Differentiation of peanut clump virus serotypes by monoclonal antibodies

Des anticorps monoclonaux dirigés contre le virus du "clump" de l'arachide ont permis de caractériser 5 sérotypes du virus. La comparaison de 4 types de tests immunoenzymatiques ELISA a permis de sélectionner celui qui est le mieux adapté au diagnostic de routine et à la différenciation entre sérotypes du virus. La plupart des anticorps monoclonaux conservent leur activité après adsorption sur la phase solide en ELISA, et le même anticorps peut être utilisé comme capteur et comme anticorps biotinylé. Etant donné que les anticorps obtenus sont capables de reconnaître des changements mineurs de conformation de l'antigène viral, il est important de sélectionner avec soin le format du test ELISA utilisé dans les comparaisons entre différents isolats du virus. (Résumé d'auteur

Occurrence and distribution of pepper veinal mottle virus and cucumber mosaic virus in pepper in Ibadan, Nigeria

Viral diseases constitute obstacles to pepper production in the world. In Nigeria, pepper plants are primarily affected by pepper veinal mottle virus (PVMV), Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), Pepper leaf curl Virus (TLCV), Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), Pepper mottle virus (PMV) and a host of other viruses. The experiment was carried out with a diagnostic survey on the experimental field of the National Horticultural Research Institute, Ibadan, Nigeria and on pepper farms in six local government areas within Ibadan Oyo State, Nigeria, forty samples were collected from each of the farms. Diseased samples were obtained from the field and taken to the laboratory for indexing. In ELISA test some of the samples from the pepper farms showed positive reaction to single infection with PVMV (36.79%), CMV (22.14%) while some others showed positive reaction to mixed infection of the two viruses (10%) but some also negative reaction to PVMV and CMV antisera (31.07)

Charleston, S. C. June 11, 1886. Dear Sir: The consistory of the Huguenot church of Charleston, S. C. gratefully acknowledge your prompt and kindly response to their appeal ... Treas. for fund repairs Huguenot church. Charleston. S. C. 1886.

Page Order: Piece 1 is a Reverse Folder.Page Order: Reverse Folde

Monumental funerary architecture in Thessaly in the classical and Hellenistic periods: an overview

The contribution of Thessaly for the study of monumental funerary architecture of the Archaic to Hellenistic periods is little known, despite the existence of distinctive local styles and tomb monuments. As will become clear from the discussion below, the number of monumental tombs dating from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods is surprisingly small, especially when one considers the proverbial wealth of the Thessalian elite landowning families and the oligarchic systems by which the Thessalian cities were governed. Even so, the variability of the tomb monuments and their structural peculiarities make them unique both to the region and mainland Greece as a whole, and therefore worthy of discussion. During the late Archaic and Classical periods typical for the region is a series of built tombs that most likely deliberately imitate monuments of the ›heroic‹ (Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age) past, namely tholos tombs covered by mounds. At the same time, in the late 5th and 4th centuries, some Thessalians, most characteristically the Pharsalians, adopted grave periboloi of the Attic type, alongside a new, tomb-type, peculiar to Thessaly: built chamber tombs of square plan and a corbelled pyramidal roof. Both tholos and chamber tombs with pyramidal roofs cease to be made by the late 4th century B.C.. In the Hellenistic period, monumental funerary architecture is rare; tombs of the Macedonian type are the most elaborate funerary monuments in Thessaly although their number is small compared to the very strong presence of Macedonians in the region </p

Effects of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, alone and in combination in a nasal provocation test and in perennial rhinitis

The effects of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, alone and in combination, have been assessed in a nasal provocation test and in perennial rhinitis. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over nasal provocation test, twelve men allergic to grass pollen were treated with two daily doses of placebo, terfenadine 60 mg, pseudoephedrine 120 mg, or the combination of the two, for 2 days preceding each test. The allergic reaction threshold, based on rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal inspiratory peak flow rate, was raised significantly both by terfenadine and pseudoephedrine, and their effects appeared additive (repeated measures analysis of variance). In a double-blind, randomized clinical study of perennial rhinitis two parallel groups, the efficacy and tolerability of terfenadine and terfenadine-pseudoephedrine were compared in 50 patients. Symptoms and signs in both groups were improved after 14 days of treatment. Differences between groups showed a trend in favour of terfenadine-pseudoephedrine, for swelling of the nasal mucosa (rhinoscopy) they were statistically significant. Both medications were well tolerated overall, although adverse events and reactions were more frequent in the terfenadine-pseudoephedrine group. In conclusion, terfenadine-pseudoephedrine and its constituents taken alone were effective. The combination performed better, but adverse events were somewhat more frequent with the combination than with terfenadine alone