42 research outputs found

    Morphologic and AFLP analysis of relationships between tulip species Tulipa biebersteiniana (Liliaceae)

    Full text link
    In populations of four species of tulips (Tulipa biebersteiniana, T. patens, T. scytica and T. riparia) from the Volgograd, Kurgansk, Orenburg, and Chelyabinsk regions and the Republic of Bashkortostan, genetic diversity was studied by means of morphological and AFLP analysis. A morphological analysis of seven quantitative and two qualitative criteria was carried out. Three selective EcoRI/MseI primer pairs allowed one to genotype 81 individuals from 13 tulip populations with 87 loci. The low level of variability by AFLP loci were revealed in all species, including T. biebersteiniana (P = 20. 41%, UHe = 0. 075), T. patens (26. 97%, 0. 082), T. scytica (27. 53%, 0. 086), and T. riparia (27. 72%, 0. 096). According to the AMOVA results, the variability proportion that characterizes the differences between the four Tulip species was lower (FCT = 0. 235) than between populations within species (FST = 0. 439). Tulipa patens is well differentiated by means of Nei's distances, coordination, and analysis in the STRUCTURE program. An analysis in the STRUCTURE revealed four genetic groups of tulips that are not completely in accordance with the analyzed species. This acknowledges the presence of complicated genetic process in the tulip population. Β© 2013 Pleiades Publishing, Ltd

    STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF TULIPS GENUS TULIPA BIEBERSTEINIANA BY AFLP-ANALYSIS

    Full text link
    The aim is to research the relationship of kinship tulip Tulipa biebersteiniana by AFLP-analysis. 81 individuals from 13 populations of four tulips species (T. biebersteiniana, T. patens, T. riparia and T. scythica) were studied. A low polymorphism of the studied species, their considerable genetic affinity was shown.ИсслСдования ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅Ρ€ΠΆΠ°Π½Ρ‹ Π³Ρ€Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ Российского Ρ„ΠΎΠ³Π΄Π° Ρ„ΡƒΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Ρ… исслСдований (10-04-00989) ΠΈ Π€Π΅Π΄Π΅Ρ€Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ†Π΅Π»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΌΠΎΠΉ Π“Πš β„– 14.740.11.1032

    Π‘Ρ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ° эффСктивности ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰Π΅ΠΉ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ½ΡƒΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΎΠ·Π΅ смСшанной этиологии (Π­ΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π΅ΠΉΠ½Π° – Π‘Π°Ρ€Ρ€ ΠΈ цитомСгаловирусной) Ρƒ Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ

    Get PDF
    Objective: to conduct a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs in infectious mononucleosis of mixed etiology (EBV and CMV) in children, using the principles of evidence-based medicine.Materials and methods: a comprehensive comparativeΒ assessment of the effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugsΒ in children with infectious mononucleosis EBV+CMV-etiology in 3 groups: group I-20 patients receiving recombinantΒ interferon Ξ±-2Ξ², group II-20 children receiving interferon – meglumin inducer acridonacetate and group III-20 childrenΒ treated with a synthetic immunomodulator-inosin pranobex.Β The comparison group (IV) consisted of 20 children who received basic therapy.Results: Analysis of key intervention indicators for theΒ outcome Β«fever Duration less than 5 daysΒ» showed the highest effectiveness of recombinant interferon Ξ±-2Ξ², less effective were megluminaΒ  acridonacetate and inosine pranobex.Β According to the outcomes Β«Reduction of lymph nodes byΒ 2 or more timesΒ» and Β«Reduction of the liver and spleen byΒ 2 or more timesΒ», data on the advantage of meglumin acridonacetate were obtained. The recombinant interferon Ξ±-2Ξ²Β was the second most effective. All the studied drugs do notsignificantly affect the severity of the hematological syndrome. The expediency of using immunomodulatory therapyΒ in infectious mononucleosis of EBV+CMV-etiology is shown,Β the deviation from the norm of the integral outcome indicatorΒ is significantly higher in the group of children who were onΒ symptomatic therapy. The overall effectiveness of the studiedΒ immunomodulatory drugs with all clinical outcomes does notΒ have statistically significant differences.Conclusion: the obtained data allow us to rationally approach the choice of immunomodulatory therapy, taking intoΒ account the effectiveness of clinical outcomes and the overallΒ effectiveness of the drug.ЦСль: провСсти ΡΡ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΡƒΡŽ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΡƒ эффСктивности ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΡ… ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ½ΡƒΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΎΠ·Π΅ смСшанной этиологии (Π­ΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π΅ΠΉΠ½Π° – Барр ΠΈ цитомСгаловирусной) Ρƒ Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠ·ΡƒΡ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ½Ρ†ΠΈΠΏΡ‹ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΠ½Ρ‹.ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ‹ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹: ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π° ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½Π°ΡΒ ΡΡ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ° эффСктивности ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΡ… ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΠ² Ρƒ Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ с ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ½ΡƒΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΠΌ смСшанной этиологии (Π­ΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π΅ΠΉΠ½Π° – Π‘Π°Ρ€Ρ€ и цитомСгаловирусной) Π² 3 Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ°Ρ… Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΡ€Ρ‹Π΅ Π½Π°Β Ρ„ΠΎΠ½Π΅ базисной Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ (патогСнСтичСской ΠΈ симптоматичСской) ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π°Π»ΠΈ иммуномодуляторы: I Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ° – 20 ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠ², ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π°Π²ΡˆΠΈΡ… Ρ€Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ±ΠΈΠ½Π°Π½Ρ‚Π½Ρ‹ΠΉ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Ρ„Π΅Ρ€ΠΎΠ½ Ξ±-2Ξ², II Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ° – 20 Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π°Π²ΡˆΠΈΡ… ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡƒΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€Β ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Ρ„Π΅Ρ€ΠΎΠ½Π° – мСглюмина Π°ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ½Π°Ρ†Π΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚, ΠΈ III Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ° – 20 Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, Π»Π΅Ρ‡ΠΈΠ²ΡˆΠΈΡ…ΡΡ синтСтичСским иммуномодулятором – ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΌ пранобСксом. Π“Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΡƒ сравнСния (IV) составили 20 Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π°Π²ΡˆΠΈΡ… Ρ‚ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠΊΠΎ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΠ½ΡƒΡŽΒ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΡŽ.Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹: Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ Π²ΠΌΠ΅ΡˆΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΡΡ‚Π²Π° ΠΏΠΎ исходу Β«Π”Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Π»ΠΈΡ…ΠΎΡ€Π°Π΄ΠΊΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅Β 5 Π΄Π½Π΅ΠΉΒ» ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π» Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΡˆΡƒΡŽ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Ρ€Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ±ΠΈΠ½Π°Π½Ρ‚Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Ρ„Π΅Ρ€ΠΎΠ½Π° Ξ±-2Ξ², ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ эффСктивными были мСглюмина Π°ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ½Π°Ρ†Π΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΠ½ пранобСкс. ΠŸΠΎΒ ΠΈΡΡ…ΠΎΠ΄Π°ΠΌ Β«Π‘ΠΎΠΊΡ€Π°Ρ‰Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ лимфатичСских ΡƒΠ·Π»ΠΎΠ² Π² 2 ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅Β Ρ€Π°Π·Β» ΠΈ Β«Π‘ΠΎΠΊΡ€Π°Ρ‰Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠ΅Ρ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΈ сСлСзСнки Π² 2 ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ раз» получСны Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΎ прСимущСствС мСглюмина Π°ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ½Π°Ρ†Π΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚Π°. На Π²Ρ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΎΠΌ мСстС ΠΏΠΎ эффСктивности оказался рСкомбинантный ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Ρ„Π΅Ρ€ΠΎΠ½Π° Ξ±-2Ξ². ВсС исслСдованныС ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹ Π½Π΅ ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Ρ‹Π²Π°ΡŽΡ‚ сущСствСнного влияния на Π²Ρ‹Ρ€Π°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ гСматологичСского синдрома. Показана Ρ†Π΅Π»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ примСнСния ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰Π΅ΠΉ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ½ΡƒΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΎΠ·Π΅ смСшанной этиологии (Π­ΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π΅ΠΉΠ½Π° – Π‘Π°Ρ€Ρ€ ΠΈ цитомСгаловирусной), ΠΎΡ‚ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ‚ Π½ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΡ‹ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Π³Ρ€Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ показатСля исхода Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΠΎ Π²Ρ‹ΡˆΠ΅ Π² Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ΅ Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΡ€Ρ‹Π΅ Π½Π°Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡŒ Π½Π° симптоматичСской Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ. ΠžΠ±Ρ‰Π°Ρ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ исслСдуСмых ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΡ… ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΠ²Β ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ всСх клиничСских исходах Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ‚ статистичСски значимых Ρ€Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠΉ.Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅: ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡŽΡ‚ Ρ€Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΉΡ‚ΠΈ ΠΊ Π²Ρ‹Π±ΠΎΡ€Ρƒ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡƒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΡƒΠ»ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‰Π΅ΠΉ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ с ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ эффСктивности ΠΏΠΎ клиничСским исходам и ΠΎΠ±Ρ‰Π΅ΠΉ эффСктивности ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°Ρ‚Π°

    Social Workers Perceptions of the Profession

    Full text link
    На ΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π»Π°Ρ… эмпиричСских исслСдований Π² ΡΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΠ΅ Ρ€Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ прСдставлСния спСциалистов ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠΎΡ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ€Π°Π±ΠΎΡ‚Π΅ ΠΎ своСй профСссии. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€ΡƒΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π· профСссии, присущий самим профСссионалам, ΠΈΡ… ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ назначСния профСссии ΠΈ пСрспСктив Π΅Π΅ развития.Based on the results of empirical research the article describes social workers perceptions of their profession. The article analyses the image of social work, the purpose of the profession and perspectives of its development
    corecore