49 research outputs found
Heavy chain dominance in the binding of DNA by a lupus mouse monoclonal autoantibody.
No full textAntibodies H241 and 2C10 are lupus mouse IgG autoantibodies that bind native DNA. In previous experiments, oligonucleotide antigens affinity-labeled both H and L chains of H241 but only the H chain of antibody 2C10. Primary structures of the V regions of the 2C10 H and L chains and the H241 L chain, determined from cDNA, help to explain the previous affinity-labeling experiments. The 2C10 L chain CDRs had several Asp residues and a net negative charge of five, whereas the 2C10 H chain CDRs had four Arg residues and a net positive charge of five. The L chain CDRs of H241 had a net positive charge of one. [The H241 H chain cDNA sequence was published previously by Gangemi et al. (1993) J. Immun. 151, 4660-4671]. Plasmid vectors were used for bacterial expression of H and L chains of 2C10 alone and in combinations in single chain Fv (scFv) molecules. The H chain alone bound native DNA as well as or better than the H-plus-L chain scFv. The H chain alone also bound Z-DNA. Combination of the 2C10 H chain with the L chain of an anti-Z-DNA antibody maintained the selectivity for Z-DNA, whereas its combination with the 2C10 L chain (in the 2C10 Fab) yielded selective B-DNA binding. The results with 2C10 match other examples in which the H chain is sufficient for DNA binding but selectivity is modulated by the L chain. The H chain binding to autoantigen may reflect selective events in early stages of B cell development
Effects of nutrition education on magnesium intake during pregnancy
No full textInternational audienc
Hiérarchie et patronage : Les relations de travail dans l'administration russe au XVIIIe siècle
No full text«Hierarchy and patronage: Work relations in eighteenth-century Russian administration»The importance of patronage and cronyism in hierarchical work relations among government officials is well known. At the crossroads of the history of institutions and administrative practices and personnel, this study elucidates the special characteristics of institutional patronage and cronyism and explores the role they play in work relations. In the first part, the author makes reference to work relations specific to Muscovite chancelleries (prikazy) at the end of the seventeenth century; then, she evokes the main measures of Peter I's reform of central government agencies and points to what impact on hierarchical work relations the reformer expected them to have; lastly, she analyses the reasons for and effects of the oppositions of certain senior officials to these measures. The second part deals with the period between 1725 and the 1780s and reveals thah behind the smooth façade of Petrine institutions, relations of the ancient type still prevailed. In the last part, which focuses on the reign of Catherine II, the author pinpoints the early stages of a significant evolution in the way senior and junior officials viewed the nature of hierarchical relations, and gives her interpretation of the various causes of those changes.L'importance des relations de patronage et de clientèle dans lesrapports hiérarchiques de travail entre les agentsadministratifs est bien connue. Au croisement de l'histoire desinstitutions, des pratiques et des personnels administratifs, leprésent article élucide la spécificité du patronage et du clientélismeinstitutionnels et explore leur rôle dans les rapports de travail.Dans la première section de l'article, on illustre le type desrelations de travail caractéristiques des secrétariats moscovites(prikazy), à la fin du XVIIe siècle ; onrappelle les principales mesures de la réforme des agencesadministratives centrales menée par Pierre Ier tout en soulignantquelle aurait du être, du point de vue du réformateur, leur incidencesur les relations hiérarchiques de travail ; enfin, on analyse lescauses et les effets de l'opposition de certains dirigeantsadministratifs à ces mêmes mesures. La deuxième section, qui porte sur la période de 1725 aux années 1780, fait découvrir, dissimuléesderrière la façade régulière des institutions pétroviennes, lesrelations de travail du type ancien. La dernière section, consacrée aurègne de Catherine II, met en lumière le début d'une évolutionimportante dans les jugements portés par les supérieurs et lessubordonnés sur la nature des relations hiérarchiques, et interprèteles différentes causes des changements observés
Hiérarchie et patronage
No full textRésuméL’importance des relations de patronage et de clientèle dans les rapports hiérarchiques de travail entre les agents administratifs est bien connue. Au croisement de l’histoire des institutions, des pratiques et des personnels administratifs, le présent article élucide la spécificité du patronage et du clientélisme institutionnels et explore leur rôle dans les rapports de travail. Dans la première section de l’article est illustré le type des relations de travail caractéristiques des secrétariats moscovites (prikazy), à la fin du xviie siècle ; les principales mesures de la réforme des agences administratives centrales menée par Pierre Ier sont rappelées, tout en soulignant quelle aurait dû être, du point de vue du réformateur, leur incidence sur les relations hiérarchiques de travail ; enfin, son analysées les causes et les effets de l’opposition de certains dirigeants administratifs à ces mêmes mesures. La deuxième section, qui porte sur la période de 1725 aux années 1780, dévoile, dissimulées derrière la façade régulière des institutions pétroviennes, les relations de travail du type ancien. La dernière section, consacrée au règne de Catherine II, met en lumière le début d’une évolution importante dans les jugements portés par les supérieurs et les subordonnés sur la nature des relations hiérarchiques et interprète les différentes causes des changements observés.AbstractHierarchy and patronage : Work relations in eighteenth-century Russian administrationThe importance of patronage and cronyism in hierarchical work relations among government officials is well known. At the crossroads of the history of institutions and administrative practices and personnel, the present study elucidates the special characteristics of institutional patronage and cronyism and explores the role they play in work relations. In the first part, the author makes reference to work relations specific to Muscovite chancelleries (prikazy) at the end of the seventeenth century ; then, she evokes the main measures of Peter I’s reform of central government agencies and points to what impact on hierarchical work relations the reformer expected them to have ; lastly, she analyses the reasons for and effects of the opposition of certain senior officials to these measures. The second part deals with the period between 1725 and the 1780s and reveals that behind the smooth façade of Petrine institutions, relations of the ancient type still prevailed. In the last part, which focuses on the reign of Catherine II, the author pinpoints the early stages of a significant evolution in the way senior and junior officials viewed the nature of hierarchical relations, and gives her interpretation of the various causes of those changes
Hiérarchie et patronage
No full textRésuméL’importance des relations de patronage et de clientèle dans les rapports hiérarchiques de travail entre les agents administratifs est bien connue. Au croisement de l’histoire des institutions, des pratiques et des personnels administratifs, le présent article élucide la spécificité du patronage et du clientélisme institutionnels et explore leur rôle dans les rapports de travail. Dans la première section de l’article est illustré le type des relations de travail caractéristiques des secrétariats moscovites (prikazy), à la fin du xviie siècle ; les principales mesures de la réforme des agences administratives centrales menée par Pierre Ier sont rappelées, tout en soulignant quelle aurait dû être, du point de vue du réformateur, leur incidence sur les relations hiérarchiques de travail ; enfin, son analysées les causes et les effets de l’opposition de certains dirigeants administratifs à ces mêmes mesures. La deuxième section, qui porte sur la période de 1725 aux années 1780, dévoile, dissimulées derrière la façade régulière des institutions pétroviennes, les relations de travail du type ancien. La dernière section, consacrée au règne de Catherine II, met en lumière le début d’une évolution importante dans les jugements portés par les supérieurs et les subordonnés sur la nature des relations hiérarchiques et interprète les différentes causes des changements observés.AbstractHierarchy and patronage : Work relations in eighteenth-century Russian administrationThe importance of patronage and cronyism in hierarchical work relations among government officials is well known. At the crossroads of the history of institutions and administrative practices and personnel, the present study elucidates the special characteristics of institutional patronage and cronyism and explores the role they play in work relations. In the first part, the author makes reference to work relations specific to Muscovite chancelleries (prikazy) at the end of the seventeenth century ; then, she evokes the main measures of Peter I’s reform of central government agencies and points to what impact on hierarchical work relations the reformer expected them to have ; lastly, she analyses the reasons for and effects of the opposition of certain senior officials to these measures. The second part deals with the period between 1725 and the 1780s and reveals that behind the smooth façade of Petrine institutions, relations of the ancient type still prevailed. In the last part, which focuses on the reign of Catherine II, the author pinpoints the early stages of a significant evolution in the way senior and junior officials viewed the nature of hierarchical relations, and gives her interpretation of the various causes of those changes
sigReannot:an oligo-set re-annotation pipeline based on similarities with the Ensembl transcripts and Unigene clusters
No full textMicroarray is a powerful technology enabling to monitor tens of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Most microarrays are now using oligo-sets. The design of the oligo-nucleotides is time consuming and error prone. Genome wide microarray oligo-sets are designed using as large a set of transcripts as possible in order to monitor as many genes as possible. Depending on the genome sequencing state and on the assembly state the knowledge of the existing transcripts can be very different. This knowledge evolves with the different genome builds and gene builds. Once the design is done the microarrays are often used for several years. The biologists working in EADGENE expressed the need of up-to-dated annotation files for the oligo-sets they share including information about the orthologous genes of model species, the Gene Ontology, the corresponding pathways and the chromosomal location
