激光照射茶树花药培养及其过氧化物酶同工酶的分析

Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ和ＣＯ２激光对茶树花药培养的药裂率和出愈率的影响,既有促进作用,也有抑制作用。按出愈率和愈伤组织生长状况的序列：Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ：２０Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２〉ＣＫ〉Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ：３０Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２〉ＣＯ２：３５．４Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２。对Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射花药及其愈伤组织的过氧化物酶同工酶分析,主要表现在弱酶带的变化上,无规律差异。     

农用低功率He—Ne激光的诱变效应和育种

什么是低功率Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光;低功率Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光的诱变效应及其在育种上的应用;低功率Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光的诱变机制。     

He—Ne激光对机体免疫功能影响研究进展

本文仅就Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射对机体特异性与非特异性免疫功能的促进与抑制的研究现状作以综述。     

He—Ne激光照射离体鼠巨噬细胞对线粒体跨膜电势的影响

目的：研究Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射鼠巨噬细胞对线粒体跨膜电势的影响,及其与激光剂量的关系。方法：用亲脂性阳离子荧光染料Ｒｈｏｄａｍｉｎｅ１２３对鼠巨噬细胞线粒体作荧光标记,以不同的激光剂量照射,采用图像分析系统（ＩＡＳ）和荧光显微镜观察线粒体跨膜电势荧光强度的变化。结果：低功率Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射５,１０,１５ｍｉｎ,激光剂量分别为０．６４９,１．３８８和２．０８２Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２,巨噬细胞线粒体跨膜电势荧光     

He—Ne激光照射对成纤维细胞内[Ca^2＋]i浓度影响的流式细胞计测定

目的：Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射治疗的机理不明,激光照射引起细胞内Ｃａ＾２＋水平变化,为治疗机理提供理论依据。方法：Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射引起鼠成纤维细胞Ｌ９２９内［Ｃａ＾２＋］ｉ的变化,用ＨＯ３４２对细胞ＤＮＡ活性染色,Ｆｌｕｏ－３ＡＭ对细胞内Ｃａ＾２＋染色,利用ＦＣＭ同时定量分析细胞ＤＮＡ和细胞内Ｃａ＾２＋的变化。结果：激光照射１５ｍｉｎ（光剂量１１．８１Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２后,ＦＣＭ分析可见ＤＮＡ分布直方图右移     

氦氖激光穴位照射对兔子宫和卵巢酸性磷酸酶（ACP）,碱性磷酸酶（ALP）…

用不同功率的Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射雌兔外生殖器，照射穴位，用生化方法分别测定兔子宫和卵巢的酸性磷酸酶（ＡＣＰ）、碱性磷酸酶（ＡＬＰ）的活性。激光照射后，子宫和卵巢的ＡＣＰ酶活性保持基本恒定状态，与正常对照组比较无显著差异；相反，ＡＬＰ酶活性显著提高。分析这两种酶在激光照射后表现出来的差异，作者认为是激光作用使细胞内环境改变之故，且这两种酶对Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光的耐受性有所不同。     

He－Ne激光对机体免疫功能影响研究进展

本文仅就Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光照射对机体特异性与非特异性免疫功能的促进与抑制的研究现状作以综述。     

浙江辐照对离体质粒DNA的断裂效应

利用低功率的Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光辐照离体质粒ＤＮＡ,并用离子束和紫外线为对照,分析了质粒ＤＮＡ的单双链断裂效应。结果表明：Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光辐照可诱发质粒ＤＮＡ断裂,且断裂频率辐照剂量增大而提高;Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光辐照后的质粒超螺旋双链的ＤＮＡ存活率剂量曲线不同于紫外线和氮离子束。Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光诱发双链断裂的频率低于氮离子束和紫外线。     

激光辐照对离体质粒DNA的断裂效应

利用低功率的Ｈｅ－ Ｎｅ 激光辐照离体质粒ＤＮＡ,并用离子束和紫外线为对照,分析了质粒ＤＮＡ的单双链断裂效应。结果表明：Ｈｅ－ Ｎｅ 激光辐照可诱发质粒ＤＮＡ 断裂,且断裂频率随辐照剂量增大而提高;Ｈｅ－ Ｎｅ 激光辐照后的质粒超螺旋双链ＤＮＡ存活率剂量曲线不同于紫外线和氮离子束。Ｈｅ－ Ｎｅ 激光诱发双链断裂的频率低于氮离子束和紫外线。     

不同剂量的He—Ne激光对Raji细胞表面电荷的影响

本文以离体培养的Ｒａｊｉ细胞为材料,采用细胞电泳技术检测了不同剂量的Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光对Ｒａｊｉ细胞表面电荷的影响,发现低于或者等于０．５Ｊ／ｃｍ＾２的Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光能量对膜表面电荷无明显影响（Ｐ〉０．０５）;大于此剂量的Ｈｅ－Ｎｅ激光可使膜表面电荷（绝对值）下降,即负电荷数减小,ＥＰＭ下降（Ｐ〈０．０５）。     

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