Sporadic ALS is not associated with VAPB gene mutations in Southern Italy

Mutations in the Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (Sod1) gene have been reported to cause adult-onset autosomal dominant Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (FALS). In sporadic cases (SALS) de novo mutations in the Sod1 gene have occasionally been observed. The recent finding of a mutation in the VAMP/synaptobrevin-associated membrane protein B (VAPB) gene as the cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS8), prompted us to investigate the entire coding region of this gene in SALS patients. One hundred twenty-five unrelated patients with adult-onset ALS and 150 healthy sex-age-matched subjects with the same genetic background were analyzed. Genetic analysis for all exons of the VAPB gene by DHPLC revealed 5 variant profiles in 83 out of 125 SALS patients. Direct sequencing of these PCR products revealed 3 nucleotide substitutions. Two of these were found within intron 3 of the gene, harbouring 4 variant DHPLC profiles. The third nucleotide variation (Asp130Glu) was the only substitution present in the coding region of the VAPB gene, and it occurred within exon 4. It was found in three patients out of 125. The frequency of the detected exon variation in the VAPB gene was not significantly different between patients and controls. In conclusion, our study suggests that VAPB mutations are not a common cause of adult-onset SALS

Team reasoning and the rational choice of payoff-dominant outcomes in games

Standard game theory cannot explain the selection of payoff-dominant outcomes that are best for all players in common-interest games. Theories of team reasoning can explain why such mutualistic cooperation is rational. They propose that teams can be agents and that individuals in teams can adopt a distinctive mode of reasoning that enables them to do their part in achieving Pareto-dominant outcomes. We show that it can be rational to play payoff-dominant outcomes, given that an agent group identifies. We compare team reasoning to other theories that have been proposed to explain how people can achieve payoff-dominant outcomes, especially with respect to rationality. Some authors have hoped that it would be possible to develop an argument that it is rational to group identify. We identify some large—probably insuperable—problems with this project and sketch some more promising approaches, whereby the normativity of group identification rests on morality

The welfare effects of public opinion polls

This paper presents an experimental study of the effects of polls on voters' welfare. The analysis shows that polls have a different effect on closely divided and lopsided divided electorates. The data show that in closely divided electorates (and only for these electorates) the provision of information on the voters' distribution of preferences significantly raises the participation of subjects supporting the slightly larger team relative to the smaller team. This causes a substantial increase on the frequency of electoral victories of the larger team. As a consequence, we observe a steep decrease in the welfare of the members of the smaller team because they vote more often and yet they loose the elections more frequently. Polls are detrimental to aggregate welfare in closely divided electorates because the decrease in the payoffs of the minority is stronger than the increase in the payoffs of the majority. In lopsided divided electorates polls don't have a significant different effect on the voters' turnout conditional on their team size. We do observe an increase on the frequency of electoral victories of the larger team after the provision of information, but this is in part due to smaller teams' members voting less frequently and saving the participation costs. As a consequence, while polls have a negative effect on the relative payoffs of the minority for these electorates as well, they have a positive effect on total welfare. © Springer Verlag 2007