Library

X
feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization mapping: a physical mapping strategy for plant species with large complex genomes (1996)
    Springer
    Molecular genetics and genomics 252 (1996), S. 497-502 
    Details
    ISSN: 1617-4623
    Keywords: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) ; Interphase mapping ; Physical mapping ; Maize
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Biology
    Notes: Abstract The chromatin in interphase nuclei is much less condensed than are metaphase chromosomes, making the resolving power of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) two orders of magnitude higher in interphase nuclei than on metaphase chromosomes. In mammalian species it has been demonstrated that within a certain range the interphase distance between two FISH sites can be used to estimate the linear DNA distance between the two probes. The intephase mapping strategy has never been applied in plant species, mainly because of the low sensitivity of the FISH technique on plant chromosomes. Using a CCD (charge-coupled device) camera system, we demonstrate that DNA probes in the 4 to 8 kb range can be detected on both metaphase and interphase chromosomes in maize. DNA probes pA1-Lc and pSh2.5·SstISalI, which contain the maize locia1 andsh2, respectively, and are separated by 140 kb, completely overlapped on metaphase chromosomes. However, when the two probes were mapped in interphase nuclei, the FISH signals were well separated from each other in 86% of the FISH sites analyzed. The average interphase distance between the two probes was 0.50 µm. This result suggests that the resolving power of interphase FISH mapping in plant species can be as little as 100 kb. We also mapped the interphase locations of another pair of probes, ksu3/4 and ksu16, which span theRp1 complex controlling rust resistance of maize. Probes ksu3/4 and ksu16 were mapped genetically approximately 4 cM apart and their FISH signals were also overlapped on metaphase chromosomes. These two probes were separated by an average of 2.32 µm in interphase nuclei. The possibility of estimating the linear DNA distance between ksu3/4 and ksu16 is discussed.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02172395
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Comparison of aceclofenac with diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis (1995)
    Springer
    Clinical rheumatology 14 (1995), S. 656-662 
    Details
    ISSN: 1434-9949
    Keywords: Aceclofenac ; Nonsteroidal-Antiinflammatory Drugs ; Diclofenac ; Osteoarthritis ; Efficacy ; Safety
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Summary A multicentre randomised, double-blind, parallel group, general practice study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac (200 patients, 100mg twice daily and placebo once daily) in comparison with diclofenac (197 patients, 50mg three times daily) in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The treatment period of twelve weeks was preceded by a washout period of two weeks duration. At end point, patients in both aceclofenac and diclofenactreated groups exhibited significant improvement in pain intensity (p=0.0001). Although both treatment groups showed significant improvement in all investigators' clinical assessments (joint tenderness, swelling, pain on movement, functional capacity, overall assessment), there were no significant differences between the groups. There was, however, a trend towards greater improvement in complete knee movement and reduced pain on movement with aceclofenac. In patients with initial flexion deformity, aceclofenac was significantly more effective than diclofenac in improving knee flexion after 2–4 weeks of treatment. Patients' subjective assessment of pain relief demonstrated significantly greater efficacy with aceclofenac. At end point, 71% of patients in the aceclofenac group reported improvement in pain intensity as compared to 59% treated with diclofenac (p=0.005). Tolerability of aceclofenac was better than with diclofenac as fewer patients experienced gastrointestinal adverse events. In particular, the incidence of treatment related diarrhoea was less with aceclofenac (1%) than with diclofenac (6.6%). In summary, this study supports a therapeutic role for aceclofenac in arthritis and suggests that it is an alternative NSAID to diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02207932
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Paper (German National Licenses)
    Fulltext
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...