广西地区3个群体15个STR基因座频率多态性

目的调查广西地区仡佬族、仫佬族、瑶族无关个体的15个STR基因座(D8S1179、1321S11、D7S820、CSF1PO、D3S1358、TH01、D13S317、D16S539、D2S1338、D19S433、vWA、TPOX、D18S51、D5S818、FGA)多态性,研究其在法医学检验中的应用价值。方法 应用AmpFISTR IdentifilerTM荧光标记复合扩增系统,对314例仡佬族、332例仫佬族、238例瑶族无关个体血样DNA进行15个STR基因座的复合扩增,用ABI 3100遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行检测,GeneScan、GenoTyper软件进行基因分型,统计计算15个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。结果IdertifilerTM系统的15个STR基因座在仡佬、仫佬、瑶族的累积偶合率为1.839×10-16~5.073×10-17,累积非父排除率为0.9999983~0.9999991。结论该15个STR基因座足可满足仡佬族、仫佬族、瑶族法医学的个体识别及亲权鉴定的需要。     

广西苗族人群15个STR基因座的多态性调查

目的调查广西苗族人群无关个体的15个STR基因座(D8S1179、D21S11、D7S820、CSF1PO、D3S1358、TH01、D13S317、D16S539、D2S1338、D19S433、vWA、TPOX、D18S51、D5S818、FGA)多态性,研究其在法医学检验中的应用价值。方法应用AmpFlSTRIdentifilerTM荧光标记复合扩增系统对274例广西苗族无关个体血样DNA进行15个STR基因座的复合扩增,用ABI3100遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行检测,用GeneScan、GenoTyper软件进行基因分型,统计计算15个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。结果IdentifilerTM荧光标记系统的15个STR基因座在广西苗族人群的累积偶合率为5.04×10-17,累积非父排除率分别为0.9999993。结论该15个STR基因座可满足广西苗族人群法医学的个体识别及亲权鉴定的需要。     

南方汉族、黎族人群15个STR基因座频率调查

目的调查南方汉族、黎族人群无关个体的15个STR基因座(D8S1179、D21S11、D7S820、CSF1PO、D3S1358、TH01、D13S317、D16S539、D2S1338、D19S433、vWA、TPOX、D18S51、D5S818、FGA)多态性,研究其在法医学检验中的应用价值。方法应用AmpFlSTRIdentifilerTM荧光标记复合扩增系统对南方332例汉族、334例黎族无关个体血样DNA进行15个STR基因座的复合扩增,用ABI3100遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行检测,用GeneScan、GenoTyper软件进行基因分型,统计计算15个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。结果IdentifilerTM荧光标记系统的15个STR基因座在南方汉族、黎族人群的累积偶合率分别为4.94×10-17、2.50×10-17,累积非父排除率分别为0.9999989、0.9999988。结论该15个STR基因座足可满足南方汉族、黎族法医学的个体识别及亲权鉴定的需要。     

天津地区朝鲜族9个STR基因座遗传多态性

目的　调查天津地区朝鲜族人群无关个体 9个STR基因座 (D3S135 8、vWA、FGA、D8S1179、D2 1S11、D18S5 1、D5S818、D13S17、D7S82 0 )多态性分布 ,研究其在法医学检验中的应用。方法　应用AmpFLSTR○R　ProfilerPlusTM荧光标记复合扩增系统对 184例天津地区朝鲜族无关个体血样DNA进行 9个STR基因座的复合扩增 ,用ABI310遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行检测 ,用GeneScan、GenoTyper软件进行基因分型 ,统计计算 9个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。结果　该群体上述 9个STR基因座检出的等位基因及其基因型多态性分布良好 ,经校验 ,符合Hardy Weinberg平衡定律 ,累计个体识别力 (TDP)为 0 99999999996 ,偶合率为 4 .0 6×10 - 11,累积非父排除能力 (PE)为 0 9899。结论　上述 9个STR基因座适用于本地区该群体各类案件的法医学个体识别和亲权鉴定。     

6个五核苷酸STR基因座荧光复合扩增体系的建立

目的 构建6个五核苷酸STR基因座荧光复合扩增体系。方法筛选6个多态性程度较高的五核苷酸STR基因座D10S2325、Penta B、Penta W、PentaX、Penta D和PentaE,按照复合扩增引物设计要求,重新设计引物并标记荧光染料,经反复调整和优化,构建6基因座荧光复合扩增体系,并用该复合扩增体系对239名武汉汉族无关个体进行分型。结果6个五核苷酸STR基因座荧光复合扩增体系分型稳定,可重复性好,与各自相应单基因座分型结果完全一致;累积个人识别率达0．999999988,累积非父排除率达0．998063807。结论本文构建的6个五核苷酸STR基因座荧光复合扩增体系具有很高的法医学实用价值,可作为商品化试剂盒的有效补充。     

北京地区汉族人群6个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的对北京地区汉族人群遗传数据进行调查研究。方法利用PCR自动化检测技术检测中国北京地区汉族人群D1S1656,D10S2325,D11S2368,D12S391,D14S1434及GATA198B05共6个STR基因座的遗传多态性,获得6个STR基因座的群体遗传学数据,评价其法医学应用价值。结果6个STR基因座的个体鉴别力（Discrimination power,DP）在0．9777-0．8769之间,多态性信息含量（Polymorphism information content,PIC）在0．6867-0．8801之间,杂合度（Heterozygosity,H）在0．7219～O．8684之间,非父排除率（Probability of paternity exclusion,PE）在0．4456-0．6793之间,累积个体鉴别力为0．99999997,累积非父排除率为0．995765192。结论6个STR基因座等位基因频率分布均匀,多态性高,适用于法医学亲子鉴定及个人识别,可作为现有基因座的补充。     

广东广西地区5个群体9个STR基因座的频率调查

目的 调查广东汉族、广西汉族、广西侗族、广西壮族、广西苗族5个群体9个STR基因座多态性,探讨其在法医学检验中的应用价值。方法 应用AmpFISTR Profiler PlusTM荧光标记复合扩增系统,对广东广西5个群体4个民族的1191个无关个体的血样DNA进行9个STR基因座的复合扩增;用ABI 3100遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行分型,统计9个STR基因座的群体遗传学参数。结果 9个STR基因座在广东广西地区5个群体中的累积偶合率为1.51×10-11～8.08×10-11,累积非父排除率为0.99981—0.99990。,结论 该9个STR基因座可满足汉族、壮族、侗族、苗族群体法医学的个体识别及亲权鉴定的需要。     

6个新的STR基因座复合扩增体系的建立及应用

目的构建6个常染色体STR基因座的荧光复合扩增体系,应用于法医学DNA检验。方法筛选6个STR基因座D4S2366、D3S3045、D18S1002、D20S481、D22S689、D4S2639,根据复合扩增要求设计引物并采用不同荧光染料进行标记,经过反复调整和优化,建立6基因座荧光复合扩增体系,并用该复合扩增体系对224名华东汉族无关个体进行分型,计算出常用法医遗传学参数。结果使用该荧光复合扩增体系,在224名华东汉族无关个体中,6个STR基因座D4S2366、D3S3045、D18S1002、D20S481、D22S689、D4S2639分别检出7、8、9、10、9、9个等位基因和21、26、21、23、28、32种基因型,基因型分布符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡。杂合度（H）分布为0.714～0.808,个体识别率（DP）为0.874～0.934,二联体非父排除率（PED）为0.310～0.453,三联体非父排除率（PET）为0.485～0.628,多态信息含量（PIC）为0.672～0.784,二联体累积非父排除率（CPED）为0.947689,三联体累积非父排除率（CPET）为0.993345,累积个人识别能力（CDP）为0.999999543。结论构建的荧光复合扩增体系具有较高的法医学应用价值,D4S2366等6个常染色体STR基因座在华东汉族群体中均具有高度多态性,可作为常规商品化试剂盒的有效补充,用于突变情形的亲权鉴定以及依据亲权指数值不能明确鉴定意见的亲权鉴定。     

中国布里亚特蒙古族人群15个STR基因座的遗传多态性

应用PowerPlexTM16系统 (Promega)荧光标记复合扩增试剂盒 ,调查 15个STR基因座在中国布里亚特蒙古族人群中的基因频率分布 ,现报道如下。1　材料与方法布里亚特蒙古族人群无关个体血样 10 2份 (内蒙古包头医学院提供 ) ,按DNAIQTM试剂盒说明书的方法提取DNA ,提取DNA浓度为 1μg/ μl。用Power PlexTM16系统荧光标记试剂盒 (Promega) ,按说明书方法扩增D3S135 8、TH0 1、D2 1S11、D18S5 1、PentaE、D5S818、D13S317、D7S82 0、D16S5 39、CSF1PO、PentaD、vWA、D8S1179、TPOX、FGA共 15个STR基因座 ,310 0型全自…     

浙江畲族人群9个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的调查浙江畲族人群STR基因座的遗传多态性,为群体遗传学和法医学个人识别、亲子鉴定提供基础数据。方法采用AmpFlSTRProfilerPlus试剂盒(ABI公司),ABI310基因自动分析仪对浙江畲族120名无关个体血样的D3S1358、VWA、FGA、D8S1179、D21S11、D18S51、D5S818、D13S317和D7S820等9个STR基因座进行等位基因频率和基因型频率调查。结果获得浙江畲族人群9个STR基因座的基因频率分布资料,所有基因座基因型频率分布均符合Hardy—Weinberg平衡,计算得杂合度(H)0.655～0.960,个人识别率(DP)0.878～0.960,非父排除率(PE)0.363～0.677,多态信息总量(PIC)0.68～0.86。结论该9个STR基因座在浙江畲族人群中呈高度多态性,在法医学及人类遗传学研究中具有重要意义。     

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.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

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.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

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.