A point mutation of integrin beta 1 subunit blocks binding of alpha 5 beta 1 to fibronectin and invasin but not recruitment to adhesion plaques.

A point mutation in a highly conserved region of the beta 1 subunit, Asp130 to Ala (D130A) substitution, abrogates the Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD)-dependent binding of alpha 5 beta 1 to fibronectin (FN) without disrupting gross structure or heterodimer assembly. The D130A mutation also interferes with binding to invasin, a ligand that lacks RGD sequence. In spite of the lack of detectable FN binding by alpha 5 beta 1(D130A), it was recruited to adhesion plaques formed on FN by endogenous hamster receptors. Thus, intact ligand binding function is not required for recruitment of alpha 5 beta 1 to adhesion plaques. Overexpression of beta 1(D130A) partially interfered with endogenous alpha 5 beta 1 function, thus defining a dominant negative beta 1 integrin mutation

Informed Consent: No Longer Just What the Doctor Ordered? Revisited

The law of informed consent in medicine has evolved from the original doctrine which required the physician’s disclosure of the risks, benefits, and complications of (and alternatives to) a proposed procedure or treatment. The doctrine now implicates the disclosure of matters personal to the physician. Questions regarding the breadth of the doctrine in other respects have developed as well. This paper represents the author’s second examination of the unconventional aspects of the law of informed consent

Habit Forming: Evidence of Physician Habit in Medical Negligence Litigation

”Habit” is a time-honored component of the law of evidence. Habit evidence is generally understood as specific conduct which occurs repetitively, over a period of time, in response to a known stimulus. Habitual conduct is also thought to be non-volitional, suggesting that it encompasses conduct without thought. This paper focuses on whether the practice of medicine is, in any respect, “habitual.” Are medical negligence litigants, plaintiffs and physicians, entitled to introduce evidence of physician habit to demonstrate deviation from or compliance with the applicable standard of care? Is the practice of medicine entirely volitional and judgmental, such that classic habit evidence is inapplicable to medical negligence litigation? This Article addresses these topics in an effort to identify the various positions adopted by courts in the United States and recommends that courts receive physician habit evidence in medical negligence trials

The Federal Courts Study Committee on Claims Court Tax Jurisdiction

This Article is adapted from a lecture delivered on May 31, 1990, before the Claims Court Section of the Federal Circuit Judicial Conference