1. |
- Aumailley, M, et al.
(author)
-
A simplified laminin nomenclature
- 2005
-
In: Matrix Biology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-1802 .- 0945-053X. ; 24:5, s. 326-332
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A simplification of the laminin nomenclature is presented. Laminins are multidomain heterotrimers composed of alpha, beta and gamma chains. Previously, laminin trimers were numbered with Arabic numerals in the order discovered, that is laminins-1 to -5. We introduce a new identification system for a trimer using three Arabic numerals, based on the alpha, beta and gamma chain numbers. For example, the laminin with the chain composition alpha 5 beta 1 gamma 1 is termed laminin-511, and not laminin-10. The current practice is also to mix two overlapping domain and module nomenclatures. Instead of the older Roman numeral nomenclature and mixed nomenclature, all modules are now called domains. Some domains are renamed or renumbered. Laminin epidermal growth factor-like (LE) domains are renumbered starting at the N-termini, to be consistent with general protein nomenclature. Domain IVb of alpha chains is named laminin 4a (L4a), domain IVa of alpha chains is named L4b, domain IV of gamma chains is named L4, and domain IV of beta chains is named laminin four (LF). The two coiled-coil domains I and II are now considered one laminin coiled-coil domain (LCC). The interruption in the coiled-coil of 13 chains is named laminin beta-knob (L beta) domain. The chain origin of a domain is specified by the chain nomenclature, such as alpha IL4a. The abbreviation LM is suggested for laminin. Otherwise, the nomenclature remains unaltered.
|
|
2. |
- Kuschmierz, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
European first-year university students accept evolution but lack substantial knowledge about it : A standardized European cross-country assessment
- 2021
-
In: Evolution. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1936-6426 .- 1936-6434. ; 14:1, s. 1-22
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Investigations of evolution knowledge and acceptance and their relation are central to evolution education research. Ambiguous results in this field of study demonstrate a variety of measuring issues, for instance differently theorized constructs, or a lack of standardized methods, especially for cross-country comparisons. In particular, meaningful comparisons across European countries, with their varying cultural backgrounds and education systems, are rare, often include only few countries, and lack standardization. To address these deficits, we conducted a standardized European survey, on 9200 first-year university students in 26 European countries utilizing a validated, comprehensive questionnaire, the “Evolution Education Questionnaire”, to assess evolution acceptance and knowledge, as well as influencing factors on evolution acceptance. Results: We found that, despite European countries’ different cultural backgrounds and education systems, European first-year university students generally accept evolution. At the same time, they lack substantial knowledge about it, even if they are enrolled in a biology-related study program. Additionally, we developed a multilevel-model that determines religious faith as the main influencing factor in accepting evolution. According to our model, knowledge about evolution and interest in biological topics also increase acceptance of evolution, but to a much lesser extent than religious faith. The effect of age and sex, as well as the country’s affiliation, students’ denomination, and whether or not a student is enrolled in a biology-related university program, is negligible. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that, despite all their differences, most of the European education systems for upper secondary education lead to acceptance of evolution at least in university students. It appears that, at least in this sample, the differences in knowledge between countries reflect neither the extent to which school curricula cover evolutionary biology nor the percentage of biology-related students in the country samples. Future studies should investigate the role of different European school curricula, identify particularly problematic or underrepresented evolutionary concepts in biology education, and analyze the role of religious faith when teaching evolution.
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
- Fine, Jo-David, et al.
(author)
-
The classification of inherited epidermolysis bullosa (EB) : Report of the Third International Consensus Meeting on Diagnosis and Classification of EB
- 2008
-
In: The Journal of American Academy of Dermatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0190-9622 .- 1097-6787. ; 58:6, s. 931-950
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Since publication in 2000 of the Second International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Classification of Epidermolysis Bullosa, many advances have been made to our understanding of this group of diseases, both clinically and molecularly. At the same time, new epidermolysis bullosa (EB) subtypes have been described and similarities with some other diseases have been identified. OBJECTIVE: We sought to arrive at a new consensus of the classification of EB subtypes. RESULTS: We now present a revised classification system that takes into account the new advances, as well as encompassing other inherited diseases that should also be included within the EB spectrum, based on the presence of blistering and mechanical fragility. Current recommendations are made on the use of specific diagnostic tests, with updates on the findings known to occur within each of the major EB subtypes. Electronic links are also provided to informational and laboratory resources of particular benefit to clinicians and their patients. LIMITATIONS: As more becomes known about this disease, future modifications may be needed. The classification system has been designed with sufficient flexibility for these modifications. CONCLUSION: This revised classification system should assist clinicians in accurately diagnosing and subclassifying patients with EB.
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
|