Blessed Virgin Mary – a sign of hope in Roman liturgy

Među naslovima kojima Crkva u liturgiji časti Blaženu Djevicu Mariju nalaze se i nazivi koji Mariju oslovljavaju kao znak, zoru i majku nade. U glavnom dijelu članka autor propitkuje primjenu tih naziva u euharistijskim slavljima i u molitvi Časoslova, konkretno u Gospinim blagdanima Bezgrješnoga začeća, Marijina rođenja i uznesenja, Marije Kraljice, zajedničkim slavljima Blažene Djevice Marije i molitvi Zdravo Kraljice. Kratak tumač objašnjava liturgijsku upotrebu tih naziva i u Zbirci misa o Blaženoj Djevici Mariji i u slavljima sv. Marije u subotu. U zaključku se naglašava činjenica kako novo usmjerenje crkvenog učenja o Isusovoj majci odlučno utječe na oblikovanje liturgijskih tekstova za marijanska spomenslavlja dajući im kristološko i ekleziološko usmjerenje.Among the titles with which the Church praises the Blessed Virgin Mary in Roman liturgy are also the appellations of Mary such as a sign of hope, the dawn of hope and the mother of hope. In the main part, the author discusses the use of these names in Eucharistic celebrations and in the Divine Office, precisely in the Feasts of the Immaculate Conception, the Marian Birth and Assumption, Queen Mary and in the common celebrations of the Blessed Virgin Mary as well as in the Prayer Salve Regina. A brief display and interpretation explain the liturgical use of these names in the collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary and in the celebration of St. Mary on Saturday. The conclusion underlines the fact that a new orientation of the Church’s teachings about Jesus’ Mother decisively influences the formulation and proposal of liturgical texts for the Marian celebrations, giving them a Christological and Ecclesiological character

ComPath: comparative enzyme analysis and annotation in pathway/subsystem contexts-0

and FASTA search methods in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Glucolysis/Gluconeogenesis pathway (Pathway ID: 00010) and five reference genomes were selected: (), (), and () from and () and () from . Three well-annotated genomes (,, (), and () were selected as query genomes to accurately evaluate performance of the four prediction methods. The plots show sensitivity and specificity of the four methods. See also Table 2.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "ComPath: comparative enzyme analysis and annotation in pathway/subsystem contexts"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/145</p><p>BMC Bioinformatics 2008;9():145-145.</p><p>Published online 6 Mar 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2277404.</p><p></p

Two boxplots of how the xenograft time-point and estimated subclone numbers are associated with sITH.

a) The X-axis represents when each xenograft tumor sample was collected. The Y-axis represents the sITH for each sample (including repeated measurements for 10 normal tissues randomly selected for each tumor sample). b) Same as a) except that the X-axis represents the number of subclones estimated by PyClone.</p

A scatter plot showing the correlation between <i>ITH</i>_{<i>transcript</i>} and <i>ITH</i>_{<i>intron</i>}.

The X axis represents ITHtranscript for each sample and the Y axis represents ITHintron.</p

Kaplan-Meier plots of the survival model using sITH and gITH: a) shows the model using sITH, and b) shows the model using gITH.

Kaplan-Meier plots of the survival model using sITH and gITH: a) shows the model using sITH, and b) shows the model using gITH.</p

Illustration of an intronic splicing unit.

An intronic splicing unit is defined as a set of splicing events that share a common splicing site (i.e., donor or receiver) in the intronic domain. Each intronic splicing unit consists of an isoform usage distribution of each sample in each locus. Here, the splice-site usage distribution is calculated by the number of RNA-seq reads that support each alternative splice-site (shown in red, purple, and green in the figure).</p

A table to summarize the number of samples for each type of cancer used in each comparison.

A table to summarize the number of samples for each type of cancer used in each comparison.</p

A boxplot showing the association of sITH, gITH and cancer stages in each sample.

a) The X-axis represents the cancer stage of each sample (1 to 4 stages). The Y-axis represents the sITH value of each sample. b) Same as a), but in this case, the Y-axis represents the gITH value of each sample. The results show that both sITH and gITH have a significant correlation with the cancer stage, and the significance is greater in sITH. The sITH and gITH values were standardized by dividing the maximum value between samples so that the distribution of the data is easily understood.</p

Description of each approach using various molecular domains.

Description of each approach using various molecular domains.</p

A scatter plot representing the relationship between gITH and sITH.

A scatter plot representing the relationship between gITH and sITH.</p