六色荧光标记快速PCR扩增体系的建立及验证

目的建立PCR快速扩增程序和体系,并对其技术指标进行验证。方法采用六色荧光标记技术,对24个常染色体STR基因座、1个Y-STR基因座和Amelogenin、Y-In Del基因座进行复合扩增及毛细管电泳检测,同时考察体系的灵敏度、特异性、同一性、稳定性、混合样本及批量样本测试,并观察各种常见检材及降解、脱落细胞检材的分型情况。结果所建立的体系灵敏度达0.062 5 ng,快速扩增仅耗时65 min就可获得准确分型;种属特异性高;各种纸质血样本和混合、降解、脱落细胞检材的分型正确。结论本研究建立的快速扩增体系可显著提升检验速率,分型准确、稳定,对建立STR数据库、研究群体遗传学和进行法医学鉴定有重要意义。     

19个常染色体与4个Y染色体STR复合扩增体系的建立

目的建立19个常染色体STR及Amelogenin和4个Y染色体STR基因座复合扩增体系,并对其效能进行评估。方法用五色荧光标记20+4Y-STR基因座,建立同步扩增检测体系,用ABI 3130XL遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行电泳,GeneMapperID 3.2软件进行基因分型;检测体系的灵敏度、均衡性、稳定性、特异性、同一性和稳定性,并观察混合、降解及微量检材的分型情况。结果采用本文体系,DNA模板量在0.05~1.00ng时,分型准确,均衡性、特异性好;混合、降解及微量检材分型正确。该19个常染色体STR基因座的累计个人识别率大于0.999 999 999,三联体累计非父排除率达0.999 999 985,Y-STR单倍型多态性为0.592。结论本文建立的复合扩增体系分型准确,稳定,在法医学案件检验及数据库建设等方面有良好的应用前景。     

24个X-STR及7个Y-STR基因座复合扩增体系建立及法庭科学有效性验证

目的建立24个X-STR基因座及7个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行24个X-STR基因座的遗传多态性调查,并评价该体系的法医学应用价值。方法采用六色荧光标记技术,对24个X-STR基因座(DXS6803,DXS10159,DXS10146,DXS7132,DXS10075,DXS8378,DXS7424,DXS101,DXS6795,HUMARA,DXS10074,DXS6801,DXS6789,DXS10135,GATA144D04,DXS7423,DXS10101,HPRTB,DXS10148,GATA165B12,DXS10103,DXS8377,DXS6797,DXS6810)进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测;调查山东汉族1057名无关男性个体24个X-STR基因座的遗传多态性,并对系统性能进行评价。结果本文建立的复合扩增体系中的24个X-STR基因座,在1057名个体中共检出1057种单倍型。方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.0625ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论该复合扩增检测体系可以用于实际案例检验,弥补商品化X-STR基因座复合扩增检测体系的不足,联合应用加入的Y-STR基因座适用于混合斑的鉴别。     

29个Y-STR基因座复合扩增体系的建立CSCD

目的建立29个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行遗传多态性调查,并评价其法医学应用价值。方法采用五色荧光标记技术,对29个Y-STR基因座（DYS456、DYS389Ⅰ、DYS437、DYS447、DYS389Ⅱ、DYS438、DYS522、DYS460、DYS458、DYS622、DYS390、DYS392、DYS448、DYS449、DYS391、Y-GATA-H4、DYS388、DYS19、DYS385a/b、DYS527a/b、DYS393、DYS459a/b、DYS635、DYS439、DYS570和DYS627）进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测。调查山东汉族2 000名无关男性个体29个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性数据,并对系统性能进行检测。结果本方法同时检测29个Y-STR基因座,在2 000名个体中共检出1 981种单倍型,基因多样性在0.370 0～0.965 4。方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.05 ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论 29个Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测法可以用于实际案例检验,调查所获数据对建立Y-STR数据库的相关研究和应用具有重要意义。     

19个常染色体与4个Y染色体STR复合扩增体系的建立

目的建立19个常染色体STR及Amelogenin和4个Y染色体STR基因座复合扩增体系,并对其效能进行评估。方法用五色荧光标记20＋4Y—STR基因座,建立同步扩增检测体系,用ABI3130XL遗传分析仪对扩增产物进行电泳,GeneMapperID3．2软件进行基因分型;检测体系的灵敏度、均衡性、稳定性、特异性、同一性和稳定性,并观察混合、降解及微量检材的分型情况。结果采用本文体系,DNA模板量在0．05～1．00ng时,分型准确,均衡性、特异性好;混合、降解及微量检材分型正确。该19个常染色体STR基因座的累计个人识别率大于0．999999999,三联体累计非父排除率达0．999999985,Y—STR单倍型多态性为0．592。结论本文建立的复合扩增体系分型准确,稳定,在法医学案件检验及数据库建设等方面有良好的应用前景。     

9个Y-STR基因座荧光复合扩增系统的法医学应用

目的建立9个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增系统,提高Y-STR的法医学检测效能。方法6-FAM标记DYS434、Y-GATA-A10、DYS438、DYS439,HEX标记DYS531、DYS557、DYS448,TAMRA标记DYS456、DYS444引物,PCR复合扩增,毛细管电泳得到结果,考察扩增系统的个体识别能力、灵敏度、特异性、组织同一性。结果所建立的9个Y-STR复合扩增系统分型清晰,单倍型多样性达0.9968,特异性好,灵敏度高(0.5ngDNA),并且在男女混合斑检验上较常染色体STR分型更有优势。结论9个Y-STR复合扩增系统具有较高的识别能力,对建立Y染色体STR数据库,研究群体遗传学和进行法医学混合斑物证鉴定有重要意义。     

复合扩增20个Y-STR基因座及其法医学的应用

目的建立20个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行遗传多态性调查,并评价其法医学应用价值。方法采用五色荧光素标记技术,对20个Y-STR基因座(DYS391、DYS389Ⅰ、DYS390、DYS389Ⅱ、DYS438、DYS460、Y GATA H4、DYS456、DYS439、DYS635、DYS448、DYS393、DYS388、DYS437、DYS19、DYS392、DYS458、DYS447、DYS385 a/b)进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测;调查辽宁汉族376名无关男性个体20个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性数据;并对系统性能进行检测。结果本文方法同时检测20个Y-STR基因座,在376名个体中共检出376种单倍型,基因多样性在0.371 1～0.969 8之间;方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.062 5ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论20个Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测法可以用于实际案例检验,调查所获数据对建立Y-STR数据库和相关研究和应用具有重要意义。     

29个Y-STR基因座复合扩增体系的建立

目的建立29个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行遗传多态性调查,并评价其法医学应用价值。方法采用五色荧光标记技术,对29个Y-STR基因座(DYS456、DYS389Ⅰ、DYS437、DYS447、DYS389Ⅱ、DYS438、DYS522、DYS460、DYS458、DYS622、DYS390、DYS392、DYS448、DYS449、DYS391、Y-GATA-H4、DYS388、DYS19、DYS385a/b、DYS527a/b、DYS393、DYS459a/b、DYS635、DYS439、DYS570和DYS627)进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测。调查山东汉族2 000名无关男性个体29个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性数据,并对系统性能进行检测。结果本方法同时检测29个Y-STR基因座,在2 000名个体中共检出1 981种单倍型,基因多样性在0.370 0~0.965 4。方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.05 ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论 29个Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测法可以用于实际案例检验,调查所获数据对建立Y-STR数据库的相关研究和应用具有重要意义。     

39个Y-STR基因座复合扩增体系的建立及其在法医学上的应用

目的建立39个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行遗传多态性调查,并评价其法医学应用价值。方法采用六色荧光标记技术,对39个Y-STR基因座(DYS426,DYS593,DYS630,YPENTA1,DYS722,DYS617,YPENTA2,DYS443,Y-GATA-A10,DYS561,DYF404S1,DYS464,DYS713,DYS446,DYS607,DYS708,DYS622,DYS707,DYS520,DYS434,DYS505,DYS709,DYS552,DYS510,DYS508,DYS531,DYS459,DYS587,DYF411S1,DYS594和DYF399S1)进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测;调查山东汉族1031名无关男性个体39个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性,并对系统性能进行评价。结果本文建立的39个Y-STR基因座复合扩增体系,在1031名个体中共检出1030种单倍型;39个Y-STR基因座基因多样性在0.0982～0.9951之间;方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.0625ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论 39个Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测体系可以用于实际案例检验,弥补现有Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测体系的不足,并可细分家系,调查所获数据对建立Y-STR数据库等相关研究具有重要意义。     

24个Y-STR基因座荧光标记复合扩增体系的建立

目的构建包含24个Y-STR基因座的荧光标记复合扩增体系。方法选择DYS531、DYS630、DYS622、DYS552、DYS510、DYS449、DYS459a/b、DYS446、DYS443、DYS635、DYS587、DYS527a/b、DYS460、Y-GATA-A10、DYS520、DYS557、DYS522、DYS481、DYS570、DYS385a/b、DYS444 24个Y-STR基因座,构建荧光复合扩增体系。检测该体系的特异性、同一性、灵敏度、扩增均衡性、抗干扰性和准确性,调查其在广东地区人群的基因多样性。结果建立的复合扩增体系在检测的非人类及女性样本中未发现谱带,同一个体不同组织检测结果一致,0.1 ng以上标准品9948可检测获得完整分型结果。常见抑制物中体系内加入120~200μmol/L血红素、1.5~2.0 mmol/L钙离子时出现等位基因丢失,对靛蓝、腐殖酸、EDTA具有较强抗干扰性。通过146例无关个体与Yfiler系统平行检测比对,24 Y-STR检测体系分型准确。广东地区人群单倍型多样性(HD)为0.999 72,优于Yfiler系统(HD=0.998 58)。结论本研究建立的24个Y-STR基因座荧光标记复合扩增体系法医学应用前景广阔,可用于案件检验、亲权鉴定与Y-STR数据库建设。     

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.