The genetics of glucosamine in yeast : cytoplasmic determinants conferring resistance

Two cytoplasmic, glucosamine resistant mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, GR6 and GR10, were examined to determine whether or not the lesions involved were located on mitochondrial DNA. Detailed investigation of crosses of GR6 and GR10 or their derivatives to strains bearing known mitochondrial markers demonstrated that: 1. the frequency of glucos~~ine resistance in diploids was independent of factors influencing mitochondrial marker output. 2. upon tetrad analysis a variety of tetrad ratios was observed for glucosamine resistance whereas mitochondrial markers segregated 4:0 or 0:4 (resistant:sensitive). 3. glucosamine resistance and mitochondrial markers segregated differentially with time. 4. glucosamine resistance persisted following treatment of a GRIO derivative with ethidium bromide at concentrations high enough to eliminate all mitochondrial DNA. 5. haploid spore clones displayed two degrees of glucosamine resistance, weak and strong, while growth due to mitochondrial mutations was generally thick and confluent. 6. a number of glucosamine resistant diploids and haploids, which also possessed a mithchondrial resistance mutation, were unable to grow on medium containing both glucosamine and the particular drug involved. 3 These observations 1~ 6 provided strong evidence that the cytoplasmic glucosamine resistant mutations present in GR6 and GRiO were not situated on mitochondrial DNA. Comparison of the glucosamine resistance mutations to some other known cytoplasmic determinants revealed that: 7. glucosamine resistance and the expression of the killer phenotype were separate phenomena. 8. unlike yeast carrying resistance conferring episomes GR6 and GR10 were not resistant to venturicidin or oligomycin and the GR factor exhibited genetic behaviour different from that of the episomal determinants. These results 7--+8 suggested that glucosamine resistance was not associated with the killer determinant nor with alleged yeast episomes. It is therefore proposed that a yeast plasmid(s), previously undescribed, is responsible for glucosamine resistance. The evidence to date is compatible with the hypothesis that GR6 and GR10 carry allelic mutations of the same plasmid which is tentatively designated (GGM).

Mapping one university's response to internationalization : a case study

This study explored one university's response to the internationalization of higher education. Case study methodology was employed through a review of current and archival documents and interviews with key actors in the international spheres of the university. The historical, current, and future contexts were considered to situate the case study on a time line. Data analysis revealed that there were several points of division among the university community related to the response to internationalization, but also a major point of coherence in the centrality of inter-cultural understanding in efforts to internationalize. Other key findings included strengths, areas for improvement, and future directions of the university's response to internationalization. All of these findings were contextualized in findings related to the history of the university. In addition to these major findings, three themes in relation to the vision for internationalization at the institution were revealed: ( a) intercultural understanding, (b) the comprehensive status of the university, and (c) the financial benefits of internationalization. Recommendations are made for practice at the university in order to clarify this vision to develop a clear foundation from which to further build a response to internationalization that is solidly based on inter-cultural understanding, and recommendations for future research into the process of internationalization at the institutional level in Canada are suggested.

Letter (unsigned) to R.A. Lucas suggesting that the mapping of the marsh be put off until after the next meeting

Letter (unsigned) to R.A. Lucas suggesting that the mapping of the marsh be put off until after the next meeting. The rest of the letter deals with licenses, Nov. 29, 1882.