Cry1Ac1 단백질을 발현하는 양배추의 비표적 절지동물 종들에 미치는 생태적 영향

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 농생명공학부, 2017. 2. 이준호.With the rapid advancement of molecular technique, transgenic crops that have much kind of traits, such as pest resistance and herbicide resistance were developed. These beneficial traits have helped reduce the damage from pests or cost of herbicide use. As a result, transgenic crops have been commercially cultivated since 1996, and those have been increasing dramatically over the last decades. However, concerns remain about the potential adverse effects of such crops on ecosystems. Especially, among the organisms that interact closely with transgenic crops, primary consumers (herbivores) and upper trophic level arthropods (predators and parasitoids) can be affected by crops. Therefore, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Living Modified Organisms Act stipulate that the scientific and reasonable environmental risk assessment should be conducted. In the present study deals mainly with the environmental risk assessment of transgenic Bt cabbage expressing the insecticidal Cry1Ac1 protein which was aimed at controlling lepidopteran pests. This study comprised three parts. (1) Levels of Bt protein in herbivorous and predatory arthropods in fields of Bt cabbage. (2) Effects of Bt cabbage on the survival and growth of the wolf spider, Pardosa astrigera. (3) Effects of transgenic cabbage expressing Cry1Ac1 protein on target pests and the non-target arthropod community under field conditions. Biosafety of transgenic crops are open to interpretation by scientific technique, food problem and social identity. This study may help to understand these problems.CHAPTER I 1 1.1 Advent of transgenic crops 2 1.2 Environmental risk assessment of transgenic crops using arthropod species 5 1.3 Insecticidal transgenic cabbage expressing Cry1Ac1 protein 7 1.4 Objective of this study 9 1.5 References 11 CHAPTER II 15 2.1 Effects of transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ac protein on target arthropods 16 2.2 Effects of transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ac protein on non-target arthropods under laboratory conditions 19 2.3 Effects of transgenic crops expressing Cry1Ac protein on non-target arthropods under field conditions 24 2.4 References 28 CHAPTER III 35 3.1 Introduction 37 3.2 Materials and methods 40 3.3 Results 44 3.4 Discussion 51 3.5 References 56 CHAPTER IV 62 4.1 Introduction 64 4.2 Materials and methods 68 4.3 Results 76 4.4 Discussion 85 4.5 Conclusions 87 4.6 References 88 CHAPTER V 95 5.1 Introduction 97 5.2 Materials and methods 99 5.3 Results 103 5.4 Discussion 124 5.5 Conclusions 128 5.6 References 128 CHAPTER VI 136 6.1 Overall Conclusion 137 6.2 Further studies 139 6.3 References 141 적요 144Docto

Die Angemessenheit des Notstands im kStGB

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 법학과, 2013. 2. 신동운.형법은 제22조에서 위난상황에서 일정한 경우에 처벌되지 않는 규정을 두고 있으며 이를 긴급피난이라 한다. 1953년에 형법이 제정된 이후 대법원에서 긴급피난으로 무죄를 선고받은 사안은 거의 없다. 하지만 긴급피난은 긴급한 상황에서 범죄로 나아간 자에게 입법자가 부여한 권리이다. 따라서 법원은 긴급피난을 적극적으로 검토해야 할 필요가 있다. 긴급피난에 대한 기존의 연구는 형법 제22조의 성질에 관한 것이 주류를 이루었으며, 상당한 이유에 대한 논의는 상대적으로 적었다. 긴급피난의 다른 표지들과는 달리 상당한 이유는 어떠한 행위가 긴급피난에 해당하는지를 판단하는 중요한 기준이 된다. 제2장에서는 입법사적 고찰을 통하여 독일과 일본을 거쳐 우리 형법에 긴급피난 규정이 도입되게 된 경위에 대해 알아보고자 하였다. 우선 독일의 1871년 형법 제54조, 1909년 초안 제67조, 1911년 대안 제26조, 1919년 초안 제22조, 1925년 초안 제25조, 1927년 초안 제25조, 1930년 초안 제25조를 차례대로 살펴보았다. 다음으로 일본의 1907년 형법부터 1927년 형법개정예비초안 제19조, 1931년 개정형법가안 제19조에 나타난 긴급피난 규정의 의미를 고찰하였다. 1931년 일본개정형법가안에서 상당성의 표지는 당시 스위스 형법초안의 정당방위의 상당성에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다. 이 규정을 계수한 우리 입법자는 상당한 이유라는 표지를 두어 그 적용에 있어서 유연함을 두고자 하였다. 제3장에서는 긴급피난의 본질과 상당한 이유의 의미에 대해서 살펴보고자 하였다. 긴급상황 하에서 피난행위자에 의하여 보호되는 이익이 침해되는 타인의 이익보다 우월한 경우에 한하여 긴급피난은 허용된다. 긴급피난의 정당성 근거로는 공동체의 연대라는 관점과 국가적 가치 재분배의 기능을 달성한다고 보는 연대성의 원칙이 타당하다고 본다. 형법 제22조 제1항의 해석에 있어서 그 요건으로 상당한 이유를 규정하고 있고, 동조 제2항에서 위난에 책임없는 자에 대해서는 제1항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 따라서 형법 제22조 제1항은 위법성 조각사유 뿐만 아니라 책임조각사유로서의 긴급피난도 규정하고있다고 해석된다. 제4장은 상당한 이유의 요건에 대한 내용을 담았다. 부정한 침해에 대한 방위행위로서 자기수호를 목적으로 인정되는 정당방위에 있어서의 상당한 이유와는 달리 긴급피난의 경우에는 보충성과 보호이익의 우월성이 구비되어야 한다. 넓은 의미에서 이익균형의 원칙에 따르면 수단의 적합성은 이익균형을 판단하는 기준 속에 포함시킬 수 있다. 위난을 초래한 자에 대한 긴급피난인 방어적 긴급피난의 경우에는 상당한 이유 요건 중 이익균형 원칙을 완화하여 해석하여야 한다. 제5장에서는 위의 논의를 바탕으로 긴급피난의 상당한 이유와 관련하여 특별히 문제되는 자초위난과 과잉긴급피난에 대해서 고찰하였다. 우리 형법은 독일형법과 달리 자초위난을 직접 규정하고 있지는 않다. 위난에 책임있는 사유가 있기 때문에 자초위난자는 일정한 의무를 진다. 따라서 이를 고려하여 긴급피난의 성립을 제한하여야 한다. 이와 관련하여 상당한 이유는 긴급피난의 적용을 제한하는 작용을 한다. 특히 이러한 작용은 이익형량에서 구체적으로 나타나게 된다. 한편 형법 제22조 제2항은 위난을 피하지 못할 책임있는 자에 대하여는 긴급피난의 규정을 적용하지 아니한다고 규정한다. 이러한 자들 속에는 그 직무를 수행함에 있어서 당연히 일반인보다 높은 위난감수의무가 있는 자들뿐만 아니라 위난을 자초한 자도 포함될 수 있다. 자신의 책임있는 사유로 위난을 자초한 자는 자신이 그 위험을 인수한다고 볼 수 있다. 제6장에서는 민법상의 긴급피난 규정의 해석과 관련한 문제를 논의하고자 하였다. 민법은 긴급피난 규정에 있어서 형법의 상당한 이유와는 달리 부득이라는 요건을 두고 있다. 형법과 민법에서 긴급피난은 서로 다른 해석론이 전개되고 있다. 따라서 민법상 긴급피난의 도입경위 및 이에 대한 해석론을 독일과 일본을 중심으로 알아보았다. 위법성조각사유는 전체 법질서의 견지에서 인정되는 것이므로 그것이 어느 개별법에 규정되어 있든지 간에 모든 법영역에 통일적으로 적용되어야 한다. 그러므로 형법과 민법의 긴급피난의 해석에 있어서도 일관성이 필요하다고 생각한다.제1장 들어가며 ················································································1 제1절 연구의 목적··········································································· 1 제2절 연구의 방법 및 용어의 정의 ············································· 3 1. 연구의 방법 ················································································ 3 2. 용어의 정의 ················································································ 6 가. 보충성의 원칙 ·········································································· 6 나. 사회적 상당성과 상당한 이유 ··············································· 8 제2장 긴급피난 규정에 대한 입법사적 고찰 ·························10 제1절 서론 ····························································································· 10 제2절 독일 형법상 긴급피난 규정의 입법연혁 ····························· 13 1. 독일 (구)형법의 개정연혁 ··································································· 13 2. 1871년 독일제국형법 제54조 ······························································ 15 3. 1909년 예비초안 제67조 및 1911년 대안 제26조 ·························· 16 4. 1919년 독일형법초안 제22조 ······························································ 18 5. 1925년 독일형법초안 제22조 ······························································ 21 가. 1925년 독일형법초안 제22조의 형벌배제사유로서의 의미 ················ 21 나. 1922년 오스트리아 형법 대안 제17조, 제23조 ····································· 22 다. 1925년 독일형법초안과 기대가능성 ························································ 25 6. 1927년 낙태죄 판결 및 1927년 초안 제25조, 1930년 초안 제25조 · 27 가. 1927년 낙태죄 판결과 초법규적 위법성조각사유의 등장 ·················· 27 나. 1927년 초안 제25조 및 1930년 초안 제25조 ········································ 34 7. 소결 ·········································································································· 38 제3절 일본 형법상 긴급피난 규정의 입법연혁 ····························· 39 1. 일본형법의 개정연혁 ············································································ 40 - 2 - 2. 1907년 일본 형법 제37조 ···································································· 41 3. 1927년 형법개정예비초안 제19조 및 1931년 개정형법가안 제19조 ···· 43 가. 형법 개정강령 23항 및 예비초안 제19조 ·············································· 43 나. 1931년 개정형법가안 제19조 ···································································· 45 4. 1918년 스위스 형법초안에서 긴급피난 규정의 성립경위 ············ 48 제4절 우리나라 형법상 긴급피난규정의 성립경위 ······················· 52 1. 서설 ·········································································································· 52 2. 개화기 이전 긴급피난 사례 ································································ 53 3. 개화기의 긴급피난 규정 ······································································ 55 4. 형법 제정 당시 입법과정 및 논의 ···················································· 64 가. 법전편찬위원회 초안 제22조 ···································································· 64 나. 법제사법위원회 수정안 제22조 ································································ 65 다. 입법자의 의도를 확인할 수 있는 자료 - 엄상섭의 긴급행위에 대한 시론 ··· 67 라. 형법제정 당시의 학설 ················································································ 71 마. 소결 ················································································································ 72 5. 형법개정과정에서의 긴급피난 규정에 대한 논의 ·························· 73 가. 1992년 형법 일부개정법률안 ···································································· 73 나. 2011년 형법 일부개정법률안 ···································································· 80 제5절 소결 ····························································································· 86 제3장 긴급피난의 불처벌 근거와 그 성질 ·····························90 제1절 서론 ····························································································· 90 제2절 긴급피난의 불처벌 근거 ························································· 91 1. 자기보호의 원칙과 공리주의, 연대의무 ··········································· 91 2. 위법성조각인가 책임조각인가 ···························································· 95 3. 면책적 긴급피난 규정의 입법논의 ···················································· 99 4. 면책적 긴급피난의 인정가능성과 한계 ·········································· 101 - 3 - 가. 면책적 긴급피난 관련 영미법상의 사례 ·············································· 102 나. 생명과 생명이 충돌하는 경우 이익형량 ·············································· 105 제3절 우리 형법상 긴급피난 규정의 성질 및 기대가능성 ······· 107 1. 우리 형법상 긴급피난 규정의 성질 ················································ 107 가. 책임조각설 ·································································································· 107 나. 위법성조각설 ···························································································· 108 다. 위법성조각 및 책임조각설(이분설) ······················································· 110 2. 초법규적 기대가능성 인정여부 ························································ 113 가. 문제의 제기 ································································································ 113 나. 형법 제22조 제1항과 형법 제12조의 관계 ·········································· 116 다. 면책적 긴급피난 인정여부에 대한 법원의 태도 ································ 118 제4절 소결 ··························································································· 122 제4장 우리 형법의 긴급피난 규정에서 상당한 이유의 의미 ··124 제1절 서론 ··························································································· 124 제2절 형법상 긴급피난에 있어서 상당한 이유의 의미 ············· 125 1. 정당방위에 있어서 상당한 이유와의 차이 ···································· 125 2. 사회상규와 긴급피난에 있어서 상당한 이유의 의미 ·················· 126 제3절 긴급피난에 있어서 상당한 이유의 세분화 ······················· 136 1. 서론 ········································································································ 136 2. 보충성의 원칙 ······················································································ 138 3. 이익균형의 원칙 ·················································································· 143 가. 이익균형의 원칙에서 이익의 의미 ························································ 144 나. 이익비교 기준 ···························································································· 145 4. 적합성의 원칙 ······················································································ 163 5. 방어적 긴급피난에서의 상당한 이유 ·············································· 165 가. 문제의 제기 ································································································ 165 - 4 - 나. 방어적 긴급피난의 상당한 이유 ···························································· 167 다. 예방적 긴급피난의 상당한 이유 ···························································· 169 제4절 소결 ··························································································· 171 제5장 형법상 긴급피난에 있어서 상당한 이유의 해석 관련 문제···173 제1절 서론 ··························································································· 173 제2절 자초위난과 상당한 이유 ······················································· 173 1. 자초위난의 의의 ·················································································· 173 2. 자초위난 사례 ······················································································ 175 3. 자초위난의 긴급피난 해당여부 ························································ 178 가. 문제의 소재 ································································································ 178 나. 고의ㆍ과실 불문 전면부정설 ·································································· 178 다. 고의ㆍ과실 불문 전면긍정설 ·································································· 179 라. 과실로 인한 자초위난에 한해서만 긴급피난을 긍정하는 학설 ······ 179 마. 구체적ㆍ개별적 긴급피난의 성립 인정설 ············································ 180 바. 각 학설에 대한 비판 및 소결 ································································ 181 4. 자초위난과 형법 제22조 제2항의 해석 ·········································· 183 가. 위난을 피하지 못할 책임있는 자 ·························································· 183 나. 전항의 규정을 적용하지 않는다의 의미 ··········································· 185 5. 소결 ········································································································ 188 제3절 과잉긴급피난과 상당한 이유 ··············································· 191 1. 과잉긴급피난의 개념 및 유형 ·························································· 191 2. 과잉긴급피난의 형의 감면 또는 불가벌 근거 ······························ 196 3. 과잉긴급피난의 요건 ·········································································· 197 가. 현재의 위난 ································································································ 197 나. 피난의사의 존재 ························································································ 197 다. 상당성 정도 초과 ······················································································ 198 - 5 - 4. 과잉긴급피난의 효과 ·········································································· 204 가. 형벌감면적 과잉긴급피난 ········································································ 204 나. 불가벌적 과잉긴급피난 ············································································ 204 제4절 소결 ··························································································· 206 제6장 형법상 긴급피난의 상당한 이유와 민법의 부득이 요건·······208 제1절 서론 ··························································································· 208 제2절 우리 민법상 긴급피난 규정의 해석 ··································· 211 1. 현행 민법과 구민법(의용민법)의 차이 ··········································· 211 2. 현행 민법상 긴급피난의 요건과 형법상 긴급피난의 요건 비교 212 3. 방어적 긴급피난과 민법 제761조 제1항 단서 ······························ 214 4. 민법상 긴급피난 규정의 해석에 대한 법원의 태도 ···················· 216 5. 소결 ········································································································ 220 제3절 민법상 긴급피난 규정의 입법례 ········································· 222 1. 독일민법상 긴급피난의 해석 ···························································· 222 가. 방어적 긴급피난 규정으로서 독일민법 제228조 ································ 223 나. 공격적 긴급피난 규정으로서 독일민법 제904조의 요건 ·················· 227 다. 소결 ·············································································································· 230 2. 일본민법상 긴급피난 ·········································································· 231 가. 일본민법 제정당시 긴급피난 규정관련 논의 ······································ 231 나. 일본민법 제720조 제2항의 해석 ···························································· 234 다. 소결 ·············································································································· 239 제4절 소결 ··························································································· 240 제7장 나가며 ···············································································245 Docto

(A) study on the environmental understanding and policy development of assemblyman assistants and NGOs

환경보건학과/석사[한글] 본 연구에서는 환경부의 정책에 대하여 입법부의 기능을 보좌하는 국회의원 보좌진과 일반 시민단체의 환경에 대한 인식을 조사하여 두 집단간 의 의견을 파악하고 환경정책에서 우선적으로 시행하여야 할 환경정책을 제시하기 위하여 두 집단간을 대상으로 환경정책에 대한 인식도를 조사한 것이다. 조사대상을 국회의원 보좌진(열린우리당,한나라당) 120명과 시민단체(경실련,한국노총,민주노총,여성단체연합,녹색연합 등) 120명을 대상으로 2004년 11월에 구조화된 설문지를 이용하여 조사하였다. 조사 항목은 환경부의 정책과제와 환경전문가를 대상으로 한 선행연구에서 도출된 것들 중에서 주요문제로 판단되는 내용들 가운데 선정하였다. 연구의 주요 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 1. 시민단체와 국회의원 보좌진의 전반적인 환경문제에 대한 인식에는 유의한 차이가 있었으며 시민단체가 정책을 집행하는 국회의원 보좌진에 비해 평소 환경문제에 대한 관심도의 경우도 관심도가 높고 전반적인 환경문제의 위해성을 크게 인식하고 있었다. 2. 환경오염 현상의 분야별 심각성에 대해 국회의원 보좌진과 시민단체간의 인식하는 정도에 유의한 차이가 있음을 알 수 있다. 특히 (농약 등에 의한) 토양 분야, 자연환경 및 생태계 분야, 산업폐기물 관리 분야, 환경문제 전반 분야에서는 매우 큰 유의한 차이를 보이고 있다. 3. 환경문제 중 최우선으로 개선해야 할 분야를 국회의원 보좌진의 경우 대기분야라고 가장 많이 응답하고 있었으며, 이는 환경오염 관련 평가 분야에서의 심각성이 ‘매우 심각하다’라고 답한 대기 분야라고 답한 것과 일치하였다. 시민단체의 경우 환경문제 중 최우선으로 개선해야 할 분야를 자연환경 및 생태계 분야로 인식하고 있어서 집단(국회의원 보좌진과 시민단체)별로 환경문제 중 최우선으로 개선해야할 분야에 대한 인식에 차이를 보이고 있었다. 4. 환경보전을 위한 비용 부담 동의 정도를 묻는 항목에서는 시민단체가 국회의원 보좌진의 경우보다 대체로 궁정적인 대답을 하고 있는 것을 알 수 있었다. 이는 비용 지불의 의사를 개인적인 비용이 아닌 국가적인 차원에서의 비용으로 생각을 하고 있기 때문으로 판단되어진다. 5. 환경오염관련 지표에 대한 신뢰도를 묻는 항목에서는 국회의원 보좌진의 경우 ‘보통이다’라고 가장 많이 응답한 반면, 시민단체는 ‘별로 신뢰하지 않는다’라고 응답하여, 두 집단간의 견해의 차이가 큰 것으로 평가되었다. 또한 정부에서 오염물질 최대허용량을 정해 관리하고 있는데 이에 대한 효과도를 묻는 항목에서는 국회의원 보좌진은 ‘어느 정도 효과적이다’라고 가장 많이 응답한 반면, 시민단체는 ‘별로 효과적이지 않다’고 가장 많이 응답하였다. 위에 있는 두 문항으로 보면 국회에서 시행하고 있는 정책에 대해 정책집행자의 한 사람인 국회의원 보좌진의 경우 대체로 신뢰하는데 비해 그 반대로 시민단체의 경우에는 정책에 대해 신뢰도가 낮은 것으로 평가되었다. 6. 환경정책결정의 학문적인 배경에 있어서 보건학적 접근이 얼마나 필요하다고 생각하느냐 하는 질문에서는 국회의원 보좌진의 경우보다 시민단체에서 ‘시급한 사안이다’라고 가장 많이 응답하였다. 7. 환경정책 중 현재 가장 시급한 정책에 대해 분석한 결과 먼저 시행할 정책에 대해 국회의원 보좌진의 경우 환경오염으로 인한 인체 영향을 확률적으로 평가하여 사전에 예방하기 위한 방법론인 ‘위해성 평가’를 환경정책 전반에 도입하고자 하는 ‘건강위해성 평가 도입’을 하자는 의견이 가장 많았으며, 시민단체의 경우에는 환경보건정책을 위한 제도 법률제정 방안과 건강에 입각한 환경기준을 선정하는 정책인 ‘제도 및 관리 기준’ 정책의 진행이 가장 시급한 과제로 제시 하였다. 8. 환경정책 중 건강에 가장 직접적인 영향을 미치는 결정요인을 살펴본 결과 가장 유의한 영향을 미치는 결정요인은 소음분야, 대기분야와 환경문제 전반의 심각도를 크게 인식 할수록 환경정책이 보건학적 접근 필요성을 크게 느끼는 것으로 나타났다. 환경보건정책의 단계별, 연차별 추진계획에서는 일반국민의 건강에 위해를 줄 우려가 있는 환경오염물질들을 파악하고, 이로 인한 인체 영향을 평가하며, 다양한 환경문제로부터 국민의 건강을 보호하고 증진시키기 위한 환경보건 및 위해관리 제도를 확립하기 위해서 국내 환경보건정책 사업의 장기비전을 제시하고, 주요 사업 및 미래지향적인 목표를 설정할 필요가 있다. [영문]A Study on the environmental understanding and policy development of assemblyman assistants and NGOs After researching of the understanding about the environment of two groups, assistant member of Assemblyman and general citizen group, this research have hold that the differences and common opinion of two groups, and decided the prioritized policy of environment policies and directions of trial and error. These two groups are 120 assistant members of 240 assemblymen( Uri-party, Great National Party, etc) and 120 citizen group (Citizen''s Coalition for Economic Justice, Federation of Korean Trade Unions, Green Korea United, etc), and the research was progressed by structured survey papers and the specific question of environment issues made by prior research which taken as source from environment experts and present environment policies. The main results of this research as followings First, the citizen group has high recognition of harmfulness of general environment issues and the concern of environment issues in usual time than the assistant members of assemblymen. Second, after researching the seriousness of environment pollution as related sectors, the recognition of seriousness of environment pollutions was very familiar withen two groups. Third, assistant members of assemblymen responded that the most needed section for improvement was an atmosphere, while the citizen group responses was nature surroundings and an ecosystem. Fourth, at the section about the increase of costs for environment preservation, the citizen group responded more positive answers than assistant group of assemblymen. it was regarded that costs have been considered as national costs not personal costs. Fifth, through the result of environmental pollution section and the effectiveness of governmental management of pollution substance, the citizen group responded more negatively, so it was considered that generally the citizen group have not trust national policy. Sixth, the citizen group responded the public health approach was more emergent at the environmental policy. Seventh, at the most emergent policy public health question, assistant group''s thought was the adoption of assessment of health harmfulness index, while the citizen group''s choice was the adoption of institution and management standard of environment. Generally the two groups have differences of the recognition of environment issues. As researching these difference of specific section, the problems of communication between two groups could be solved, and the citizen group''s opinion could be publicized and educated. It is desirable that various kinds of social class and citizen group''s opinions could be reflected as main measurements of environment problem managements and policies of government.ope

중금속 생물농축이 별늑대거미 (거미강: 늑대거미과)의 생식 및 생존에 미치는 영향

Thesis(masters) --서울대학교 대학원 :농생명공학부, 2009.2.Maste

(A) clinical observation of amebic liver abscess and efficiency study of serological tests for the diagnosis

의학과/석사[한글] 아메바성 간농양의 확진은 농즙내에서 이질아메바(Entamoeba histolytica)를 검출하는 것이 원칙이나 이는 실제로 용이하지 않아 근래에 여러 면역학적인 진단방법들이 연구 보 고되고 있다. 본 연구는 1976년 8월 1일부터 1980년 8월 31일까지 연세대학교 의과대학부속 세브란스 병원에 입원하였던 아메바성 간농양환자 56명에 대해 그 임상상을 관찰하였고, 동 기간동 안의 이질아메바 감염자 69명과 건강대조군 20명, 비아메바성 각종 질환자 124명에게 시 행한 간접혈구응집반응(indirect hemagglutination test:IHA) 및 간접형광항체반응(indir ect fluorescent antibody test:IFA)의 결과를 비교함으로써, 아메바성 간농양환자에 있 어서의 면역진단법의 효용성 여부를 검토하여 보았다. 간농양의 임상증상 및 이학적 소견이 있고 간주사상 공간점유병소(space-occupying les ion)를 나타내는 소견이 있으면 간농양을 의심할 수 있고, IHA와 IFA검사상 양성으로 나 타나거나 항아메바 약물 투여로 호전됨을 보아 아메바성 간농양으로 진단을 내릴 수 있으 며, 간농양의 농즙에서 E. histolytica가 검출되면 확진이 가능하다. 그러나 피검물에서 이질아메바를 검출하기는 상당히 어려우므로 본 연구결과 진단적 가치가 높은 것으로 나 타난 IHA검사 및 IFA검사가 더욱 널리 이용되어야 할 것으로 생각된다. [영문] The purpose of this study was to observe clinical manifestations and to evaluate the efficiency of the serological tests in diagnosing amebic liver abscess. The study included 213 cases in serogical tests, 69 amebiasis cases (56 amebic liver abscess cases) and 124 miscellaneous cages with 20 healthy blood donors as control group during the period of 6 years (Aug., 1974 - Aug., 1980). The findings of the study was as follows: 1. The ratio of male to female was 4:1. 2. The incidence of amebic lover abscess by age group showed predominant in the ages between 50 and 59 of males. 3. Fever and tender hepatomegaly were the most common clinical manifestations. 4. 16.4% showed hemoglobin less than 10gm%, and 90.9% of the cases showed leukocytosis more than 1000/mm**3. 5. 85.7% of the reversed A/G ratio, and 85.5% of the elevated alkaline phosphatase were noted. 6. Among the 41 cases, Entamoeba hisolytica trophozoit were detected in 9.8% from the pus, and 14.6% of them showed mixed infection with microorganism. 7. Of 45 lover scannings, 77.8% showed cold areas. 8. Of the 56 cases, 21.4% showed one or more complications; empyema, perionitis, subphrenic abscess or bronchopleural fistula. 9. Mortality rate was 3.6%. 10. Indirect hemagglutination tests and indirect fluorescent antibody tests showed concomitant positives in 91.1% of the 56 amebic liver abscess cases, and 70% of the 10 intestinal amebiasis cases. 11. Indirect hemagglutination tests and indirect fluorescent antibody tests in non-amebic cases showed negative or much lower positive tilers. In reviewing the abode findings, it is suggested that the serological tests are considered to be the effective methods to diagnose amebic liver abscess, especially in the case where no Entamoeba histolytica is found in the pus materials.restrictio

자유생활아메바의 isoenzyme양상과 병원성과의 상관성에 관한 연구

의학과/박사[영문] [한글] 자유생활아메바인 Acanthamoeba species와 Naegleria species의 일부는 인체에 침범하 여 치명적인 원발성 아메바성 뇌수막염(primary amoebic meningoencephalitis)을 유발하 는 것으로 국내에서도 감염예가 보고된 바 있다(Ringsted et at., 1976). 자연계에 분포하는 이들 자유생활아메바의 병원성은 아메바의 주(株, strain), 배양조 건, 숙주의 연령이나 면역 방어능력에 따라 다르다. 병원성의 감별은 동물실험 (Culberts on et al.,1959: Cursons et al., 1977)외에도 형태학적 소견(Singh and Das, 1970), 면 역학적 반응(Culbertson et al., 1966: Willaert, 1976; Stevens et al., 1977)등이 이용 되어 왔으며, 한등(1982)은 isoenzyme의 전기영동주행양상에 의한 병원성 감별을 시도한 바 있다. 본 연구에서는 국내에서 분리배양한 자유생활아메바 Acanthamoeba species 9주(YM 2,3, 4 FA 1∼6) 및 Naegleria species 5주(FN 1∼5). 그리고 인체 부검 예에서 분리한 A. cul bertsoni와 N. fowleri 및 이질아메바(HK-9주)를 대상으로 starch-gel전기영동을 시행하 고 glucose phosphate isormerase(E.C. 5.3.1.9. GPI), L-malate: NADP**+oxidoreductase (malic enzyme, E.C.1.1.1.40. ME), phosphoglucomutase(E.C.2.7.5.1. PGM) 및 hexokinas e (E.C.2.7.1.2. HK)의 4가지 isoenzyme의 주행양상을 관찰하고 마우스에 대한 병원성과 관련하여 비교관찰한 바 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. GPI의 주행양상 병원성이 확인된 A. culbertsoni, N. fowleri 및 이질아메바(HK-9주)에서는 주행양상이 느린 α 또는 이보다 좀 빠른 β의 하나 또는 두개의 발색대가 관찰되었고 YM2, YM3, YM 4 및 FN 1, FN2, FN3 및 FN 5에서는 α 또는 β의 발색대가 관찰되었으며, 특히 FN 5의 주행양상은 A. cutbertsoni나 N. fowlers의 주행양상과 같았다. 그러나 FAI∼6 및 FN 4의 주행-은 발라 다른 아메바의 주행양상과 쉽게 구별되었다. 2. PGM의 주행양상 병원성인 A. culbertsoni, N. fowlers 및 이질아메바의 주행양상은 같았으며 FN 5와 FN 2역시 이들과 같았다. 다른 아메바들의 주행은 없거나(YM 2, YM 3 및 YM 4) 또는 아주 빠르거나 느려서 이들과 쉽게 구별되었다. 3. ME의 주행양상 모두 하나의 발색대가 관찰되었으나 병원성 유무와 상관없이 다소 다른 주행양상을 보 였다. 4. HK의 주행양상 이질아메바에서만 빠르고 느린 두개의 발색대가 관찰되었을 뿐 다른 아메바에서는 모두 하나의 발색대가 관찰되었으며 이질아메바의 느린 발색대와 비슷한 양상을 보였다. 그러 나 FN 2는아주 느린 발색대가 관찰되었다. 5. 마우스(ICR주)에 대한 병원성 자유생활아메바의 비강내 접종후 뇌수막염 발병으로 인한 치사율은 Acanthamoeba spec ies인 YM 4가 60%이었고, A. culbertsoni, 100%, N. fowleri, 60%, FN 216.7%, FN 5 10% 이었다. 이상의 결과로 보아 자유생활아메바의 HK의 주행양상으로 이질아메바와 감별할 수 있으 며 자유생활아메바의 병원성은 GPI의 α 또는 β 발색대로 구별될 수 있고 특히 PGM의 주 행양상으로 병원성 Naegleria species의 감별이 가능할 것으로 생각된다. Correlation of Isoenzyme Patterns and the Pathogenicity of Free-living Amoebae Collected in Korea Young-Joong Kim Department of Medical Science The Graduate School, Yonsei University (Directed by Professor Chin-Thack Soh, M.D.) Some free-living amoebae, Naegleria species and Acanthamoeba species, have teen known as the causative agents of human primary amoebic meningoencephalitis since the first case descriptions by Fowler and Carter in 1965. For identification of the pathogenicity of the free-living amoebae experimental animal infection (Culbertson et al., 1959; Cursons et al., 1977), morphological identification (Singh and Das, 1970), imimmunotaxonomical approaches (Culbertson et al., 1966; Willert, 1976: Stevens et al., 1977) and studies on the electrophoretic pattern of isoenzyme (Han et al., 1982) have teen tried. The present study attempted to assess the correlatoin between the isoenzyme patterns of the amoebae and their pathogenicity. The starch-gel electrophoresis zymodeme patterns of 4 isoenzymes, namly glucose phosphate isomerase (E.C. 5.3.1.9. GPI), phosphoglucomutase (E.C. 2.7.5.1. PGM), malic enzyme (E.C. 1.1.1.40. ME) and hexokinase (E.C. 2.7.1.2. HK) were examined and analysed in order to elucidate the pathogenicity of free-living amoebae collected from rice paddy, river, waste sewage, pond, swimming pool and air. The known pathogenic A. culbertsoni, N.fowlers and Entamoeba histolytica (HK-9 strain) were also assayed as references. Each free-living amoeba was experimentally inoculated into mice. The results obtained are as fellows: 1. Slow α and β bands were observed as GPI patterns in the YM-2, YM-3, YM-4 and newly isolated FN-1, FN-2, FN-3 and FN-5, which coincided with the known pathogenic reference strains : A. culbertsoni, N. fowleri, and E. histolytica. 2. The identical patterns of PGM in FN-2 and FN-5 may help to distinguish the patio-genic Naegieria species from the nonpathogenic species. 3. A common band of ME was observed in all the amoebae tested. 4. HK patterns were observed as a single band in all free-living amoebae. 5. Mortalities of mice inoculated with free-living amoebae were 16.7% in FN-2 and 10% in FN-5 respectively. The pathological findings included severe edema and congestion of brain observed macroscopically. Acute inflammatory cell infiltrations were noticed surrounding infecting amoebae in the brain parenchyma. The results obtained in this study suggest that GPI and PGM patterns in starch-gel electrophoresis may contribute to distinguish pathogenic free-living amoebae from non-pathogenic ones.restrictio