Review of \u3cem\u3eDouglas, You Need Glasses!\u3c/em\u3e

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/intern_book_reviews/1170/thumbnail.jp

Review of \u3cem\u3eFrom Apple Trees To Cider, Please!\u3c/em\u3e by Felicia Sanzari Chernesky

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/intern_book_reviews/1169/thumbnail.jp

Review of \u3cem\u3eThe Night World\u3c/em\u3e by Mordicai Gerstein

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/intern_book_reviews/1172/thumbnail.jp

Review of \u3cem\u3eA Fine Dessert: Four Centuries, Four Families, One Delicious Treat\u3c/em\u3e by Emily Jenkins

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/intern_book_reviews/1168/thumbnail.jp

Review of \u3cem\u3eMy Name Is Truth: The Life of Sojourner Truth\u3c/em\u3e by Ann Turner

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/intern_book_reviews/1171/thumbnail.jp

A Comparative Analysis of Martin Luther\u27s Works

In this study we sought to analyze the inclusion of themes from Martin Luther\u27s 95 Theses (1517) in his later writings and the possible development of such themes. We sought to analyze selected works by Luther in order to answer the following question: Of the themes of the 95 Theses, which remain unchanged, which change, and which disappear in his later writings? After translating and analyzing the 95 Theses as a group, we discussed and agreed upon six themes: purgatory, the pope and the clergy, canonical law, indulgences, the gospel and salvation, and repentance. We then individually compared these themes to selected works of Luther’s writings (or his hymns in general). Due to the different natures and purposes of each work, we found varying results. Ultimately, we concluded that the 95 Theses neither summarizes nor predicts Luther’s theology. Luther in fact continues to develop his theology over time and tailors his content for the particular audiences for which he writes

Genome Degradation in Brucella ovis Corresponds with Narrowing of Its Host Range and Tissue Tropism

Brucella ovis is a veterinary pathogen associated with epididymitis in sheep. Despite its genetic similarity to the zoonotic pathogens B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis, B. ovis does not cause zoonotic disease. Genomic analysis of the type strain ATCC25840 revealed a high percentage of pseudogenes and increased numbers of transposable elements compared to the zoonotic Brucella species, suggesting that genome degradation has occurred concomitant with narrowing of the host range of B. ovis. The absence of genomic island 2, encoding functions required for lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis, as well as inactivation of genes encoding urease, nutrient uptake and utilization, and outer membrane proteins may be factors contributing to the avirulence of B. ovis for humans. A 26.5 kb region of B. ovis ATCC25840 Chromosome II was absent from all the sequenced human pathogenic Brucella genomes, but was present in all of 17 B. ovis isolates tested and in three B. ceti isolates, suggesting that this DNA region may be of use for differentiating B. ovis from other Brucella spp. This is the first genomic analysis of a non-zoonotic Brucella species. The results suggest that inactivation of genes involved in nutrient acquisition and utilization, cell envelope structure and urease may have played a role in narrowing of the tissue tropism and host range of B. ovis