Other
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Other (40) (remove)
Language
- English (40) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (40)
Keywords
- Abraham Geiger (1)
- Atomic force microscopy (1)
- Blackall (1)
- Brauch (1)
- Brownian dynamics simulation (1)
- Chanukka (1)
- Disticha Catonis (1)
- Eric Albert (1)
- Freude (1)
- Gluckel von Hameln (1)
Institute
- Universitätsbibliothek (5)
- Extern (3)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1)
- Präsidium (1)
- Rechtswissenschaft (1)
Jüdische Grabsteinepigraphik: R. Yosef Trani (1568-1639), R. Akiva Eger (d. 1837), R. David Hoffmann (d. 1921)
Sandra Posch, Camilo Aponte-Santamaría, Richard Schwarzl, Andreas Karner, Matthias Radtke, Frauke Gräter, Tobias Obser, Gesa König, Maria A. Brehm, Hermann J. Gruber, Roland R. Netz, Carsten Baldauf, Reinhard Schneppenheim, Robert Tampé, Peter Hinterdorfer
Mutual A domain interactions in the force sensing protein von Willebrand factor
Journal of Structural Biology, Volume 197, Issue 1, January 2017, Pages 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2016.04.012
We here give information for a deeper understanding of single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) data through the example of the blood protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). It is also shown, how fitting of rupture forces versus loading rate profiles in the molecular dynamics (MD) loading-rate range can be used to demonstrate the qualitative agreement between SMFS and MD simulations. The recently developed model by Bullerjahn, Sturm, and Kroy (BSK) was used for this demonstration. Further, Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations, which can be utilized to estimate the lifetimes of intramolecular VWF interactions under physiological shear, are described. For interpretation and discussion of the methods and data presented here, we would like to directly point the reader to the related research paper, “Mutual A domain interactions in the force sensing protein von Willebrand Factor” (Posch et al., 2016).
Nine genera of phytoseiid mites with 22 species are described and illustrated on the basis of a survey of the literature, and by examination of material from orchards and their surroundings and of material from museum collections. Males, if available, are also described and figured. In addition to the species listed for the Netherlands, six species from around orchards in East Germany, Belgium and Poland were described briefly, and related species from other European countries (especially the British Isles and Germany) are noted. For each genus, a key to species (adult females) is given. For each species, a diagnosis is presented, and taxonomic problems are discussed for the following taxa: PhYloseius macropilis (Banks); Amblyseius reduclus Wainstein; A. cucumeris (Oudemans); A. masseei (Nesbitt); A. pOlentillae (Garman); A. rademacheri Dosse; A. isuki Chant. Keys are based on easily recognizable features and are aimed at "the interested non-taxonomist".
In previous posts we have discussed some of the customs relating to Chanukah, in this post I wanted to address those customs connected to Simcha (joy) and do so by highlighting some rather unknown sources. Amongst the topics I will discuss are eating a seudah, dairy products, sefuganiot, playing cards and dreidel.
The enigmatic R. David Lida
(2008)
The mendele review
(1997)
Neogastropods are usualiy accepted as the most advanccd prosobranchs, though their organization is approached in several respects in some higher families of Mesogastropoda. This seems, however, to be due to parallel evolution and the neogastropods originated from a much lower grade of mesogastropod. Although some workers derive them from an archaeogastropod stock there are too many features in their anatomy characteristic of mesogastropods rather than of archaeogastropods for this to bc acceptable. On the whofe, neogastropods are a rather uniform group of prosobranchs in their shell, external features, and internal anatomy. In only one System do they show, by comprison with archaeo- and mesogastropods, both extreme specialization and considerable variation: this is the gut, which is in several ways unlike that of any other prosobranch. This is to be associated with their carnivorous way of life, in which respect they again differ markedly from meso- and archaeogastropods. Taylor, Morris Br Taylor (1980) have shown how neogastropod species differ amongst themselves not, primarily, in their rnode of life, but in their often narrow choice of prey. Since the anatomical requirements for predation are more or less constant, the different species remain similar in organization and are often sympatric. In these respects neogastropods differ markedly from mesogastropods, whose adaptive radiation has been extensive and primarily in relation to mode of life. Separation of neogastropods from mesogastropods rests mainly on the siphonal canal in the shell, the siphon on the mantle edge, the rachiglossate or toxoglossate radula, and the presence of a pleurembolic proboscis or one of its varieties (Smith, 1967). The osphradium is large and its axis carries a double series of lamellae, giving it a gill-like appearance. Males always have a penis and females usually a ventral pedal gland. lnternally the anterior part of the alimentary caiial has becorne elaborate, with a complex glandular equipment, and the wall of the kidney is more folded than in mesogastropods. The nervous systern is concentrated, though the visceral ganglia remain posteriorly placed. Eggs are laid in capsules attached to the substratum. A free larval stage is often suppressed and food eggs are common, but neither of these features has much taxonomic significance, occurring apparently randomly throughout the group. Because of their general similarity classification of the Neogastropoda has proved to be no easy task, and there is still no universally-accepted subdivision of the order into superfamilies. It is generally agreed, however, that the order may be split into two groups, primarily on the basis of radular structure. The more primitive of these, the Rachiglossa, has a radula with typically 3 teeth per row; the more advanced, the Toxoglossa, has a radula which, in more primitive genera, resembles the rachiglossate, but which Comes, in more advanced toxoglossans, to have only a single tooth in action at a time. Each tooth has then become scroll-like and is used for the injection of poison from a poison gland into the prey (Shimek & Kohn, 1981). The group Toxoglossa is agreed to contain the superfamily Conacea which includes (as Recent forms) the families Turridae, Conidae, and Terebridae, all with poison apparatus, though with very different shells. Risbec (1955), followed by Taylor & Sohl (1962), has added a second superfamily Mitracea containing, in the family Mitridae, a grouping of genera selected from that family as earlier understood. These have a rachiglossate radula and an apparent poison gland not irnrnediately comparable with that of undoubted toxoglossans. This reclassification of mitrids has not found favour with subsequent workers (Cernohorsky, 1966, 1970; Ponder, 1972). Ponder (1973) made a case for adding a third suborder to the two mentioncd above. This was to contain the single superfamily Cancellariacea with the one family Cancellariidae. The case rests on the unique character of their radula. It is, however, when one turns to the remaining rachiglossan families and- attempts to assign them to superfamilies that difficulties mount. Three groupings Iiave been conventionally recognized - Muricacea, Buccinacea, and Volutacea, though it has often appeared that the last was a collection of animals not obviously assignable to the other two rather than clearly related amongst thernselves. Ponder (1973) came to the somewhat pessimistic conclusion that all rachiglossans should be put into a single taxon, for which he used the name Muricacea. It seems to us, however, that certainly within the limited group of anirnals with which we have to deal here, but even in a broader context, there is still some validity - and certainly convenience - in the older Separation, when due importance is given to internal anatomy; we propose, therefore, to retain the three superfamilies in dealing with a group which is otherwise too large for easy treatment. We adopt this arrangement the more readily as we have no volutacean mernbers of the fauna with which we have to deal, provided that we accept Ponder's proposal to create a separate superfamily for cancellariids. This allows the remaining superfamilies to be split into Muricacea and Buccinacea, and it is between these two superfamilies that lines of division may most obviously be drawn. Taylor & Sohl (1962) noted about 800 genera and subgenera in the rachiglossan group. The Buccinacea, with nearly 400, is rivalled for size only by the superfamilies Rissoacea and Cerithiacea amongst all the prosobranchs. A difficulty arises at this point in relation to the number of species which have been described. Many neogastropods are not intertidal in occurrence. Their capture is dependent upon dredging, a method which can often do no more than sample a few isolated spots on the ocean bed. Many species have been described on the basis of these samples without any real knowledge of the variation whjch may affect populations. It seems, indeed, probable that many of these are no more than local varieties, especially when it is remembered that the anatomy of many is very imperfectly known. We have, therefore, been conservative in nomenclature and tended to use broad generic groupings where others might have used narrower ones. The latter may be right, but it is prernature to be sure of this.
In this paper I will discuss the formation of different types of yes/no questions in Serbian (examples in (1)), focusing on the syntactically and semantically puzzling example (1d), which involves the negative auxiliary inversion. Although there is a negative marker on the fronted auxiliary, the construction does not involve sentential negation. This coincides with the fact that the negative quantifying NPIs cannot be licensed. The question formation and sentential negation have similar syntactic effects cross-linguistically. This has led to various attempts to formulate a unifying syntactic account of the phenomena (ever since Klima 1964). One striking fact about the two syntactic contexts is that both license weak NPIs (Negative Polarity Items). It has been suggested (cf. Laka 1990, Culicover 1991) that the derivation of both interrogatives and negatives involves the same type of functional projection PolP (polarity phrase). One such account of the formation of negative interrogatives in Serbo- Croatian is offered by Progovac (2005). She proposes that there are two PolPs optionally cooccurring in the same clause, in which both positive and negative polarity items check their positive or negative features (following Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) feature-checking account of negative structures, and the insights of Brown(1999) on the negation in Russian). On her account, the negative auxiliary question in (1d), is the case when both polarity phrases are present. The higher has [-pos +neg] features, and the lower one (below TP) is [-pos -neg]. Although her account correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of (2a) in contrast with (1c), it wrongly predicts the (2b) to be grammatical. I will argue that Progovac’s theory regarding the nature of the PolP is wrong. It employs both the binary feature valuation on the polarity head and the hierarchical ordering of the two polarity phrases, which eventually leads to overgeneration. On the account presented here the nature of the question marker (li vs zar) is highly relevant. Notice that (1b) and (1d) express presuppositions regarding the truth value of the propositions. In this way they contrast with (1a) and (1c). In addition, the type (1b) (with the question particle zar) can introduce both the positive and negative presupposition as shown in (3), which, semantically, makes this construction compatible with negative auxiliary questions in English (4a). The polarity items licensed in the relevant structures are also of the same type in both languages. The fronted-negative-auxiliary questions (1d) in Serbian are only possible with the particle li. In this case the presupposition is exclusively positive. The peculiar question/focus marking function of li (in Bulgarian and Russian) is well known. However, it is always assumed that its focus marking role is not relevant for the formation of yes/no questions. This I believe is not correct. The syntactic explanation of the interpretational facts points to the following: A) The possibility of the separate lexical encoding (particle zar) of the ‘rhetorical’ yes/no questions in Serbian allows the embedding of both positive and negated sentences, in which case the (weak) NPIs can remain in local relation with the negated verb. B) Recall that Serbian is an NC language, which requires local/c-command relation between the verbal negative marker and the NPI. With the negative inverted auxiliary questions this condition is not met, and the licensing of an n-word is not possible. C) The impossibility of licensing a weak NPI (i-words in the examples below) is due to the nature of the question marker li. (1) a. Da li je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? DA Q aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” b. Zar je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Is it really the fact that Vera saw anyone/someone?” c. Je li Vera videla ikoga / nekoga /*nikoga? aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” d. Nije li Vera videla *ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Didn’t Vera see someone?”/ “Vera saw someone, didn’t she?” (2) a. *Nije li Vera videla nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg noone b. *Nije li Vera videla ikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone (3) a. Zar je Vera videla nekoga / ikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone b. Zar Vera nije videla nekoga/nikoga? ZAR Vera neg+aux see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone (4) a. Didn’t Vera (NOT) see someone/anyone? b. Vera saw someone, didn’t she?
Women and Halakha Shiur
(2008)
Yedies - YIVO News
(1999)
Each issue of Yedies includes articles about exciting new YIVO projects, major grants received, and new materials received by the Archives and Library, as well as letters from readers and news about upcoming events.
Yiddish Theatre Forum
(2002)
The Yiddish Theatre Forum (YTF), published under the auspices of Mendele, was founded in 2002 to foster greater interaction among scholars, artists, librarians, and lay people interested in the history of Yiddish theatre and drama. In addition to serving as a clearing house for queries about Yiddish theatre personnel, plays, and productions, the YTF publishes a variety of articles, reviews, and guides. So far these have included brief articles analyzing individual plays; guides to library and archival resources in the United States, Europe, and South Africa; and book reviews. Recent years have brought a number of important new studies of Yiddish theatre. New books and scholarly articles have examined Yiddish theatre and drama in the Americas, Eastern and Western Europe, and more distant hubs like Australia and South Africa. Such works have been undertaken by scholars based in many different countries, working in a variety of fields, and with a corresponding range of methodological approaches. The central purpose of the Yiddish Theatre Forum is to provide a place online where professional and lay students of Yiddish theatre can exchange ideas and information. Queries and other postings to the YTF can be sent directly to the Editor at yankl@albany.edu. Editorial Board Joel Berkowitz (University at Albany), Editor Leonard Prager (Haifa University), Senior Advisor Zachary Baker (Stanford University Libraries) Miroslawa Bułat (Jagiellonian University, Cracow) Avrom Greenbaum (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) Barbara Henry (University of Washington, Seattle) David Mazower (BBC / Independent Scholar) Nina Warnke (University of Texas at Austin) Seth Wolitz (University of Texas at Austin)