350 research outputs found

    Selected pages from The history of the reformation of the Church of England

    Get PDF
    3 v. engr. fronts., ports. ; 32 cm. 2nd ed., corr. London, Printed by T.H. for R. Chiswell, 1681-1753. Some of the pages in this document were selected as part of a class project for Professor Garth Bond’s History of the Book seminar, Spring 2012. The abstract was prepared by Alexander George.https://lux.lawrence.edu/selections/1023/thumbnail.jp

    ギルバート・バーネット(著), ロチェスター伯の生涯 (下) [翻訳]

    Get PDF
    Burnet Gilbert[著] , 生田 省悟[訳

    ギルバート・バーネット(著), ロチェスター伯の生涯 (上) 

    Get PDF
    Burnet Gilbert[著], 生田 省悟[訳

    The Self Model and the Conception of Biological Identity in Immunology

    Get PDF
    The self/non-self model, first proposed by F.M. Burnet, has dominated immunology for sixty years now. According to this model, any foreign element will trigger an immune reaction in an organism, whereas endogenous elements will not, in normal circumstances, induce an immune reaction. In this paper we show that the self/non-self model is no longer an appropriate explanation of experimental data in immunology, and that this inadequacy may be rooted in an excessively strong metaphysical conception of biological identity. We suggest that another hypothesis, one based on the notion of continuity, gives a better account of immune phenomena. Finally, we underscore the mapping between this metaphysical deflation from self to continuity in immunology and the philosophical debate between substantialism and empiricism about identity

    Quantitation of Human Seroresponsiveness to Merkel Cell Polyomavirus

    Get PDF
    Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a relatively uncommon but highly lethal form of skin cancer. A majority of MCC tumors carry DNA sequences derived from a newly identified virus called Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV or MCPyV), a candidate etiologic agent underlying the development of MCC. To further investigate the role of MCV infection in the development of MCC, we developed a reporter vector-based neutralization assay to quantitate MCV-specific serum antibody responses in human subjects. Our results showed that 21 MCC patients whose tumors harbored MCV DNA all displayed vigorous MCV-specific antibody responses. Although 88% (42/48) of adult subjects without MCC were MCV seropositive, the geometric mean titer of the control group was 59-fold lower than the MCC patient group (p<0.0001). Only 4% (2/48) of control subjects displayed neutralizing titers greater than the mean titer of the MCV-positive MCC patient population. MCC tumors were found not to express detectable amounts of MCV VP1 capsid protein, suggesting that the strong humoral responses observed in MCC patients were primed by an unusually immunogenic MCV infection, and not by viral antigen expressed by the MCC tumor itself. The occurrence of highly immunogenic MCV infection in MCC patients is unlikely to reflect a failure to control polyomavirus infections in general, as seroreactivity to BK polyomavirus was similar among MCC patients and control subjects. The results support the concept that MCV infection is a causative factor in the development of most cases of MCC. Although MCC tumorigenesis can evidently proceed in the face of effective MCV-specific antibody responses, a small pilot animal immunization study revealed that a candidate vaccine based on MCV virus-like particles (VLPs) elicits antibody responses that robustly neutralize MCV reporter vectors in vitro. This suggests that a VLP-based vaccine could be effective for preventing the initial establishment of MCV infection

    The many faces of biological individuality

    Get PDF
    Biological individuality is a major topic of discussion in biology and philosophy of biology. Recently, several objections have been raised against traditional accounts of biological individuality, including the objections of monism (the tendency to focus on a single individuality criterion and/or a single biological field), theory-centrism (the tendency to discuss only theory-based individuation), ahistoricity (the tendency to neglect what biologists of the past and historians of biology have said about biological individuality), disciplinary isolationism (the tendency to isolate biological individuality from other scientific and philosophical domains that have investigated individuality), and the multiplication of conceptual uncertainties (the lack of a precise definition of “biological individual” and related terms). In this introduction, I will examine the current philosophical landscape about biological individuality, and show how the contributions gathered in this special issue address these five objections. Overall, the aim of this issue is to offer a more diverse, unifying, and scientifically informed conception of what a biological individual is
    corecore