In addition to physiological functions, the neuropeptide hormone, arginine vasopressin (AVP) facilitates the mammalian central nervous system (CNS) regulation of cognitive function and social behaviors. V 1A receptors mediate these effects. Although distribution patterns of AVP-producing neurons and fibers are similar among mammals, CNS V1A receptor patterns are species-specific. Here, rhesus (Macaca mulatta) central V1A receptors were mapped using receptor autoradiography techniques. By incubating 20 μm tissue sections with 125I-lin-AVP (125I-Phenylacetyl-D-Tyr(Me)-Phe-Gln-Asn-Arg-Pro-Arg-Tyr-NH 2 linear vasopressin V1A receptor antagonist) AVP binding sites were detected. A V1A agonist ([d(Ch2)5[Tyr(Me)]AVP) displaced the 125I-lin-AVP tracer in all sites, providing support for verification of the sites as V1A receptors. V1A receptors were localized within pyriform, entorhinal, cingulate and insular cortices, the presubiculum, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), lateral septum (LS), mammillary bodies and within several structures of the amygdala, hypothalamus, hippocampus, thalamus and brain stem. The rhesus V1A receptor map is relevant to recent research in human learning, memory and emotion. Particularly pertinent are those receptors found in the amygdala, mammillary bodies, medial temporal lobe structures, and cingulate cortex. Comparison of this rhesus V1A receptor map to those previously reported for nonprimates revealed that all had V1A receptors in the BNST, central amygdala, diagonal band of Broca, LS, and solitary tract. Marmosets shared similar binding patterns in the BNST, but densities differed in SCN, LS, and various amygdala and hypothalamus regions. In presubiculum, supraoptic nucleus, cortical regions, and mammillary bodies, areas dense with V1A receptors in rhesus, marmosets revealed none. Such differences may reflect species-specific memory capabilities.

The purpose of this study is to explore the world of anatomical gifts, specifically whole body donations for anatomical dissection, and to examine the relationship between laboratory cadavers and anatomy students. This relationship is rooted in the "anatomical gift" of a body to science. As a result of this gift, the physical remains of a dead person are transformed into a liminal artifact—one that possesses characteristics of both person and thing—whose purpose is to be cut apart for scientific study. Two inherently anthropological concepts that can help us to understand the cadaver and its relationships are "the gift" and the body as material culture. Anthropology has traditionally divided the world in such a way as to separate mind, body, and material things. Yet the gift to science of a dead human body occupies material, biological, and cultural domains—and as such both challenges and sheds light on subdisciplinary boundaries. What sort of people donate their bodies "to science," and why do they do it? How do anatomy students respond to working with cadavers? What is the nature of the relationship between cadaver and student? To address these questions, I focus on the experiences of prospective body donors and occupational and physical therapy students in western Massachusetts. I combine quantitative and qualitative data, drawn from survey questionnaires completed by a self-selected sample of prospective donors and by three cohorts of OT and PT anatomy students, to contribute to our understanding of the anatomical gift, the body as material culture, and subdisciplinary boundaries. As a result of this research, several points have emerged that may be of use to anatomy students, prospective donors, and body donor programs. To further the analysis of whole body donation for anatomical dissection, I propose three lines of more specifically focused research. Such continued research would make valuable contributions to the pedagogy of anatomy. At a broader and more theoretical level, it would also enhance our appreciation of the complex relationships between persons and things, and between the living and the dead, at the intersection of human biological, material, and cultural domains.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>The earliest written reference to rickets comes from Soranus of Ephesus, a Roman medical writer of the early second century AD who describes a high number of children in Rome suffering from rochitic deformities. The current study utilizes two independent forms of evidence, skeletal and historic, to study the prevalence of rickets among the human subadult skeletons of the 1st to 3rd century imperial Roman necropolis of lsola Sacra. The necropolis of lsola Sacra represents the remains of individuals who inhabited imperial Rome's key maritime part', Portus Romae on the Mediterranean coast 23 kilometers west of Rome. One hundred and eighty-two subadult skeletons were examined morphologically and radiographically to search for diagnostic indicators of rickets.</p> <p>Fifteen percent (27/182) of lsola Sacra subadults, birth to 15 years, show rachitic traits with a wide range of morphological presentation. Most individuals suffered from hyperplastic rickets, less likely due to malnutrition. All age categories and burial types show rachitic traits. No association was found between age and the appearance of rickets. No association was found between burial type and the appearance of rickets.</p> <p>Roman cultural practices, social values and socioeconomic status of the populace using the necropolis may have predisposed the subadult population of lsola Sacra to rickets. Low maternal vitamin D is likely a strong contributing factor to rickets prevalence in the lsola Sacra sample and wos the result of sociocultural factors influencing maternal vitamin D intake.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

First, the literature on hominoid cytogenetics is reviewed and evaluated. It is suggested that there are significant deficiencies in the ways in which chromosomal data have been used with regard to primate evolution. The most robust chromosomal data support an orthodox phylogeny of the Hominoidea. Heterodox phylogenies which have been suggested on the basis of chromosomal data are not well supported. The present investigation considered the problem of intra-specific variation in karyotypes of the common chimpanzee. Blood cultures were cultivated on 25 chimpanzees, constituting the largest sample of chimpanzees in a single cytogenetic study. These were studied by G-banding, C-banding and nucleolar organizer (Ag-NOR) staining. No inversions, translocations, fissions or fusions were detected in this sample. However, several variations of the constitutive heterochromatin and nucleolar organizers were noted. One individual had a chromosome 22 which lacked the heterochromatic short arm and satellite entirely. The most common variants were those in which the amount of telomeric heterochromatin differed significantly between the two homologous chromosomes. One such variant for chromosome 19 was found in 8 individuals. Two of the common chimpanzees possessed a chromosome 23 with a large heterochromatic short arm, although this feature has been reported only for the pygmy chimpanzee. To compare the observable range of variation in the common chimpanzee with its sister group, fibroblast cultures were obtained on three pygmy chimpanzees. Some of the cytotaxonomic distinctions between the two chimpanzee species are called into question. Three main conclusions are drawn from this work. First, the most common kinds of variations are nucleolar organizer and C-band heteromorphisms, as with the chimpanzee's close relative Homo sapiens. Second, inversions and translocations, which seem to be very common among gibbons but not among macaques/baboons, are not common in chimpanzees. This is in accordance with the hypothesis that such structural chromosomal diversity is a property of the social structure of the species rather than a property of the clade to which the species belongs. Third, there is some overlap between Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes for characters which have been thought to be cytotaxonomically distinctive of each species.

No description available.

No description available.