Leafhopper Comparative Genomics - Identifying Similarities and Differences across Leafhopper Vectors ofXylella fastidiosa

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-321
Author(s):  
E. W. Welch ◽  
W. B. Hunter ◽  
K. S. Shelby ◽  
R. F. Mizell ◽  
C. Tipping ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Genomics ◽  
Similarities And Differences

scholarly journals Distance and Similarity Measures in Comparative Genomics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego P. Rubert ◽  
Jens Stoye ◽  
Fábio H. V. Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Genomics ◽  
Molecular Biology ◽  
Similarity Measures ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Similarities And Differences

Research in comparative genomics supports the investigation of important questions in molecular biology, genetics and biomedicine. A central question in this field is the elucidation of similarities and differences between genomes by means of different measures. This summary, submitted to CTD 2020, briefly describes the main contributions, originality and impact possibilities of the thesis entitled "Distance and Similarity Measures in Comparative Genomics", by Diego P. Rubert.

scholarly journals Comparative genomics approaches to study organism similarities and differences

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Wei ◽  
Yueyi Liu ◽  
Inna Dubchak ◽  
John Shon ◽  
John Park
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Genomics ◽  
Approaches To Study ◽  
Similarities And Differences

scholarly journals How Weird is The Worm? Evolution of the Developmental Gene Toolkit in Caenorhabditis elegans

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Baker ◽  
Alison Woollard
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Comparative Genomics ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Genomic Variation ◽  
Developmental Gene ◽  
Animal Kingdom ◽  
Animal Development ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Fruitful Research

Comparative developmental biology and comparative genomics are the cornerstones of evolutionary developmental biology. Decades of fruitful research using nematodes have produced detailed accounts of the developmental and genomic variation in the nematode phylum. Evolutionary developmental biologists are now utilising these data as a tool with which to interrogate the evolutionary basis for the similarities and differences observed in Nematoda. Nematodes have often seemed atypical compared to the rest of the animal kingdom—from their totally lineage-dependent mode of embryogenesis to their abandonment of key toolkit genes usually deployed by bilaterians for proper development—worms are notorious rule breakers of the bilaterian handbook. However, exploring the nature of these deviations is providing answers to some of the biggest questions about the evolution of animal development. For example, why is the evolvability of each embryonic stage not the same? Why can evolution sometimes tolerate the loss of genes involved in key developmental events? Lastly, why does natural selection act to radically diverge toolkit genes in number and sequence in certain taxa? In answering these questions, insight is not only being provided about the evolution of nematodes, but of all metazoans.

Orosensory Perception, Speech Production, and Deafness

1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milo E. Bishop ◽  
Robert L. Ringel ◽  
Arthur S. House
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Functional Disorders ◽  
Form Discrimination ◽  
School Subjects ◽  
Oral Form ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The oral form-discrimination abilities of 18 orally educated and oriented deaf high school subjects were determined and compared to those of manually educated and oriented deaf subjects and normal-hearing subjects. The similarities and differences among the responses of the three groups were discussed and then compared to responses elicited from subjects with functional disorders of articulation. In general, the discrimination scores separated the manual deaf from the other two groups, particularly when differences in form shapes were involved in the test. The implications of the results for theories relating orosensory-discrimination abilities are discussed. It is postulated that, while a failure in oroperceptual functioning may lead to disorders of articulation, a failure to use the oral mechanism for speech activities, even in persons with normal orosensory capabilities, may result in poor performance on oroperceptual tasks.

Animals as Social Objects

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verónica Sevillano ◽  
Susan T. Fiske
Keyword(s):  
Social Perception ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Social Responses ◽  
Content Model ◽  
Stereotype Content ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Behavioral Tendencies ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Sphere Of Influence

Abstract. Nonhuman animals are typically excluded from the scope of social psychology. This article presents animals as social objects – targets of human social responses – overviewing the similarities and differences with human targets. The focus here is on perceiving animal species as social groups. Reflecting the two fundamental dimensions of humans’ social cognition – perceived warmth (benign or ill intent) and competence (high or low ability), proposed within the Stereotype Content Model ( Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 ) – animal stereotypes are identified, together with associated prejudices and behavioral tendencies. In line with human intergroup threats, both realistic and symbolic threats associated with animals are reviewed. As a whole, animals appear to be social perception targets within the human sphere of influence and a valid topic for research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document