Correlation of non-uniform protein expression with variation in transmitter release probability

The strength of synaptic transmission is highly variable between different synapses. The present study examined some factors that may contribute to this variation in the strength of neurotransmission in sympathetic varicosities of the mouse vas deferens. Transmitter release was measured using a focal macropatch electrode placed over pairs of visualised varicosities. By regulating the calcium concentration of the solutions inside the recording electrode and in the bath independently of each other, transmitter release was restricted to one or two surface varicosities at each recording site. Using this technique, transmitter release probability was shown to be highly variable, even between adjacent varicosities on single axon branches. Very little variation was observed in the calcium influx following single impulse nerve stimulation between adjacent Oregon Green BAPTA-1 loaded varicosities. However, the staining intensities of three vesicular proteins, SV2, synaptophysin, and synaptotagmin 1, showed considerable variation between adjacent varicosities on single axon branches. This variation in staining intensity may be partly explained by variation in the density of synaptic vesicles. However, double staining experiments using two vesicular antigens showed some varicosities staining for one vesicular antigen, but not for the second, suggesting that the expression of these release machinery proteins is regulated locally within the varicosities. The results of the present study strengthen suggestions that synaptic strength is at least in part, regulated by variation in the expression of vesicular proteins. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Beyond the sphere of the English facial approximation literature: Ramifications of German papers on western method concepts

In the English literature, facial approximation methods have been commonly classified into three types: Russian, American, or Combination. These categorizations are based on the protocols used, for example, whether methods use average soft-tissue depths (American methods) or require face muscle construction (Russian methods). However, literature searches outside the usual realm of English publications reveal key papers that demonstrate that the Russian category above has been founded on distorted views. In reality, Russian methods are based on limited face muscle construction, with heavy reliance on modified average soft-tissue depths. A closer inspection of the American method also reveals inconsistencies with the recognized classification scheme. This investigation thus demonstrates that all major methods of facial approximation depend on both face anatomy and average soft-tissue depths, rendering common method classification schemes redundant. The best way forward appears to be for practitioners to describe the methods they use (including the weight each one gives to average soft-tissue depths and deep face tissue construction) without placing them in any categorical classificatory group or giving them an ambiguous name. The state of this situation may need to be reviewed in the future in light of new research results and paradigms.

Community broadcasting and the enclosure of the public sphere

One of the normative tenets of the Habermasian public sphere is that it should be an open and universally accessible forum. In Australia, one way of achieving this is the provision for community broadcasting in the Broadcasting Services Act. A closer examination of community broadcasting, however, suggests practices that contradict the idea of an open and accessible public sphere. Community broadcasting organizations regulate access to their media assets through a combination of formal and informal structures. This suggests that the public sphere can be understood as a resource, and that community broadcasting organizations can be analysed as ‘commons regimes’. This approach reveals a fundamental paradox inherent in the public sphere: access, participation and the quality of discourse in the public sphere are connected to its enclosure, which limits membership and participation through a system of rules and norms that govern the conduct of a group. By accepting the view that a public sphere is governed by property rights, it follows that an open and universally accessible public sphere is neither possible nor desirable.