Indenture between William Kingsmill and Peter Buchanan, Isaac Buchanan, Robert W. Harris and I. Young

Indenture (vellum) between William Kingsmill, Sheriff of Niagara regarding the sale of goods and chattels of Darius Ball including buildings and improvements in Lot no. 4 near Grand River to Peter Buchanan, Isaac Buchanan, Robert W. Harris and I. Young, July 22, 1844.

Review of The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, edited by Peter W. Flint

Review of The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, edited by Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Pp. xv + 266. Price: $22.00. ISBN 0-8028-4630-0. This volume is another contribution to the Eerdmans series Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. The essays are loosely gathered around the topic "The Bible at Qumran," and the editor has divided the articles into two groups. Part 1, "The Scriptures, the Canon, and the Scrolls," includes articles by J.A. Sanders, B.W. Waltke, E. Ulrich, C.A. Evans, and the editor, P.W. Flint. The contributors to Part 2, "Biblical Interpretation and the Dead Sea Scrolls," are J.C. VanderKam, C.A. Evans, J.E. Bowley, J.M. Scott, M.G. Abegg, and R.W. Wall. Unlike other volumes of collected essays in this series, which have highlighted the work of a single author or published the proceedings of a particular conference, this collection has a more disparate origin. Some contributions were given as papers at the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute of Trinity Western University (Bowley, Ulrich, VanderKam and Wall), one (Waltke) is reprinted from The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), and the rest (Abegg, Evans, Flint, Sanders and Scott) were invited for the volume.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

Reconstruction and interpretation of Brittsia problematica D. White (Fern, Pennsylvanian) / Hermann W. Pfefferkorn --.

v.33:no.17(1976)

Nominations before the Senate Armed Services Committee, second session, 106th Congress : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, second session, on nominations of Rudy de Leon; Douglas A. Dworkin; Bernard D. Rostker; Gregory R. Dahlberg; Madelyn R. Creedon; Adm. Vernon E. Clark; Gen. John A. Gordon; Lt. Gen. Tommy R. Franks; Lt. Gen. William F. Kernan; Donald Mancuso; Roger W. Kallock; James E. Baker; Lt. Gen. Peter Pace; Lt. Gen. Charles R. Holland; Maj. Gen. Robert B. Flowers; and Robert B. Pirie, Jr., February 8; March 21; April 11; May 16, 24; June 27; July 26; September 6; October 3, 19, 2000.

Shipping list no.: 2001-0213-P.

Robert W. Barbour : letters, poems, and pensées /

Preface [by] Henry Drummond---Memorial chronology [by] James Stalker--Pensées--Poems--Letters--Biographical notices.

Proceedings of the United States senate and the House of representatives in the trial of impeachment of Robert W. Archbald, additional circuit judge of the United States from the third judicial circuit and designated a judge of the Commerce court.

Mode of access: Internet.