Kuva tikkeinä kankaalla : Kokemuksia PE-design 6.0 -kirjontakuvion suunnitteluohjelman kahden automaattisen tekniikan käytettävyydestä

The aim of the thesis was to compare the correspondence of the outcome a computer assisted program appearance compared to the original image. The aspect of the study was directed to embroidery with household machines. The study was made from the usability point of view with Brother's PE-design 6.0 embroidery design programs two automatic techniques; multicoloured fragment design and multicoloured stitch surface design. The study's subject is very current because of the fast development of machine embroidery. The theory is based on history of household sewing machines, embroidery sewing machines, stitch types in household sewing machines, embroidery design programs as well as PE-design 6.0 embroidery design program's six automatic techniques. Additionally designing of embroidery designs were included: original image, digitizing, punching, applicable sewing threads as well as the connection between embroidery designs and materials used on embroidery. Correspondences of sewn appearances were examined with sewing experimental methods. 18 research samples of five original image were sewn with both techniques. Experiments were divided into four testing stages in design program. Every testing stage was followed by experimental sewing with Brother Super Galaxie 3100D embroidery machine. Experiments were reported into process files and forms made for the techniques. Research samples were analysed on images syntactic bases with sensory perception assessment. Original images and correspondence of the embroidery appearances were analysed with a form made of it. The form was divided into colour and shape assessment in five stage-similarity-scale. Based on this correspondence analysis it can be said that with both automatic techniques the best correspondence of colour and shape was achieved by changing the standard settings and using the makers own thread chart and edited original image. According to the testing made it is impossible to inform where the image editing possibilities of the images are sufficient or does the optimum correspondence need a separate program. When aiming at correspondence between appearances of two images the computer is unable to trace by itself the appearance of the original image. Processing a computer program assisted embroidery image human perception and personal decision making are unavoidable.

LIN28B, LIN28A, KISS1, and KISS1R in idiopathic central precocious puberty

Abstract Background Pubertal timing is a strongly heritable trait, but no single puberty gene has been identified. Thus, the genetic background of idiopathic central precocious puberty (ICPP) is poorly understood. Overall, the genetic modulation of pubertal onset most likely arises from the additive effect of multiple genes, but also monogenic causes of ICPP probably exist, as cases of familial ICPP have been reported. Mutations in KISS1 and KISSR, coding for kisspeptin and its receptor, involved in GnRH secretion and puberty onset, have been suggested causative for monogenic ICPP. Variation in LIN28B was associated with timing of puberty in genome-wide association (GWA) studies. LIN28B is a human ortholog of the gene that controls, through microRNAs, developmental timing in C. elegans. In addition, Lin28a transgenic mice manifest the puberty phenotypes identified in the human GWAS. Thus, both LIN28B and LIN28A may have a role in pubertal development and are good candidate genes for monogenic ICPP. Methods Thirty girls with ICPP were included in the study. ICPP was defined by pubertal onset before 8 yrs of age, and a pubertal LH response to GnRH testing. The coding regions of LIN28B, LIN28A, KISS1, and KISS1R were sequenced. The missense change in LIN28B was also screened in 132 control subjects. Results No rare variants were detected in KISS1 or KISS1R in the 30 subjects with ICPP. In LIN28B, one missense change, His199Arg, was found in one subject with ICPP. However, this variant was also detected in one of the 132 controls. No variation in LIN28A was found. Conclusions We did not find any evidence that mutations in LIN28B or LIN28A would underlie ICPP. In addition, we confirmed that mutations in KISS1 and KISS1R are not a common cause for ICPP.