动物的的变态

变态是动物学中一个较重要的专用名词,有关内容在中学课本也多处涉及到。现择要介绍一点动物变态的知识,供动物学教学参考。何谓动物的变态动物由于外在和内在的原因,个体形态发生变化,这叫变态。但动物学所讲的变态,是狭义地从发生学角度理解,即胚胎不直接转变为成体,而是在后期发育过程中,先形成形态、生理、生态方面特殊的幼体,行独立生活和生长,以后在某阶段发生急剧变化,转变为成体。青     

活的不可培养的细菌的研究进展

活的不可培养微生物(VBNC)即一些微生物明显地丧失了可培养的特性,但是保留了自身原有的代谢活力,并且在一定条件下,又可以回复到可培养的状态。从VBNC细菌的诱导条件、生物学特性和检测方法3个方面对VBNC细菌研究进展做一综述。     

真核细胞的基因的组织

一、真核细胞基因的基本结构 1.转录单位: 从已知的数十种基因的顺序,可得出一个具有功能的基因的共同规律,在基因5’端-25至-75区,有CCAAT和TATAAA区(后者又称ATA box或Hogness box),相当于促进子区(Promotor),为体外转录所必需。     

高频率的波动对于种子的萌发和植物的发育的影响

本文主要是以理论和试验来说明音波对植物的生长发育和种子萌发所起的影响。在农业实践上音波所起的作用,据现在所知:有缩短植物成熟期,加速萌芽和增强植物的生长发育等。这一些非但具有理论和实践上的意义,同时在今後把物理科学应用到农业科学中开辟了极广阔的前程。     

敲除pckA基因的结核杆菌引起的免疫反应的研究

研究结核杆菌pckA基因编码的磷酸烯醇型丙酮酸羧激酶(PEPCK)诱导机体产生的保护性免疫反应。用敲除pckA基因的牛结核杆菌BCG和野生型BCG分别感染小鼠,取肝、肺、脾进行病理分析,并进行脾细胞培养,检测CD4 、CD4 /CD8 、细胞因子IFNI-γI、L-12和TNF等。用敲除pckA基因的BCG感染的小鼠比野生型BCG感染的小鼠体内产生的结核结节少且不典型,炎性程度低。野生型BCG感染的小鼠脾脏内的CD4 T细胞和CD4 /CD8 、细胞因子IFN-γ、IL-12、TNF均明显高于敲除pckA基因BCG感染的小鼠。pckA基因为结核杆菌生长所必需,其编码产物PEPCK能够刺激机体产生免疫反应,是一种很好的疫苗候选分子。     

分离的蚕豆细胞核的RNA聚合酶活力的研究

利用Triton X-100对叶绿体膜的作用,可快速地从蚕豆幼叶制备较纯净的细胞核,它具有较高的RNA聚合酶活力。比较了两种分离核的方法,证明利用匀浆法制备的核具有较高的活力。核活力与发育时期有关系,茎端和第1对幼叶的核活力显著高于第2和第3对叶片的核活力。此外,核活力明显地受反应液内锰离子的抑制。     

远古的人们是怎样认识自己的起源的

人是从那里来的? 回答这个问题,你也许会说这有什么困难——人是从古猿变来的;甚至你还会进一步说,在这个从猿到人的转变过程中,劳动起着决定性的作用。然而这个现在看来比较明了的道理,恰是经历了多么漫长的认识过程才达到的呵!现在让我们首先来谈谈,远古的人们是怎样认识自己的起源的。最初的原始人可能还想不到自己的起源在人类诞生的最早时期,“最初的、从动物界分离出来的人,在一切本质方面是和动物本身一样不自由的”(恩格斯:《反杜林论》),这些最初的原始人为艰苦     

由吸附的缩氨酸诱导的细胞膜的形变

研究了由一系列相互平行的吸附在细胞膜上的缩氨酸引起的膜的弹性形变,以及膜对缩氨酸的包裹行为,得到膜的平衡方程,用它可以来处理大尺度的形变,弯曲能量、吸附能量和弹性形变的相互竞争导致膜对缩氨酸发生从不吸附到部分吸附乃至完全包裹的结构转变．在膜的形变很小的时候,可以得到系统能量的解析解。     

霸王的原生质体培养的研究

目的：为利用原生质体融合技术转移霸王抗旱基因。方法：采用酶解法分离霸王原生质体,比较了霸王子叶和愈伤组织游离原生质体的产量和活力,不同渗透压和起始密度对原生质体分裂频率的影响。结果：愈伤组织游离的原生质体产量和活力均高于子叶,原生质体产率可达2.4×106个/g.FW,活力达89%。采用液体浅层培养,在附加2,4-D（2mg/L）、6-BA（1.0mg/L）、2%蔗糖和甘露醇（0.4mol/L）的DPD培养基中,原生质体分裂频率最高,达68.6%。转移到附加2-iP（3mg/L）、KT（1.0mg/L）、6-BA（1.0mg/L）的分化培养基上,获得2个再生苗。结论：采用酶解法游离霸王愈伤组织,可获得高活力和高分裂频率的霸王原生质体。     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.