中国东部蒙古族人群15个STR基因座多态性研究

目的调查15个STR基因座在中国东部蒙古族人群中的基因频率分布。方法应用四色荧光标记引物复合扩增技术,对105名东部蒙古族无关个的血样15个STR基因座进行多态性研究。结果在东部蒙古族人群中15个STR基因座偶合率在0.0084～0.2169之间,个体识别概率(DP)在0.7831～0.9916之间,杂合度在0.5619～0.9231之间,三联非父排除率(PE)在0.4490～0.8444之间,多态性信息总量(PIC)在0.5438～0.9178之间,15个STR基因座总TDP值为0.9999999999998,所有基因座经χ2检验符合Hard-Weinberg平衡。结论上述15个STR基因座在东部蒙古族人群中等位基因分布较好,个体识别率高,适合法医个体识别和亲子鉴定。     

中国鄂温克族人群15个STR基因座多态性研究

目的调查15个STR基因座在中国鄂温克族人群中的基因频率分布。方法应用PowerPlex16System复合扩增系统,对99名鄂温克族无关个的血样DNA进行多态性研究。结果在鄂温克族人群中15个STR基因座偶合率(Pm)在0.0205～0.1733之间,个体识别概率(DP)在0.8267～0.9795之间,杂合度在0.6061～0.9091之间,三联非父排除率(PE)在0.4038～0.7690之间,多态性信息总量(PIC)在0.5985～0.8734之间,15个STR基因座总TDP值为0.9999999999998,所有基因座经χ2检验符合Hard-Weinberg平衡。结论上述15个STR基因座在鄂温克族人群中等位基因分布较好,个体识别率高,适合法医个体识别和亲子鉴定。     

广东省瑶族人群15个STR基因座的多态性调查

目的调查广东省瑶族人群无关个体 15个STR基因座 (D3S135 8、TH0 1、D2 1S11、D18S5 1、PentaE、D5S818、D13S317、D7S82 0、D16S5 39、CSF1PO、PentaD、vWA、D8S1179、TPOX、FGA)的多态性 ,研究其在法医学检验中的应用价值。方法应用PowerplexTM16荧光标记复合扩增系统对 2 2 2例广东省瑶族无关个体血样DNA进行 15个STR基因座的复合扩增 ,用ABI 310 0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PowerplexTM16荧光标记系统的 15个STR基因座在广东省瑶族人群的累积偶合率为 7 5 8× 10 - 17,三联体累积非父排除率为 0 999998,二联体累积非父排除率为 0 9996 6。结论本研究 15个STR基因座可满足广东省瑶族人群法医学的个体识别及亲权鉴定的需要。     

天津汉族人群12个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的　建立天津汉族 2 10名无关男性人群 12个Y STR基因座单倍型分布基础遗传数据库。探讨其法医学应用价值。方法　应用PowerPlex YSystem (PromegeCorporation ,USA)荧光标记复合扩增系统、ABI 310 /377型基因分析仪进行检测 ,统计各基因座的单倍体基因频率 ,计算其GD值即基因差异性 (GeneDiversi ty)。结果　 12个Y STR基因座中共检出 2 0 8种单倍型。其中 ,2 0 6种单倍型均出现 1次 ,2种单倍型出现 2次。GD值在 0 32 5 9～ 0 8810之间 ,累计GD值 (TGD)为 0 9999988。另对 2 8个父性家系调查显示 :同一家系(2～ 7名男性 ) 12个Y STR基因座单倍型一致。结论　天津汉族 12个Y STR基因座多态性分布良好 ,父系遗传稳定 ,适用于法庭科学中的个体识别和亲权鉴定     

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.     

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) 16System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 .0 0 2 6～ 0 .452 4。观察杂合度 (HO)为 0 .60 82～ 0 .92 61,期望杂合度 (HE)为 0 .610 3～ 0 .9162 ,多态信息含量 (PIC)为 0 .5491～ 0 .90 73 ,亲权排除率 (PE)为 0 .3 53 2～ 0 .82 64,个体识别率为 0 .60 91～ 0 .914 3。累积亲权排除率 (PE)为 0 .999999,累积个体识别率为 0 .999999999。　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     

新疆克州维吾尔族15个常染色体STR和10个Y-STR遗传多态性

本文应用ExpressMarker 16+10Y荧光检测试剂盒,对中国新疆克州地区维吾尔族人群239个无关个体15个常染色体STR、10个Y染色体STR基因座遗传多态性进行调查。结果在15个常染色体STR基因座共检出155种等位基因,其分布符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡定律(P>0.05)。累计个体识别率为1-3.3574×10-18,累计非父排除率达0.999 999 244。对所调查的维族人群,本文15个常染色体STR基因座具有较好的识别能力,10个Y染色体STR基因座做了很好的补充,适宜法庭科学DNA建库。     

新疆克州维吾尔族15个常染色体STR和10个Y-STR遗传多态性

本文应用ExpressMarker 16+10Y荧光检测试剂盒,对中国新疆克州地区维吾尔族人群239个无关个体15个常染色体STR、10个Y染色体STR基因座遗传多态性进行调查。结果在15个常染色体STR基因座共检出155种等位基因,其分布符合Hardy-Weinberg平衡定律(P0.05)。累计个体识别率为1-3.3574×10-18,累计非父排除率达0.999 999 244。对所调查的维族人群,本文15个常染色体STR基因座具有较好的识别能力,10个Y染色体STR基因座做了很好的补充,适宜法庭科学DNA建库。     

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。     

新疆维吾尔族15个STR基因座的遗传多态性

目的　建立新疆维吾尔族 1 5个STR基因座的等位基因分布基础遗传数据库 ,并比较其与天津汉族群体调查结果的差异。方法　应用荧光标记复合扩增、ABI 31 0 0 (Avant)型基因分析仪检测新疆 2 6 5名无关个体AmpFeSTR○RIdentifilerTM系统 ,统计 1 5个STR基因座的群体遗传参数。结果　 2 6 5名无关个体 1 5个STR基因座中共检出 1 5 7个等位基因及 5 2 3种基因型 ,累计个体识别力 (TDP)为 0 999999999999999998,累积非父排除能力 (PE)为 0 .99999984 (三联体 )。结论　新疆维族 1 5个STR基因座的等位基因呈高度多态性分布 ,与天津汉族群体调查数据无显著差异 ,适用于个体识别和亲权鉴定     

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.