除率为1-8.545 82×10-10。结论Goldeneye TM DNA身份鉴定系统22NC试剂盒中所包含的21个常染色体STR基因座在华东汉族人群中具有良好的多态性,联合Goldeneye TM DNA身份鉴定系统20A可以满足双亲皆无的全同胞鉴定要求,为该类案件的解决提供便利的工具。     

台湾汉族群体15个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的为获得15个基因座在台湾汉族群体中的遗传学数据,探究其在法医学检验中的应用价值. 方法用ProwerPlex(r)16 System荧光标记试剂盒 (Promega公司)检测15个STR基因座的多态性. 结果在189例台湾汉族随机个体中,15个STR基因座分别检出6、7、15、15、19、10、8、8、7、8、10、8、9、6、19 个等位基因,各等位基因频率为0.002 6～0.452 4.观察杂合度(HO)为 0.608 2～0.926 1 ,期望杂合度(HE)为0.6103～0.916 2, 多态信息含量(PIC)为0.5491～0.9073,亲权排除率(PE)为0.353 2～0.826 4,个体识别率为0.609 1～0.914 3.累积亲权排除率(PE)为 0.999 999, 累积个体识别率为0.999 999 999. 结论该15个STR基因座具有很高的多态性,已可以满足大多数的亲权鉴定和法医学个人识别的需要.     

海南汉族人群19个STR基因座遗传多态性及其应用

目的建立海南地区汉族人群19个常染色体STR基因座的遗传多态性数据资料,并探讨此19-STR基因座系统在亲子鉴定中的应用。方法对海南汉族462例无血缘关系个体,采用Goldeneye~(TM) 20A系统复合扩增并检测,得到19个STR基因座的遗传数据信息;在283例亲子鉴定案例中,评价19-STR基因座系统的应用。结果 19个STR基因座的基因频率分布均符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡(P0.05),杂合度在0.603~0.914之间,累积个体识别率大于0.999 999 999 999 999,累积三联体非父排除率为0.999 999 994。283例亲子鉴定中,三联体170例,二联体113例;认定案例247例(87.3%),排除案例36例(12.7%);发生等位基因突变案例14例(4.9%),均为一步突变。结论 19个STR基因座中的14个基因座具有高度遗传多态性,19-STR基因座复合扩增分型系统具有较高的非父排除效能,可满足海南地区亲子鉴定的需要,同时应注意亲子鉴定中的基因突变现象。     

藏獒16个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的通过对449头藏獒的16个STR基因座遗传多态性进行研究,建立藏獒的基因多态性数据库。方法选用犬荧光标记16个STR复合扩增试剂盒进行PCR扩增,对扩增产物进行检测及统计学分析。结果 449头藏獒的16个STR基因座累积个体识别率为0.999 999 999 999 999,累积非父排除率为0.999 997 795,除FH2010(等位基因数10)、PEZ21(等位基因数12)、PEZ05(等位基因数13)外,其余STR基因座的等位基因数均在15个以上;16个STR基因座的杂合度均0.5,多态信息含量均0.7。结论 16个犬STR基因座在藏獒中具有较高的个体识别能力,可用于藏獒的个体识别和亲权鉴定。通过本研究获得的各种数据,可用于建立藏獒的DNA多态性数据库。     

贵州汉族19个STR基因座多态性及法医学应用

目的调查19个常染色体STR基因座在贵州汉族人群中的等位基因分布,评估其在法医学中的应用价值。方法应用Goldeneye~(TM) DNA身份鉴定系统20A试剂盒,研究贵州520名汉族无关健康个体19个常染色体STR基因座多态性。用310型遗传分析仪进行毛细管电泳,Gene Mapper~ID v3.1进行基因分型。结果 19个常染色体STR基因座的杂合度为0.603 8~0.916 4,个体识别率为0.790 0~0.985 6,非父排除率为0.295 5~0.826 9,多态信息含量为0.553 5~0.908 9,累积个体识别率为1-1.230 0×10~(-22),累积非父排除率为0.999 999 99。贵州汉族和其他五个地域的汉族两两之间等位基因频率比较,仅贵州汉族与山东汉族、辽宁汉族、山西汉族之间存在基因频率差异具有统计学意义。结论 D19S433等19个常染色体STR基因座在贵州汉族人群中具有良好的遗传多态性,对群体遗传学和法医物证学研究有应用价值。     

山东汉族人群19个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的调查山东汉族人群19个STR基因座的群体遗传学资料,为亲权鉴定提供遗传学数据。方法采用GoldeneyeTM20A试剂盒对山东汉族人群中205例无关个体进行基因分型,得到19个STR基因座的等位基因频率及群体遗传学参数。对Identifile一、SinoFilerTM、PowerPlex16和GoldeneyeTM20A4个试剂盒进行比较,并对l例特殊的亲子鉴定案件进行分析。结果获得山东汉族人群19个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。累积个体识别率（CDP）及累积非父排除率（CPE）从高到低分别为GoldeneyeTM20A、SinoFilerTM、PowerPlex16、IdentifilerTM试剂盒。对实际案件进行分析．作为二联体,IdentifilerTM试剂盒无被排除基因座,而SinoFilerTM、PowerPlex16和GoldeneyeTM20A试剂盒均不能排除父子关系。结论与IdentifilerTM、SinoFilerYn和PowerPlex163种试剂盒进行比较．GoldeneyeTM20A试剂盒效能更高．但不能完全满足二联体鉴定的要求。     

贵州省汉族群体22个STR基因座遗传多态性

应用Power PlexFusion 5色荧光标记复合扩增系统,对605名贵州省汉族无关个体22个常染色体STR基因座遗传多态性进行调查。结果 22个STR基因座共观察到260个等位基因,945种基因型,各基因座基因型分布均符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡定律(P0.05)。22个基因座遗传学参数值范围分别为:H值0.625~0.929,DP值0.804~0.985,PE值0.322~0.855,PIC值0.57~0.91,累计非父排除概率为0.999 999 999,累计个人识别率为1-1.301 4×10-26。22个STR基因座在贵州汉族人群中具有良好的遗传多态性,具有较高的法医学应用价值。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Monks Who Have Sex: Pārājika Penance in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms

In the study of Buddhism it is commonly accepted that a monk or nun who commits a pārājika offence is permanently and irrevocably expelled from the Buddhist monastic order. This view is based primarily on readings of the Pāli Vinaya. With the exception of the Pāli Vinaya, however, all other extant Buddhist monastic law codes (Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṅghika, Mahīśāsaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda) contain detailed provisions for monks and nuns who commit pārājikas but nevertheless wish to remain within the saṅgha. These monastics are not expelled. Rather, they are granted a special status known as the śikṣādattaka. In this paper I explore the rules. concerning pārājika penance and the śikṣādattaka with specific regard to monastic celibacy. Given that five out of six extant law codes recognise this remarkable accommodation to the rule of celibacy, I argue that we must look to Vinayas other than the Pāli Vinaya if we are to arrive at a nuanced and representative view of Indian Buddhist monasticism.

Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.)

     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Anyathākhyāti</Emphasis>: A Critique by Appaya Dīkṣita in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Parimala</Emphasis>

In this paper, the problem of illusory perception, as approached by the Nyāya and Advaita Vedānta schools of philosophy, is discussed from the standpoint of the Parimala. This seminal work belonging to the Bhāmatī tradition of Advaita Vedānta was composed in the sixteenth century by the polymath Appaya Dīk?ita. In the context of discussing various theories of illusion, Dīk?ita dwells upon the Nyāya theory of anyathākhyāti, and its connection with jñānalak?a?apratyāsatti as a causal factor for perception, and closely examines if such an extraordinary (alaukika) perception is tenable to explain illusory perception. He then proceeds to point out the deficiencies of this model and thereby brings to the fore the anirvacanīyakhyāti of Advaitins as the only theory which stands scrutiny.