Éditeur(s) : Pub. by J.B. Smith & Co. Pub. by J.B. Smith & Co. ( Philadelphia (No. 610 Chestnut Street) )
Résumé : (Statement of Responsibility) by Daniel Defoe ; two volumes in one.
Gilt, decorative spine with title: Robinson Crusoe.
Undated reissue of Lovett, R.W. Robinson Crusoe, 458 and NUC pre- 1956, 0118338 (v. 136, p. 598) both of which are dated 1859.
Col. front.: Sinclair's Lith. Probably Thomas S. Sinclair, a lithographer active in Philadelphia from the 1840s.
All pages have fancy ruled frame.
Parts I and II of Robinson Crusoe. Part II originally published under title: Farther adventures of Robinson Crusoe.
(Funding) Preservation and Access for American and British Children's Literature, 1870-1889 (NEH PA-50860-00).
United States -- Pennsylvania -- Philadelphia

Droits : This item is presumed to be in the public domain. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions may require permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact The Department of Special and Area Studies Collections (special@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
27866802

North America -- United States Virgin Islands
Caribbean
1970-2005

North America -- United States Virgin Islands
Caribbean
1970-2005

Éditeur(s) : University of Michigan Press University of Michigan Press ( Ann Arbor )
Résumé : Contributions from the University of Michigan Herbarium, number 1

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
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.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD springer Link
Résumé : International audience
Experimental Astronomy

hal-01094521
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01094521
BIBCODE : 2014ExA...tmp...41R
DOI : 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4
ARXIV : 1310.0696

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Wiley
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 1354-1013

hal-01080954
https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01080954
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01439.x

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
The continental South Armenian Block – part of the Anatolide–Tauride South Armenian microplate – of Gondwana origin rifted from the African margin after the Triassic and collided with the Eurasian margin after the Late Cretaceous. During the Late Cretaceous, two northward dipping subduction zones were simultaneously active in the northern Neo-Tethys between the South Armenian Block in the south and the Eurasian margin in the north: oceanic subduction took place below the continental Eurasian margin and intra-oceanic subduction resulted in ophiolite obduction onto the South Armenian Block in the Late Cretaceous.The paleolatitude position of the South Armenian Block before its collision with Eurasia within paleogeographic reconstructions is poorly determined and limited to one study. This earlier study places the South Armenian Block at the African margin in the Early Jurassic. To reconstruct the paleolatitude history of the South Armenian Block, we sampled Upper Devonian–Permian and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in Armenia. The sampled Paleozoic rocks have likely been remagnetized. Results from two out of three sites sampled in Upper Cretaceous strata pass fold tests and probably all three carry a primary paleomagnetic signal. The sampled sedimentary rocks were potentially affected by inclination shallowing. Therefore, two sites that consist of a large number of samples (> 100) were corrected for inclination shallowing using the elongation/inclination method.These are the first paleomagnetic data that quantify the South Armenian Block's position in the Tethys ocean between post-Triassic rifting from the African margin and post-Cretaceous collision with Eurasia. A locality sampled in Lower Campanian Eurasian margin sedimentary rocks and corrected for inclination shallowing, confirms that the corresponding paleolatitude falls on the Eurasian paleolatitude curve. The north–south distance between the South Armenian Block and the Eurasian margin just after Coniacian–Santonian ophiolite obduction was at most 1000 km.
ISSN: 0040-1951

hal-01365871
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01365871
DOI : 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.01.012