干掉炭疽：阻击恶魔的武器已被发现

炭疽,如今经常被当作是恐怖袭击的另外一个代名词。尽管在人类的历史上,炭疽很早就被发现,并且一度引发了细菌学及免疫学的兴起和发展,但炭疽却很少给人类带来大规模的伤害。直到近年来,它一度成为恐怖分子发动生化袭击的"宠儿",开始幻化成张牙舞爪的恶魔,世人唯恐避之不及。实际上从总体上而言,炭疽的     

生物恐怖袭击与免疫预防

生物战及生物恐怖袭击是反科学、反人类、反社会的行为,因此受到各国政府乃至全人类的反对。美国发生“9．11”事件后又继之出现炭疽生物恐怖袭击事件,全世界对之极为关注。本文对相关的基本概念,生物战及生物恐怖袭击的历史,生物武器研究现状,生物武器预防用疫苗的研制状况及要求等有关问题作了概要介绍。     

农业：生物恐怖主义的另一个目标

生物战争一般认为是指培养致病的微生物或它们的毒素来传播疾病或者危害人们。很少有人会想到,生物战争的目标也可能是人类的主要食物作物,它会带来爆发性的环境健康灾难。农业已从基因研究和生物技术的发展中得到巨大的收益。然而同样的技术也可能被恐怖分子利用造成大规模的毁坏。 反作物的生物恐怖主义会破坏收成,造成饥荒。Ｐａｕｌ Ｒｏｇｅｒｓ、Ｓｉｍｏｎ Ｗｈｉｔｂｙ和 ＭａｌｄｃｏｌｍＤａｎｄｏ １９９９年６月在《科学的美国人》杂志上发表“反作物的生物战争”文章称,这种攻击“在人类就好象炭疽杆菌侵袭一个城市”。由…     

通古斯大爆炸

1908年6月30日,前苏联西伯利亚通古斯地区发生了一起能量超过广岛原子弹爆炸数百倍,甚至上千倍的巨大爆炸,2000多平方公里的森林瞬间化为灰烬。几千公里外的英国监测到这次爆炸时大气次声波压力涨落的记录。因爆炸而产生的地震,波及到美国的华盛顿、印度尼西亚的爪哇岛等地,同时,它那强大的冲击波横渡北海,使英国气象中心监测到大气压持续20分钟左右的上下剧烈波动。     

“人类的突变作用”

本书为纪念原子弹爆炸39周年而汇编有关论文若干篇。书中回顾了1945年原子弹爆炸后,由于离子的辐射作用造成成千上万人的死亡,也给那些幸存者带来了终身痛苦和遗传物质上的损伤。了自然界存在着大量人为的或自然界     

化学毒剂侦检的现状与前景

现场、在位、实时的便携式侦检技术是应对化学战、化学恐怖袭击及突发性化学事件的关键要素;灵敏、特异的实验室筛查鉴定分析技术则是事件定性的重要依据.本文分别从化学毒剂毒物的侦检技术、优势、用途,以及实验室筛查策略和相关鉴定技术等方面,对其发展现状和应用前景进行了评述和探讨.     

口腔颌面部爆炸伤的研究现状

口腔颌面部爆炸伤是指由致伤物爆炸所造成的口腔颌面部组织损伤,两种主要致伤因素是冲击波和高速破片,较一般火器伤而言,爆炸伤的致伤机制及致伤特点都有不同之处。对爆炸伤害的物理机制和病理生理反应方面研究有助于改进防护及改善治疗策略。本文在简述口腔颌面部爆炸伤的致伤因素和损伤特点的基础上,着重综述了动物模型和有限元模型的研究方法及结果,旨在为以后的模型研究提供思路和参考。     

甜柿巨大花粉萌发特征及辐射敏感性研究

以‘禅寺丸’（Diospyros kakiL.f)为试材,对巨大花粉萌发率,花粉管伸长,亲和性及辐射敏感性进行了研究。结果表明：（1）巨大花粉在培养基和柱头上正常萌发,不存在萌发及亲和性障碍;（2）巨大花粉萌发迟缓及低萌发率造成其与普通花粉受精竞争中处于劣势;（3）巨大花粉和普通花粉对^60Coγ-射线辐射敏感性有差异。巨大花粉的敏感性低于普通花粉,1200Gy为刺激巨大花粉萌发的适合剂量,同时可抑制普通花粉萌发,从而可相对提高巨大花粉的受精竞争力;（4）辐射延迟效应造成巨大花粉的萌发率在一定期间内有下降趋势。但自身的修复机制可部分恢复其生活力。     

我国外来生物入侵的现状、危害及防治研究

外来生物在丰富了区域物种的同时,也带来了一些负面影响,对生态环境、生物多样性和社会经济造成巨大危害.综述了外来生物入侵的基本概念、在我国生物入侵的现状、危害、入侵的原因,并从4个方面提出了防治对策.     

植物多酚对畜禽肠道健康的保护作用研究进展

肠道疾病造成畜牧业的巨大经济损失,畜禽肠道健康对于畜禽养殖具有重要意义.传统方式一直将抗生素应用于畜禽肠道疾病防治中,极易造成抗生素滥用,也极大地限制了现代畜牧业的健康发展.抗生素替代是产业需求,而植物多酚作为无毒副作用、无药残的抗生素替代物之一,在畜禽生产及畜禽疾病中有广泛的应用价值.本文主要从植物多酚作为抗生素替代品在畜禽生产中的应用,对畜禽肠道的保护功效,以及对畜禽肠道健康的保护作用机制三个方面对其研究进展进行了综述.     

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.     

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