7 results
Results of the BRD CAP project: progress toward identifying genetic markers associated with BRD susceptibility
- Alison Van Eenennaam, Holly Neibergs, Christopher Seabury, Jeremy Taylor, Zeping Wang, Erik Scraggs, Robert D. Schnabel, Jared Decker, Andrzej Wojtowicz, Sharif Aly, Jessica Davis, Patricia Blanchard, Beate Crossley, Paul Rossitto, Terry Lehenbauer, Robert Hagevoort, Erik Chavez, J. Shannon Neibergs, James E. Womack
-
- Journal:
- Animal Health Research Reviews / Volume 15 / Issue 2 / December 2014
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 November 2014, pp. 157-160
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The Bovine Respiratory Disease Coordinated Agricultural Project (BRD CAP) is a 5-year project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), with an overriding objective to use the tools of modern genomics to identify cattle that are less susceptible to BRD. To do this, two large genome wide association studies (GWAS) were conducted using a case:control design on preweaned Holstein dairy heifers and beef feedlot cattle. A health scoring system was used to identify BRD cases and controls. Heritability estimates for BRD susceptibility ranged from 19 to 21% in dairy calves to 29.2% in beef cattle when using numerical scores as a semi-quantitative definition of BRD. A GWAS analysis conducted on the dairy calf data showed that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effects explained 20% of the variation in BRD incidence and 17–20% of the variation in clinical signs. These results represent a preliminary analysis of ongoing work to identify loci associated with BRD. Future work includes validation of the chromosomal regions and SNPs that have been identified as important for BRD susceptibility, fine mapping of chromosomes to identify causal SNPs, and integration of predictive markers for BRD susceptibility into genetic tests and national cattle genetic evaluations.
192 - Baxandall's Bridge and Charles IV's Prague: An Exercise in Architectural Intention
- from Authors and Intentions
-
- By Paul Crossley, University of London
- Edited by Jill A. Franklin, T. A. Heslop, Christine Stevenson
-
- Book:
- Architecture and Interpretation
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 15 November 2012, pp 192-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
MUCH RECENT WORK on the epistemology of art has centred on the mysteries of the creative process, which has come under critical scrutiny from psychologists, philosophers of aesthetics and the art historian. Does creativity in art call for special talents that distinguish the artist from the general run of human beings? Do ‘truly’ creative artworks add something of interest to the world – something above the routine and the derivative? Can the art historian dare to identify creativity in art with durable and constant appeal – or will s/he fall back on explanations of the creative in terms of the contingencies of social class, historical circumstance and gender difference?
Such questions raise special difficulties for the art historian, for whom the whole concept of agency has, in the last quarter century, become a battleground. The traditional, common-sense view that the meanings of works of art lie in the meanings given them by their creators can no longer be sustained. Psychoanalysis has confirmed what our experience tells us: that we have no means of knowing the inner complexities of our own psyche, let alone the inner experience of an artist and the ‘authentic’ meanings his work contains. Postmodernist deconstruction has alerted us to the ambiguities of the self and the complexities of self-expression by questioning the model of a stable consciousness and by situating meaning in a potentially endless process of ‘inter-textual’ signifying.
Surveillance Definitions of Infections in Long-Term Care Facilities: Revisiting the McGeer Criteria
- Nimalie D. Stone, Muhammad S. Ashraf, Jennifer Calder, Christopher J. Crnich, Kent Crossley, Paul J. Drinka, Carolyn V. Gould, Manisha Juthani-Mehta, Ebbing Lautenbach, Mark Loeb, Taranisia MacCannell, Preeti N. Malani, Lona Mody, Joseph M. Mylotte, Lindsay E. Nicolle, Mary-Claire Roghmann, Steven J. Schweon, Andrew E. Simor, Philip W. Smith, Kurt B. Stevenson, Suzanne F. Bradley, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology Long-Term Care Special Interest Group
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 33 / Issue 10 / October 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 965-977
- Print publication:
- October 2012
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Infection surveillance definitions for long-term care facilities (ie, the McGeer Criteria) have not been updated since 1991. An expert consensus panel modified these definitions on the basis of a structured review of the literature. Significant changes were made to the criteria defining urinary tract and respiratory tract infections. New definitions were added for norovirus gastroenteritis and Clostridum difficile infections.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(10):965-977
Contributors
-
- By Aakash Agarwala, Linda S. Aglio, Rae M. Allain, Paul D. Allen, Houman Amirfarzan, Yasodananda Kumar Areti, Amit Asopa, Edwin G. Avery, Patricia R. Bachiller, Angela M. Bader, Rana Badr, Sibinka Bajic, David J. Baker, Sheila R. Barnett, Rena Beckerly, Lorenzo Berra, Walter Bethune, Sascha S. Beutler, Tarun Bhalla, Edward A. Bittner, Jonathan D. Bloom, Alina V. Bodas, Lina M. Bolanos-Diaz, Ruma R. Bose, Jan Boublik, John P. Broadnax, Jason C. Brookman, Meredith R. Brooks, Roland Brusseau, Ethan O. Bryson, Linda A. Bulich, Kenji Butterfield, William R. Camann, Denise M. Chan, Theresa S. Chang, Jonathan E. Charnin, Mark Chrostowski, Fred Cobey, Adam B. Collins, Mercedes A. Concepcion, Christopher W. Connor, Bronwyn Cooper, Jeffrey B. Cooper, Martha Cordoba-Amorocho, Stephen B. Corn, Darin J. Correll, Gregory J. Crosby, Lisa J. Crossley, Deborah J. Culley, Tomas Cvrk, Michael N. D'Ambra, Michael Decker, Daniel F. Dedrick, Mark Dershwitz, Francis X. Dillon, Pradeep Dinakar, Alimorad G. Djalali, D. John Doyle, Lambertus Drop, Ian F. Dunn, Theodore E. Dushane, Sunil Eappen, Thomas Edrich, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, Jason M. Erlich, Lucinda L. Everett, Elliott S. Farber, Khaldoun Faris, Eddy M. Feliz, Massimo Ferrigno, Richard S. Field, Michael G. Fitzsimons, Hugh L. Flanagan Jr., Vladimir Formanek, Amanda A. Fox, John A. Fox, Gyorgy Frendl, Tanja S. Frey, Samuel M. Galvagno Jr., Edward R. Garcia, Jonathan D. Gates, Cosmin Gauran, Brian J. Gelfand, Simon Gelman, Alexander C. Gerhart, Peter Gerner, Omid Ghalambor, Christopher J. Gilligan, Christian D. Gonzalez, Noah E. Gordon, William B. Gormley, Thomas J. Graetz, Wendy L. Gross, Amit Gupta, James P. Hardy, Seetharaman Hariharan, Miriam Harnett, Philip M. Hartigan, Joaquim M. Havens, Bishr Haydar, Stephen O. Heard, James L. Helstrom, David L. Hepner, McCallum R. Hoyt, Robert N. Jamison, Karinne Jervis, Stephanie B. Jones, Swaminathan Karthik, Richard M. Kaufman, Shubjeet Kaur, Lee A. Kearse Jr., John C. Keel, Scott D. Kelley, Albert H. Kim, Amy L. Kim, Grace Y. Kim, Robert J. Klickovich, Robert M. Knapp, Bhavani S. Kodali, Rahul Koka, Alina Lazar, Laura H. Leduc, Stanley Leeson, Lisa R. Leffert, Scott A. LeGrand, Patricio Leyton, J. Lance Lichtor, John Lin, Alvaro A. Macias, Karan Madan, Sohail K. Mahboobi, Devi Mahendran, Christine Mai, Sayeed Malek, S. Rao Mallampati, Thomas J. Mancuso, Ramon Martin, Matthew C. Martinez, J. A. Jeevendra Martyn, Kai Matthes, Tommaso Mauri, Mary Ellen McCann, Shannon S. McKenna, Dennis J. McNicholl, Abdel-Kader Mehio, Thor C. Milland, Tonya L. K. Miller, John D. Mitchell, K. Annette Mizuguchi, Naila Moghul, David R. Moss, Ross J. Musumeci, Naveen Nathan, Ju-Mei Ng, Liem C. Nguyen, Ervant Nishanian, Martina Nowak, Ala Nozari, Michael Nurok, Arti Ori, Rafael A. Ortega, Amy J. Ortman, David Oxman, Arvind Palanisamy, Carlo Pancaro, Lisbeth Lopez Pappas, Benjamin Parish, Samuel Park, Deborah S. Pederson, Beverly K. Philip, James H. Philip, Silvia Pivi, Stephen D. Pratt, Douglas E. Raines, Stephen L. Ratcliff, James P. Rathmell, J. Taylor Reed, Elizabeth M. Rickerson, Selwyn O. Rogers Jr., Thomas M. Romanelli, William H. Rosenblatt, Carl E. Rosow, Edgar L. Ross, J. Victor Ryckman, Mônica M. Sá Rêgo, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, Warren S. Sandberg, Annette Y. Schure, B. Scott Segal, Navil F. Sethna, Swapneel K. Shah, Shaheen F. Shaikh, Fred E. Shapiro, Torin D. Shear, Prem S. Shekar, Stanton K. Shernan, Naomi Shimizu, Douglas C. Shook, Kamal K. Sikka, Pankaj K. Sikka, David A. Silver, Jeffrey H. Silverstein, Emily A. Singer, Ken Solt, Spiro G. Spanakis, Wolfgang Steudel, Matthias Stopfkuchen-Evans, Michael P. Storey, Gary R. Strichartz, Balachundhar Subramaniam, Wariya Sukhupragarn, John Summers, Shine Sun, Eswar Sundar, Sugantha Sundar, Neelakantan Sunder, Faraz Syed, Usha B. Tedrow, Nelson L. Thaemert, George P. Topulos, Lawrence C. Tsen, Richard D. Urman, Charles A. Vacanti, Francis X. Vacanti, Joshua C. Vacanti, Assia Valovska, Ivan T. Valovski, Mary Ann Vann, Susan Vassallo, Anasuya Vasudevan, Kamen V. Vlassakov, Gian Paolo Volpato, Essi M. Vulli, J. Matthias Walz, Jingping Wang, James F. Watkins, Maxwell Weinmann, Sharon L. Wetherall, Mallory Williams, Sarah H. Wiser, Zhiling Xiong, Warren M. Zapol, Jie Zhou
- Edited by Charles Vacanti, Scott Segal, Pankaj Sikka, Richard Urman
-
- Book:
- Essential Clinical Anesthesia
- Published online:
- 05 January 2012
- Print publication:
- 11 July 2011, pp xv-xxviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
The Nave of Stone Church in Kent
- Paul Crossley
-
- Journal:
- Architectural History / Volume 44 / 2001
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 April 2016, pp. 195-211
- Print publication:
- 2001
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The parish church of St Mary the Virgin at Stone near Dartford, under construction in about 1260, is justly famous for its ambitious choir, the work of masons from the premier Gothic building in England, Henry III’s Westminster Abbey. The choir of Stone is a miniature Westminster: its generous bar-tracery windows and its lusciously carved wall arcades bring the metropolitan glamour of the abbey to a north Kent parish church on the Thames estuary (Fig. 1). Not surprisingly, this mysterious transfer has distracted attention from the virtues — indeed almost from the very existence — of the nave of the church. Only John Newman, in what is still the most incisive analysis of the whole building, gave proper weight to the nave’s elegant enrichment and noble proportions. There can be little doubt that the nave, which was built sequentially to the choir in the 1260s, belongs to the same Westminster milieu; but whereas the choir seems to depend solely on the abbey church, the nave reflects a much wider range of inspiration, from the hinterland of Westminster’s own sources, namely the architecture of southern England in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Most importantly, the nave stands in self-conscious contrast to the choir, a contrast which offers important clues to its unnoticed significance. Despite the choir’s élan, it is the nave which ensures Stone’s place of honour in the history of English Gothic architecture.
11 - Architecture
- from Part I - General Themes
- Edited by Michael Jones, University of Nottingham
-
- Book:
- The New Cambridge Medieval History
- Published online:
- 28 March 2008
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2000, pp 234-256
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
the fourteenth century saw the triumphant expansion of Gothic architecture from a largely French into a wholly European phenomenon. Gothic became the dominant visual language of Christendom, and in the process underwent a transformation of almost everything that it had meant in the first century of its life. Conceived as the theological and liturgical handmaiden of a small and homogeneous circle of European higher clergy, it now emerged, revitalised but fragmented, as the architecture of a socially diverse patronage, much of it lay rather than ecclesiastical. In the hands of kings, princes, the higher nobility, a prosperous bourgeoisie and the ‘popular’ orders of the friars, Gothic proliferated into new, more secular, genres, promoted in part by the expectations of this new clientèle. If the ‘great church’ – the basilican cathedral and monastic church – dominated the first one hundred years of Gothic, the chapel, the castle-palace, the city and its public buildings were now, for the first time, recognized as the principal architectural challenges of the later Middle Ages. In turn, these new classes of patron altered the geography of medieval art. The architectural hegemony enjoyed by Paris and northern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries came to be disputed by centres of patronage hitherto on the fringes of the Gothic world – Naples, Florence, Cologne, London, Barcelona, Prague and Marienburg – many of them new capitals of lay government. Such shifts in the balance of artistic power had profound consequences for the history of architectural style.
15 - Architecture and Painting
- from PART III - SPIRITUAL, CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC LIFE
- Edited by Christopher Allmand, University of Liverpool
-
- Book:
- The New Cambridge Medieval History
- Published online:
- 28 March 2008
- Print publication:
- 18 June 1998, pp 299-318
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The epochs in the history of art occupy so central a position in western achievement yet so strongly resist the neat distinctions of period and categorisation as the fifteenth century. The arts of fifteenth-century Christendom, known variously as 'late medieval', 'early Renaissance', 'late Gothic', even 'florid' and 'flamboyant', present an extraordinarily heterogeneous picture. The most profound changes come from the most mimetic of media, manuscript and panel painting, and to leave architecture, and to a lesser extent sculpture, unaltered until the mid-sixteenth century. The contrasting sensibilities of van der Weyden and van Eyck established the two poles within which Netherlandish painting operated to the end of the century. The Quattrocento sanctioned all kinds of personal commemoration for political, military, literary and artistic achievement. The cultivation of purely aesthetic values and interests, allied to a proliferation of new kinds of secular art in northern Europe and Italy, cannot obscure the fact that fifteenth-century art remained predominantly religious.