HRP标记α—珠蛋白—3‘HVR探针进行DNA指纹分析的法医学应用研究

用ＨＲＰ标记α－珠蛋白－３ＨＶＲ ＤＮＡ探针，化学光增强法检测，获得清晰易读的ＤＮＡ指纹图，分析２１名广东地区无关个体的ＤＮＡ指纹图，平均每个个体有１９．７条谱带，灵敏度接近同位素＾３２Ｐ标记探针的水平，两个我关个体间出现同一谱带的相关 率为０．２１９。将此方法用于亲子鉴定，取得了令人满意的结果。     

33.15及33.6探针对中国人DNA指纹图的研究

目的 统计用３３．１５及３３．６探针对中国人进行ＤＮＡ指纹图检验的群体调查资料，为实际案件的检验提供理论依据。方法 应用３３．１５及３３．６探针为中国北京地区无关群体的血液进行ＤＮＡ指纹图分析。结果 应用３３．１５探针检验１５人的ＤＮＡ指纹图，无关个体间相关机率为１．０３×１０＾－１５，两无关个体间出现同一谱带的平均概率０．１７６；应用３３．６探针检验１９人的ＤＮＡ指纹图，无关个体间相关机率为１．     

DNA指纹技术在亲子鉴定中的应用

用非放射性标记α－珠蛋白－３＇ＨＶＲ探针在低强度洗涤条件下，对人的ＤＮＡ指纹进行了分析，获得了清晰易读的ＤＮＡ指纹图。并用该方法调查了云南省的７８名无关个体，经统计学分析，计算出无关个体的相关机率是２．４×１０－４。用该方法进行亲子鉴定，获得了满意的结果，用ＨｉｎｆⅠ和ＨｅａⅢ两种内切酶酶切，解决了子代陌生带问题，用该方法对二十余起亲权纠纷案进行了鉴定，证明该方法稳定、结果可靠，父权肯定机率均在９９．９％以上。     

HRP标记α-珠蛋白-3′HVR探针进行DNA指纹分析的法医学应用研究

用ＩＩＲＰ标记α－珠蛋白－３′ＨＶＲＤＮＡ探针，化学光增强法检测，获得清晰易读的ＤＮＡ指纹图、分析引名广东地区无关个体的ＤＮＡ指纹图、平均每个个体有１９７条谱带，灵敏度接近同位素３２Ｐ标记探针的水平．两个无关个体间出现同一谱带的相关率为０．２１９。将此方法用于亲子鉴定，取得了令人满意的结果。     

第三讲 法医DNA分型技术与方法

法医ＤＮＡ分型利用分子生物学技术检测、分析人类遗传标记 ,进行个体识别和亲子鉴定。 80年代以来 ,法医ＤＮＡ分型技术跨越了两大步 ,第一代分型是以ＤＮＡ分子杂交为核心的限制性片段长度多态性分析技术 ;第二代是以聚合酶链反应 (ＰＣＲ)为基础衍生出的各种ＤＮＡ标记分析技术。1　限制性片段长度多态性分析技术早年Ｊｅｆｆｒｅｙｓ建立的ＤＮＡ指纹技术本质是ＤＮＡ限制性片段长度多态性 (ＲＦＬＰ)分析 ,技术核心是ＤＮＡ分子杂交。ＤＮＡ指纹图谱的特异性取决于 2个因素 :一是限制性核酸内切酶特异性 ;二是探针特异性。ＲＦＬＰ分析…     

JL-02多位点探针DNA指纹的法医学应用研究

以自制的JL－02探针进行了DNA指纹分析，对北京地区无关个体进行了调查，计算出任意两无关个体的偶合机率为6．6×10－15；家系分析表明，谱带在亲代与子代间的传递符合孟德尔遗传规律；同一个体不同组织的DNA指纹图相同；混合斑精子DNA指纹图与相应男性血液DNA指纹图完全相同；该探针对0．5μg的基因组DNA杂交，可获得清晰可辩的DNA指纹图。证明了新探针适用于法医物证检验中的个人同一认定及亲子鉴定。     

33.15及33.6探针对中国人DNA指纹图的研究

目的统计用33．15及33．6探针对中国人进行DNA指纹图检验的群体调查资料，为实际案件的检验提供理论依据。方法应用33．15及33．6探针为中国北京地区无关群体的血液进行DNA指纹图分析。结果应用33．15探针检验15人的DNA指纹图，无关个体间相关机率为1．03×10-15，两无关个体间出现同一谱带的平均概率0．176；应用33．6探针检验19人的DNA指纹图，无关个体间相关机率为1．53×11-11，两无关个体间出现同一港带的平均概率为0．187；两探针均符合孟德尔遗传规律，均具有组织同一性。结论本研究结果可应用于法医物证检验的亲子鉴定及个体识别。     

HinfⅠ和HaeⅢ酶解条件对DNA指纹图的影响

用辣根过氧化物酶标记α-珠蛋白-3’－HVR探针检测同一个体的DNA，其所产生的DNA指纹图谱带随着酶解条件的变化而发生改变。由于谱带的改变，给亲子关系的同一认定带来了困难，尤其是多位点探针的检测。为了了解Hinfl和Hae皿两种酶在不同酶解时间和不同酶量的条件下对DNA指纹图谱带的影响，本文作者利用多位点探针a一珠蛋白一3’－HVR和单位点探针MSS进行检测VNTR图谱的实验。材料与方法一、材料1．无关个体血液样品取自平时破案中所剩检材；2．琼服糖（美国signla公司产）；3．Hinfl和HaeI（美国premagem公司）4．非同位素标记…     

中国黎族人群13个STR基因座的多态性调查

应用四色荧光标记引物复合扩增技术 ,对 2 13名黎族无关个体的 13个ＳＴＲ基因座进行分型研究 ,计算中国黎族 13个ＳＴＲ基因座的基因频率 ,统计分析各基因座的杂合度 (Ｈ)、多态信息总量 (ＰＩＣ)、个体识别机率 (Ｄｐ)及累积个体识别率、累积非父排除率。1　材料和方法1 1　材料黎族无关个体血样 2 13份 ,取自海南省琼中黎族自治县、陵水黎族自治县等黎族居住地。抽取静脉血液涂布于滤纸上 ,阴干保存。1 2　方法1 2 1　ＤＮＡ提取　所有检材均应用Ｃｈｅｌｅｘ 10 0法提取ＤＮＡ。1 2 2　ＰＣＲ试剂　用ＡＢＩ公司Ｐｒｏｆｉｌｅｒ Ｐｌ…     

广州地区汉族人群PentaD及PentaESTR基因座频率

应用ＰｏｗｅｒＰｌｅｘＴＭ16ｓｙｓｔｅｍ (Ｐｒｏｍｅｇａ)荧光标记复合扩增试剂盒对广州地区汉族无关个体进行遗传多态性调查 ,报道如下。1　材料和方法1 1　实验材料广州地区汉族 170份无关个体血样取自广州市中心血站 ,男性 90例、女性 80例。30个家系样本取自本室采集的已确定亲生关系的家系。1 2　主要仪器与试剂970 0型热循环仪、ＡＢＩ 377 96全自动测序仪(ＰＥ公司 )。ＰｏｗｅｒＰｌｅｘＴＭ16ｓｙｓｔｅｍ荧光标记复合扩增试剂盒 ,内标 (Ｐｒｏｍｅｇａ公司 )。凝胶试剂 (ＰＥ公司 )。1 3　计算机分析系统电泳收集软件ＡＢＩＰ…     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.