Regulation of Homer and group I metabotropic glutamate
中华人民共和国知识产权海关保护条例(英文版)

Regulation of the P. R. China on the customs protection of IP rightsPART ONE GENERAL PROVISIONSArticle 1 These Regulations are formulated in accordance with the PRC, Customs Law in order to implement customs protection of intellectual property rights, promote foreign economic trade and technological and cultural exchange, and safeguard social interests.Article 2 For the purposes of these Regulations, “customs protection of intellectual property rights” refers to the implementation of protection by customs of the exclusive rights to use a trademark, copyrights and the rights related thereto, and patent rights that are related to import and export goods and that are protected by PRC laws and administrative regulations (Intellectual Property Rights).Article 3 The State prohibits the import and export of goods that infringe upon Intellectual Property Rights.Customs shall implement protection of Intellectual Property Rights and exercise the relevant powers stipulated in the PRC, Customs Law in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws and these Regulations.Article 4 Owners of Intellectual Property Rights that request customs to implement protection of Intellectual Property Rights shall submit an application to customs for adoption of protective measures.Article 5 Consignees of import goods or their agents, and consignors of export goods or their agents shall truthfully declare to customs the details of Intellectual Property Rights related to the import or export goods, and shall submit the relevant supporting documents.Article 6 When implementing protection of Intellectual Property Rights, customs shall maintain the confidentiality of the trade secrets of the related parties.PART TWO RECORD FILING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTSArticle 7 An owner of Intellectual Property Rights may apply to the General Administration of Customs for record filing of his Intellectual Property Rights according to the provisions hereof. To apply for record filing, an application form shall be submitted. An application form shall include the following particulars:1. the name or personal name, place of registration or nationality, etc. of the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights;2. the name, details and the relevant information of the Intellectual Property Rights;3. the details of the exercise of the Intellectual Property Rights license;4. the name, place of origin, customs at the point of entry/exit, importers and exporters, major characteristics, and prices, etc. of the goods of which the Intellectual Property Rights are lawfully exercised by the owner of Intellectual Property Rights; and5. the manufacturers, importers and exporters, customs at the point of entry/exit, major characteristics, and prices, etc. of goods that are known to have infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights.Where there are supporting documents for the contents of the application form specified in the preceding paragraph, the owner of Intellectual Property Rights shall attach the supporting documents.Article 8 The General Administration of Customs shall, within 30 working days of the date of receipt of all application documents, render a decision on whether to grant approval for record filing, and shall notify the applicant in writing. Where approval for record filing is not granted, the reasons therefore shall be stated.The General Administration of Customs shall not grant approval for record filing in any of the following circumstances:1. the application documents are incomplete or invalid;2. the applicant is not the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights; or3. the Intellectual Property Rights are no longer protected by laws or administrative regulations.Article 9 If customs discovers that an owner of Intellectual Property Rights that applies for record filing of Intellectual Property Rights has not provided the relevant details or documents truthfully, the General Administration of Customs may revoke its filed record.Article 10 A filed record for customs protection of Intellectual Property Rights shall be effective as of the date on which the General Administration of Customs grants approval for record filing, and shall be valid for 10 years.Where the Intellectual Property Rights are valid, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights may, within six months prior to the expiration of the term of validity of the filed record for customs protection of Intellectual Property Rights, apply to the General Administration of Customs for an extension of the filed record. The term of validity of each extension of a filed record shall be 10 years.Where no application for extension has been made upon the expiration of the term of validity of a filed record for customs protection of Intellectual Property Rights, or the Intellectual Property Rights are no longer protected by laws or administrative regulations, the filed record for customs protection of Intellectual Property Rights shall immediately become void.Article 11 Where there is a change in the details of a filed record of Intellectual Property Rights, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights shall, within 30 working days of the date on which the change occurs, carry out the amendment or cancellation procedures with the General Administration of Customs.Where the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights does not apply to the amendment or cancellation procedures in accordance with the preceding paragraph so as to seriously affect other’s lawful import or export and the Customs supervision according to law, the General Administration of Customs can remove the record upon the application of the stakeholders or take the initiative to do so.PART THREE APPLICATION FOR IMPOUNDMENT OF GOODS SUSPECTED OF INFRINGING UPON RIGHTS, AND THE HANDLING THEREOFArticle 12 Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights discovers that goods suspected of infringing upon rights are about to be imported or exported, he may submit an application for impoundment of goods suspected of infringing upon rights to the customs of the place where the goods are to enter into, or exit from, China.Article 13 Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights requests customs to impound goods suspected of infringing upon rights, he shall submit an application form and the relevant supporting documents, and shall provide evidence that is sufficient to prove that the infringement clearly exists.An application form shall include the following main particulars:1. the name or personal name, place of registration or nationality, etc. of the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights;2. the name, details and the relevant information of the Intellectual Property Rights;3. the names of the consignees and consignors of the goods suspected of infringing upon rights;4. the name and specifications, etc. of the goods suspected of infringing upon rights; and5. the port by which, the time at which and the means of transportation by which, the goods suspected of infringing upon rights may enter into, or exit from, China.Where the goods suspected of infringing upon rights are suspected of infringing upon Intellectual Property Rights that are filed for record, the application form shall also include the customs record number.Article 14 Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights requests customs to impound goods suspected of infringing upon rights, he shall provide to customsa guarantee equal to the value of the goods for compensation of any loss that may be incurred by the consignee or the consignor due to improper application, and for payment of fees for the storage, custody and disposal, etc. of the goods after they are impounded by customs. Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights pays the fees for storage and custody directly to the storage provider, such fees shall be deducted from the guarantee. The specific procedures shall be formulated by the General Administration of Customs.Article 15 Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights that applies for impoundment of goods suspected of infringing upon rights satisfies the provisions of Article 13 hereof and provides a guarantee in accordance with Article 14 hereof, customs shall impound the goods suspected of infringing upon rights, notify the owner of Intellectual Property Rights in writing, and deliver a certificate of impoundment by customs to the consignee or consignor.Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights that applies for impoundment of goods suspected of infringing upon rights does not satisfy the provisions of Article 13 hereof or has not provided a guarantee in accordance with Article 14 hereof, customs shall reject the application and notify the owner of Intellectual Property Rights in writing.Article 16 Where customs discovers import or export goods that are suspected of infringing upon Intellectual Property Rights that are filed for record, it shall notify the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights immediately in writing. Where, within three working days of the date of delivery of the notification, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights submits an application according to Article 13 hereof and provides a guarantee according to Article 14 hereof, customs shall impound the goods suspected of infringing upon rights, notify the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights in writing, and deliver a certificate of impoundment by customs to the consignee or consignor. Where the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights fails to submit an application or provide a guarantee within the time limit, customs may not impound the goods.Article 17 An owner of Intellectual Property Rights and the consignee or consignor may inspect the relevant goods upon the approval of customs.Article 18 Where the consignee or consignor considers that his goods have not infringed upon the Intellectual Property Rights of the owner of Intellectual Property Rights, he shall submit a written explanation to customs and attach the relevant evidence.Article 19 Where a consignee or consignor of goods suspected of infringing upon patent rights considers that his import or export goods have not infringed upon patent rights, he may, after providing a guarantee equal to the value of the goods, request customs to release his goods. If the owner of Intellectual Property Rights fails to institute an action at a people’s court within a reasonable time period, customs shall return the guarantee.Article 20 If, after customs has discovered import or export goods suspected of infringing upon Intellectual Property Rights that are filed for record and has notified the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights requests customs to impound the goods suspected of infringing upon rights, customs shall, within 30 working days of the date of impoundment, investigate and confirm whether the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights have infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights. If it cannot confirm an infringement, it shall notify the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights immediately in writing.Article 21 Where customs conducts an investigation into the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights and requests the assistance of the department in charge of Intellectual Property Rights, the relevant department in charge of Intellectual Property Rights shall provide assistance.Where the department in charge of Intellectual Property Rights requests customs to provide assistance in the handling of rights infringement cases involving import and export goods, customs shall provide assistance.Article 22 Where customs conducts an investigation into the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights and the relevant details, the owner of Intellectual Property Rights and the consignee or consignor shall coordinate with the investigation.Article 23 An owner of Intellectual Property Rights may, after applying to customs for adoption of protective measures, apply to the people’s court for an order of cessation of the infringing act or preservation of property for the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights prior to the institution of action in accordance with the provisions of the PRC, Trademark Law, the PRC, Copyright Law or the PRC, Patent Law.Customs that receives the notice to assist in execution of an order of cessation of an infringing act or preservation of property from the p eople’s court shall provide assistance.Article 24 Customs shall release the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights in any of the following circumstances:1. customs impounds goods suspected of infringing upon rights according to Article 15 hereof, and has not received the notice to assist in execution from the people’s court within 20 working days from the date of impoundment;2. customs impounds goods suspected of infringing upon rights according to Article 16 hereof, and has not received the notice to assist in execution from the people’s court within 50 working days from the date of impoundment, and cannot confirm that the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights has infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights after investigation;3. the consignee or consignor of the goods suspected of infringing upon patent rights requests customs to release his goods after providing a guarantee equal to the value of the goods; or4. customs considers that the consignee or consignor has sufficient evidence to prove that his goods have not infringed upon the Intellectual Property Rights of the owner of Intellectual Property rights.Article 25 Where customs impounds goods suspected of infringing upon rights according to the provisions hereof, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights shall pay the relevant fees for storage, custody and disposal, etc. Where the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights has not paid the relevant fees,customs may deduct such fees from the guarantee he provides to customs, or request the guarantor to perform the relevant guarantee liability.Where goods suspected of infringing upon rights are confirmed as having infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights may include the relevant fees for storage, custody and disposal, etc. he has paid in the reasonable expenditure paid for cessation of the infringing acts.Article 26 Where customs discovers a case suspected of a criminal offence during implementation of protection of Intellectual Property Rights, it shall hand over the case to the public security authority according to law for handling.PART FOUR LEGAL LIABILITYArticle 27 Where impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights are confirmed as having infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights after investigation by customs, customs shall confiscate the goods.After customs has confiscated the goods that have infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights, it shall notify the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights in writing of the relevant details of such goods.Where confiscated goods that have infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights can be used for public welfare, customs shall transfer the goods to the relevant public welfare organizations to be used for public welfare. Where the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights wishes to acquire the goods, customs may transfer the goods to the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights for compensation. Where confiscated goods that has infringed upon Intellectual Property Rights cannot be used for public welfare and the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights does not wish to acquire the goods, customs may auction off the goods according to law after removing the infringing characteristics. Where the infringing characteristics cannot be removed, customs shall destroy the goods.Article 28 Where articles carried or sent by mail by individuals into or out of China exceed the amount for personal use or the reasonable amount and infringeupon the Intellectual Property Rights stipulated in Article 2 hereof, customs shall confiscate such articles.Article 29 Where, after customs has accepted an application for record filing of protection of Intellectual Property Rights and for adoption of protective measures for Intellectual Property Rights, an owner of Intellectual Property Rights cannot provide precise details and as a result, the goods infringing upon rights are not discovered, or the protective measures are not adopted in a timely manner or effectively, the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights shall bear the liability himself.Where, after an owner of Intellectual Property Rights has requested customs to impound goods suspected of infringing upon rights, customs cannot confirm whether the impounded goods suspected of infringing upon rights has infringed upon the Intellectual Property Rights of the owner of Intellectual Property Rights, or the people’s court rules that the goods have not infringed upon the Intellectual Property Rights of the owner of Intellectual Property Rights, the owner of Intellectual Property Rights shall be liable for compensation according to law.Article 30 Where the import or export of goods that infringe upon Intellectual Property Rights constitutes a criminal offence, criminal liability shall be pursued according to law.Article 31 Where the personnel of customs are derelict in their duties, abuse their authority or practice graft in their implementation of protection of Intellectual Property Rights, and a criminal offence is constituted, their criminal liability shall be pursued according to law. Where the same is insufficient to constitute a criminal offence, they shall be subjected to administrative penalty according to law.PART FIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONSArticle 32 Where an owner of Intellectual Property Rights handles record filing of his Intellectual Property Rights with the General Administration of Customs, he shall pay the fee for record filing in accordance with the relevant State provisions.Article 33 These Regulations shall be implemented as of 1 March 2004. The PRC, Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Regulations promulgated by the State Council on 5 July 1995 shall be simultaneously repealed.。
IUCN红色名录说明书

The IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies™ is the world’s mostcomprehensive information sourceon the global conservation statusof animal, fungi and plant speciesand their links to livelihoods.Our goal is to catalyse actionfor biodiversity conservationby providing informationand analysis on the world’sspecies, including threats,population status and trends.“The IUCN Red List is a wake-up call, reminding us thatour natural world is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Weknow that effective conservation can yield outstandingresults, saving species from extinction while securingthe livelihoods of local communities. The internationalcommunity must urgently step up conservation effortsif we want to secure this fascinating diversity of lifethat sustains, inspires and amazes us every day.”Inger Andersen, IUCN Director General(International Union for Conservation of Nature).Eyelash Frog (Cornufer guentheri) Least ConcernPhotography © Robin MooreAbout The IUCN Red ListAbout The IUCN Red ListThe IUCN Red List is a rich compendium of information on threats, ecological requirements, and habitats of species; and on conservation actions that can be taken to reduce or prevent extinctions. It is based on an objective system for assessing the risk of extinction of a species based on past, present, and projected threats.Species assessments are conducted following a standardized process using the rigorous IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, ensuring the higheststandards of scientific documentation, information management, expert review, and justification.There are eight IUCN Red List Categories based on criteria linked to population trend, size and structure, and geographic range. Species listed as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered or Vulnerable are collectively described as threatened.426333of Conifersthreatened34%of Birdsthreatened13%26N eo ca l l it r o ps i s p a n c h e r i –E n da n g er edT a rs i us t um p ar a – C ri t i c a ll y E nda n ge r edMe rg us oc t os e t ac e u s – C r i t i c a l l yE nd an g er edP se ud o ph i l a u tu s ta n u – E n da ng e re dThe IUCN Red List The IUCN Red List The IUCN Red List How is The IUCNRed List used?About The IUCN Red ListThe IUCN Red List PartnershipWorking together for conservation The IUCN Red List is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.The IUCN Red List partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic GardensConservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.“The IUCN Red List tells us where we ought to be concerned and where the urgent needs are to dosomething to prevent the despoliation of this world. It is a great agenda for the work of conservationists.”Sir David Attenboroughlisted from Vulnerable to Near Threatened .controlled. In 2012 it was down-listed toEndangered and the future looks encouraging due to the extensive conservation work.List as Endangered . Ongoing conservation is essential to continue their recovery.Native to Africa, the Nile Crocodile is atNile Crocodile(Crocodylus niloticus )2006 the population reached 178 birds on four islands - a tenfold increase in forty years.By 1968 commercial whaling had seriously Humpback Whale(Megaptera novaeangliae )Endangered , and the most recent population estimates are of over 1,000 birds.Endemic to Mallorca (a Mediterranean island), Mallorcan Midwife Toad (Alytes muletensis )BarometerOur target is to makeThe IUCN Red List a more completeA broader taxonomic base to species assessments will enable better conservation and policy decisions.A provisional target of 160,000 assessed species has been proposed and the estimated cost of this85,604SO FARAssessment Goal 45,344Described Species 1,359,365Species Assessed 18,609 (2016)An estimated 99% of all organisms are InvertebratesAssessment Goal 61,635Described Species 64,788Species Assessed 44,694 (2016)Nature’s backbone VertebratesAssessment Goal 14,500Described Species 165,305Species Assessed 48 (2016)The most under-researched and under-funded Fungi and other species groupsAssessment Goal 38,521Described Species 310,129Species Assessed 22,253 (2016)The Earth’s lungs PlantsThe IUCN Red List24For more information, please contact ********************Species on The IUCN Red List page – Photography CreditsEncephalartos laevifolius – © SANBIPseudophilautus tanu – © Milivoje Krvavac - Department of Biology and Ecology UNS Acropora palmata – © Jan Paul Zegarra/USFWS SoutheastNeocallitropsis pancheri – © Mickael T Wikimedia CommonsTarsius tumpara – © Geoff DeehanMergus octosetaceus – © Adriano GambariniConservation Action Map Page 1 – Photography CreditsCentranthus trinervis – © Antonie van den Bos for Cucujus cinnaberinus – © Gouix Nicolas and Brustel HervçNipponia nippon – © Andy Li, CC 2.0, NoDerivsMustela nigripes – © Michael Lockhart, USFWS, CC 2.0Cyclura lewisi – © Peter J. Markham, Loretto, MN, CC 2.0, sharealikePrototroctes maraena – © Gary Backhouse, DSE, Arthur Rylah Institute, CC 2.5Conservation Action Map Page 2 – Photography CreditsAlytes muletensis – © Bert Willaert, Crocodylus niloticus – © Sarah McCans, CC 2.0Megaptera novaeangliae – © Whit Welles, CC 3.0Anodorhynchus leari – © Ashok Khosla, Copsychus sechellarum – © Adrian Scottow, CC 2.0, sharealikeOryx leucoryx – © Topiltzin Contreras MacBeath Design: Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus ) Least ConcernPhotography © Gordon EllmerIUCNRue Mauverney 28CH-1196 Gland SwitzerlandTel: + 41 22 999 0000 Fax: + 41 22 999 0015 /redlist /donate© IUCN 2017。
国外乡村振兴研究特征及对中国的启示

进行了论文查找和收集,对相关文献进行内容研读、归类整
动,它将可持续性的经济、社会和文化联系起来,在经济、社
会和文化中扮演着多种角色[7] 。 Randelli 等[8] 表示,通过发
展乡村旅游,可以促进农村经济振兴,改变村庄形象,提高它
们在全国,甚至在国际上的声誉。 Eshliki 等[9] 将乡村旅游业
看,发展乡村旅游作为振兴乡村的一个重要举措受到国外学
者青睐。 Mitchell 等
[6]
指出,以往的乡村振兴战略实施不成
作者简介 吴永珍(1997—) ,男,苗族,湖南凤凰人,硕士研究生,研究
方向:农村经济发展。
收稿日期 2022-12-06
成为文化资源,并在农村发展和品牌战略中发挥着作用[13] 。
使用和管理,并作为农村社区经济多样化的平台发挥了重要
[17]
促进旅游业发展。 在日本,城市居民特别喜欢欣赏风景如画
的乡村,通过引入向日葵作为人造农村景观的新作物,可以
助力乡村旅游
[18]
。
Байду номын сангаас
作用[31] 。 Pašakarnis 等[32] 指出,立陶宛的农村地区占该国
97%以上的领土,居住着 33%的人口。 近年来,废弃土地数
当今世界,随着现代化、工业化和城市化浪潮的席卷,世
功,也不能解决诸如贫困、就业、卫生、粮食安全等问题。 因
界范围内许多国家的农村发展面临困境,实施乡村振兴战略
此,许多国家和地区重新探索新的农村发展战略,其中部分
成为各国普遍共识,也是迫在眉睫的关键之举。 国外关于乡
国家把“矛头”直指乡村旅游。 乡村旅游是一项多面化的活
量逐年增加,使得国家农业发展受阻,破坏土地资源的管理,
毒死蜱的禁限用与替代产品的选择

第6期
申继忠:毒死蜱的禁限用与替代布要取消毒死蜱的登记并禁用毒死 蜱[4,5]。
但是,目前为止美国联邦环保署尚未对毒死蜱 的未来做出任何决定。2021 年 4 月 29 日来自食品 安全中心(Center for Food safety)的最新消息称,旧金 山第九巡回上诉法院于当天下令环境保护署(EPA) 禁止所有对大脑有害的杀虫剂毒死蜱的食品作物使 用,或者只保留对工人和儿童安全的使用。预计美 国环保署在 2022 年全部评审完成之后才会有新的 决议。 1.3 加拿大[6]
·12·
世界农药
第 43 卷
⑸ 2014 年:修订人类健康风险评估 2014 年,作为登记审查过程的一部分,环保署 完成了对所有毒死蜱用途的人类健康风险评估的修 订。根据收到的新信息,包括公众意见,更新了 2011 年 6 月的初步人类健康风险评估结论。环保署考虑 到多种来源的暴露,包括食物和水的暴露、吸入和 皮肤接触暴露等;考虑到所有人口,包括婴儿、儿 童和育龄妇女;还纳入了 2012 年喷雾飘移暴露评估 的信息,以及限制喷雾飘移的新措施。 ⑹ 2016 年:再次修订人类健康风险评估 在收到公众对 2014 年风险评估的意见和农药 法(FIFRA)科学咨询小组的反馈后,EPA 于 2016 年 再次修订了毒死蜱的人类健康风险评估。 ⑺ 2017-2019 年:拒绝撤销最大残留限量的申请 2017 年 3 月,一项要求环保署撤销毒死蜱的所 有食品中最大残留限量规定并取消毒死蜱的所有登 记的请愿书被美国环保署驳回。环保署认为,尽管 经过几年的研究,解释神经发育影响的研究仍然没 有结论,在完成登记审查的剩余时间内,仍有必要 做进一步的科学评估。作为正在进行的登记审查的 一部分,环保署将继续审查有关毒死蜱对神经发育 的影响。 2018 年 8 月 9 日,美国旧金山第九巡回上诉法 院命令美国环保署在 60 d 内禁止使用毒死蜱。 9 月 份,司法部要求由 11 名法官组成的陪审团复审。法 院在 2019 年 3 月 26 日听取口头辩论后,于 2019 年 4 月 19 日命令环保署在 90 d 内就其拒绝 2017 年 3 月这份请愿书发布完整的最终决定。 ⑻ 2020 年:生态风险评估草案和修订的人类 健康风险评估 2020 年 9 月,环保署发布了以下评估报告:① 毒死蜱登记审查的生态风险评估草案;② 用于毒死 蜱登记审查的人类健康风险评估第 3 次修订案;③
最新 21 CFR PART 11 企业指南 中英对照

Guidance for IndustryPart11,Electronic Records;Electronic Signatures —Scope and ApplicationAugust2003Pharmaceutical CGMPsFDA工业指南联邦法规11部分电子记录和电子签名—范围和应用2003年8月药物CGMPsTABLE OF CONTENTS目录I.Introduction (2)II.Background (3)III.Discussion (5)A.Overall Approach to Part11Requirements (5)B.Details of Approach-Scope of Part11 (6)1.Narrow Interpretation of Scope (6)2.Definition of Part11Records (7)C.Approach to Specific Part11Requirements (9)1.Validation (9)2.Audit Trail (9)3.Legacy Systems (10)4.Copies of Records (11)5.Record Retention (12)IV.REFERENCES (13)This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration's(FDA's)current thinking on this topic.It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public.You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.If you want to discuss an alternative approach,contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance.If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff,call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.I.IntroductionThis guidance is intended to describe the Food and Drug Administration's(FDA’s)current thinking regarding the scope and application of part11of Title 21of the Code of Federal Regulations;Electronic Records;Electronic Signatures(21CFR Part11).This document provides guidance to persons who,in fulfillment of a requirement in a statute or another part of FDA's regulations to maintain records or submit information to FDA,have chosen to maintain the records or submit designated information electronically and,as a result,have become subject to part11.Part11applies to records in electronic form that are created,modified,maintained,archived, retrieved,or transmitted under any records requirements set forth in Agency regulations.Part11 also applies to electronic records submitted to the Agency under the Federal Food,Drug,and Cosmetic Act(the Act)and the Public Health Service Act(the PHS Act),even if such records are not specifically identified in Agency regulations(§11.1).The underlying requirements set forth in the Act,PHS Act, and FDA regulations(other than part11)are referred to in this guidance document as predicate rules.As an outgrowth of its current good manufacturing practice(CGMP)initiative for human and animal drugs and biologics,FDA is re-examining part11as it applies to all FDA regulated products.We anticipate initiating rulemaking to change part11as a result of that re-examination.This guidance explains that we 本指南代表了FDA在此领域的当前思路,它不赋予任何人任何权利,也并非用于约束FDA或公众。
california at-berth requirements原文阅读

california at-berth requirements原文阅读California At-Berth RequirementsIntroduction:The state of California is renowned for its commitment to environmental protection and sustainability. As part of its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has implemented at-berth regulations for ships calling at its ports. These regulations aim to minimize air pollution generated by ships while they are at berth. In this article, we will explore the California At-Berth Requirements, their significance, and their impact on reducing emissions.1. Overview of California At-Berth Requirements:The California At-Berth Requirements, introduced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), mandate ships to reduce emissions by using shoreside power (shore power) instead of their onboard auxiliary engines while at berth. These requirements apply to ocean-going vessels, passenger ships, and some government-owned vessels. By plugging into an electrical power source onshore, ships can significantly reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases.2. Benefits of California At-Berth Requirements:2.1 Environmental Benefits:The implementation of at-berth regulations in California has resulted in substantial environmental benefits. By utilizing shoreside power, ships eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity while at berth,thereby reducing emissions of pollutants such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. These emissions contribute to air pollution, smog formation, and adverse health effects. The reduction in emissions helps improve air quality, protect public health, and mitigate the impact of climate change.2.2 Economic Benefits:Although the initial cost of retrofitting ships to be compatible with shore power can be significant, the long-term economic benefits outweigh the investment. Compliance with the at-berth requirements enables ships to reduce fuel consumption and associated costs. By utilizing shore power, ships can also avoid potential penalties for non-compliance, ensuring smooth operations and reducing financial risks.3. Implementation and Compliance:The California At-Berth Requirements provide a flexible approach to compliance, taking into consideration varying operational circumstances. Vessels are required to use shore power while at berth for a certain duration, depending on their visit frequency and berth location. Ships are equipped with specialized electrical connections, known as high-voltage shore power systems, which allow them to connect to onshore electricity grids seamlessly.CARB enforces compliance with the regulations through monitoring and reporting programs. Vessels are required to submit pre-arrival notifications and provide detailed reports on their shore power usage. Failure to comply with the at-berth requirements may result in financial penalties and potential restrictions on vessel operations in California ports.4. Expansion and Future Developments:The success of the California At-Berth Requirements has prompted other states and countries to adopt similar regulations. In recent years, the use of shore power has become a global trend in maritime environmental protection. Efforts are underway to expand the infrastructure for shore power and standardize its implementation across different ports worldwide. This expansion will further drive the reduction in emissions from ships and contribute to a more sustainable shipping industry.Conclusion:The California At-Berth Requirements play a crucial role in reducing emissions from ships while they are at berth in California ports. These requirements not only have significant environmental benefits but also provide a positive economic impact in the long run. By promoting the use of shore power, California sets an example for other regions aiming to reduce air pollution and combat climate change. The implementation of at-berth regulations is an important step towards achieving a greener and more sustainable maritime industry.。
institutional review board permission
institutional review boardpermissionInstitutional Review Board (IRB) permission is a process that reviews and approves research studies involving humans or human tissues. The purpose of the IRB permission process is to ensure that the rights and welfare of participants are protected, and that the research is ethical and conducted in a manner that follows federal and local regulations.IRB permission is required for any research study that meets the following criteria:1. The study involves humans or human tissues.2. The study involves participants who are considered "vulnerable populations" such as minors, prisoners, or patients with cognitive impairments.3. The study involves procedures that may cause physical or psychological harm to participants.4. The study involves collecting sensitive personal information.The IRB review process involves several steps, including a review of the research proposal by a committee of experts, a determination of whether the study meets ethical and regulatory standards, and a decision on whether to grant permission for the study to proceed. The IRB may request amendments to the research proposal or require additional safeguards to protect the participants' rights and welfare.Obtaining IRB permission is an important step in conducting ethical and compliant research. Researchers are responsible for ensuring that their studies are reviewed and approved by the IRB before beginning the research process.。
代谢性脑病
显的小脑萎缩。在患l,2-羟戌二酸尿症的1 5岁女眭患儿, 头颅MRI呈皮质下白质的异常信号和侧脑室扩大13,5]。 电介质紊乱性脑病i1期 在重症监护室中,脑外伤、长期进食少的慢性病、内 分泌疾病(甲状旁腺功能减退或假甲状旁腺功能减退造成 的低血钙,骨骼转移癌/淋巴瘤/甲状旁腺功能亢进造成 高血钙)等造成血钾、血钠、血钙、血镁、血糖等变化, 损害脑部功能,出现急性或亚急性脑病。电介质脑病综
神错乱,甚至昏迷。视觉症状方面有视力模糊、偏盲、视
脑脊液中大多蛋白质增多,尿素、肌酐、尿酸、磷含量 增高,偶尔淋巴细胞略有增多。 透析性脑病191 肾功能衰竭透析后神经系统损害透析后的神经系 统出现损害的危险因素和易感因素:老年人多于青年
见表2【1]。
床表现:包括肝病症状及脑病症状两方面。若为急性重
症肝炎(急性肝坏死),患者短期黄疸加深,消化道症状
明显,肝浊音界缩小,肝功能急速衰竭。 1.急性肝性脑病:常称之为肝昏迷。Mullen(1992) 和曾瑞川等(1994)均将肝昏迷分为4期【41。肝性脑病时的 各种精神神经表现分为4级: I级或前驱期:原先庄重者变为欣快表情或举止轻 率,如不注意衣着整洁或卫生,或沉默少言,思维变慢、 睡眠规律改变,此时易被误为怪癖或不受欢迎的人。一
vasogenic edema)
须与脑部各种感染性疾病(细菌、病毒、弓形虫、其他寄 生虫病、脑部血管炎等)鉴别,也应与皮质纹状体脊髓变 性或某些中枢神经系统免疫性疾病相鉴别。
病 因
急性和亚急性代谢性脑病最常见”31,主要病因见
表l。 肝性脑病
急性和慢性的肝脏疾病均可以造成肝脏严重损害, 甚至导致肝功能衰竭,女ll Wilson病、急性黄胆肝萎缩(病 毒性乙型肝炎)等。 急性肝性脑病和慢性肝性脑病急性肝性脑病的临
碳市场术语词典
碳市场术语词典翻译自英文术语词典GLOSSARY OF KEYWORDSA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y ZABack to top减排Abatement温室气体排放量减少或碳强度降低独立认证机构Accredited Independent Entity (AIE)JI项目监督委员会的认证机构,负责裁定项目是否符合《京都议定书》第六条规定以及JI项目的相关要求。
认可委员会Accreditation Panel (CDM AP)对经营实体进行认可评审,为CDM执行委员会决策提供参考的机构。
适应基金Adaptation fund于2002年1月《联合国气候变化框架公约》第7次缔约方大会上设立,旨在帮助发展中国家应对气候变化。
基金来源于CDM项目的收益份额,详见“收益份额适应税”。
《联合国气候变化框架公约》第14次缔约方大会在波兹南举行,会上各国同意全球环境基金会承担适应基金秘书处职责,世界银行承担核定减排量的临时信托人职责。
波兹南决议后,适应基金有了永久的合法性基础以及独立的法人资格,无需经过执行机构即可签署合约、采用提案,并开始基金分配发放。
这意味着基金于2009年始具有一定程度上的流动性。
目前,适应基金财源中的核定减排量高达四百五十万。
收益份额适应税Adaptation Levy适应基金为帮助最不发达国家应对气候变化而征收的税种。
除最不发达国家的CDM项目之外,其他所有CDM项目签发核证减排量时,清洁发展机制注册处管理方扣除2%核证减排量计入适应基金。
额外性原则Additionality principleCDM项目活动所带来的减排量相对于基准线是额外的。
即此项目及其减排量在没有外来CDM支持情况下,将无法实现温室气体减排。
继续减排承诺特别工作组Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments (AWG or AWG-KP)《京都议定书》的附属机构,于2005年《联合国气候变化框架公约》第11次缔约方大会成立,讨论附录I国家在2012年《京都议定书》第一承诺期减排目标到期后的新一轮目标,见于《京都议定书》第3.9条规定。
高二年级英语环境保护与可持续发展单选题40题
高二年级英语环境保护与可持续发展单选题40题1. The destruction of the rainforest can lead to the loss of many _____, which play a crucial role in maintaining the ecological balance.A. speciesB. areasC. treesD. climates答案:A。
解析:本题考查对生态系统概念的理解。
A选项“species (物种)”,雨林的破坏会导致很多物种的消失,而物种在维持生态平衡中起着至关重要的作用。
B选项“areas((区域)”,这里强调的不是区域的丧失,而是生物多样性的丧失。
C选项“trees((树木)”,虽然雨林中有很多树木,但这里说的是更广泛的生态概念,不仅仅是树木。
D选项“climates((气候)”,雨林破坏会影响气候,但不是直接导致气候的丧失。
2. Which of the following is a major type of water pollution?A. Noise pollutionB. Air pollutionC. Chemical wasteD. Soil erosion答案:C。
解析:本题考查环境污染类型。
A选项“noise pollution (噪音污染)”属于另一种类型的污染,与水无关。
B选项“air pollution (空气污染)”也是不同类型的污染。
C选项“chemical waste((化学废物)”,化学废物排入水中是一种主要的水污染类型。
D选项“soil erosion(土壤侵蚀)”主要是土壤方面的问题,与水污染无关。
3. An ecosystem includes all of the following EXCEPT _____.A. living organismsB. non - living thingsC. human - made buildingsD. the environment they live in答案:C。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Regulation of Homer and group I metabotropic glutamate receptors by nicotineJ.K.Kane,1Y.Hwang,1O.Konu,2S.E.Loughlin,3F.M.Leslie3and M.D.Li11Department of Psychiatry,The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio,San Antonio,TX78229,USA2Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics,Bilkent University,Ankara,06800Turkey3Department of Pharmacology,The University of California,Irvine,CA92697,USAKeywords:expression,Homer,mGluRs,plasticity,real-time RT-PCRAbstractThe present study focuses on the nicotine-induced modulation of mRNA and protein expression of a number of genes involved in glutamatergic synaptic transmission in rat brain over different time periods of exposure.A subchronic(3days)but not the chronic(7 or14days)administration of nicotine resulted in the up-regulation of Homer2a⁄b mRNA in the amygdala while in the ventral tegmental area(VTA)no change in expression of either Homer2a⁄b or Homer1b⁄c was observed.Although the increase in Homer2a⁄b mRNA was not translated into the protein level in the amygdala,a slight but significant up-regulation of Homer1b⁄c protein was observed in the same region at day3.Both Homer forms were up-regulated at the protein level in the VTA at day3.In the nucleus accumbens,14days of nicotine treatment up-regulated mRNA of Homer2b⁄c by68.2%(P<0.05),while the short form Homer1a gene was down-regulated by65.0%at day3(P<0.05).In regard to other components of the glutamatergic signalling,we identified an acute and intermittent increase in the mRNA and protein levels of mGluR1and mGluR5in the amygdala.In the VTA, however,the effects of nicotine on mGluR mRNA expression were long-lasting but rather specific to mGluR1.Nevertheless,mGluR1 protein levels in the VTA area were up-regulated only at day3,as in the amygdala.These data provide further evidence for the involvement of nicotine in the glutamatergic neuronal synaptic activity in vivo,suggesting a role for the newly identified Homer proteins in this paradigm.IntroductionPrevious microarray experiments completed in this laboratory to study the effects of nicotine in different rat brain regions provided a set of candidate genes that may be responsible for the changed cellular environment in the presence of nicotine(Konu et al.,2001;Li et al., 2002).Among them,a candidate gene named Homer2b⁄VESL2was found to be up-regulated by nicotine in the amygdala and ventral tegmental area(VTA)of the rat brain.Homer proteins can bind to and regulate the cellular distribution of the metabotropic glutamate receptors(mGluRs)(Brakeman et al.,1997;Kato et al.,1997;Kato et al.,1998).Homer proteins also function as scaffolding proteins connecting the metabotropic glutamate group I receptors(i.e.mGluR1 and mGluR5)to the intracellular phosphatidylinositol signalling pathway(Tu et al.,1998;Soloviev et al.,2000a).The Homer family is made up of three genes named Homer1,2and3 that have several alternatively spliced transcripts(Xiao et al.,2000). The long isoforms of Homer(Homer1b⁄c and Homer2a⁄b),but not the short isoform Homer1a,are constitutively expressed(Soloviev et al., 2000b)and contain a carboxyl terminal coiled-coil domain used in forming multimeric Homer complexes.The Homer long isoforms are enriched at postsynaptic sites and coimmunoprecipitate with the group I mGluRs(Xiao et al.,1998).Homer also associates with the Shank–PSD-95–NMDA complex,providing a role for mGluR and Homer to modulate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors(NMDARs)(Naisbitt et al., 1999;Tu et al.,1999).Homer1b prevents mGluR5expression on the cell surface by keeping it on the endoplasmic reticulum of the secretory pathway(Roche et al.,1999).Homer1a,on the other hand,does not impede the expression of mGluR5and has been shown to increase cell surface expression of mGluR1a(Ciruela et al.,1999)while preventing clustering of group I mGluRs(Tu et al.,1998).Further study into Homer1proteins reveals a complex interplay of Homer1isoforms and the cell surface targeting of mGluR5upon neuronal excitation(Ango et al.,2000).Homer is thus becoming an important player in the postsynaptic response to glutamatergic activation.mGluRs are coupled to G protein second messenger pathways and modulate glutamate neurotransmission in the brain.Both the fast excitatory transmission ionotropic glutamate receptors(iGluRs)and the mGluRs are involved in neuroplasticity(Ottersen&Landsend, 1997;Anwyl,1999).NMDA and alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isopropinonate(AMPA)ionotropic glutamate receptors are known to participate in long-term potentiation(LTP)and long-term depression (LTD)of neurons(Asztely&Gustafsson,1996;Xie et al.,1992).The number,location and gating characteristics of these ionic receptors are important in determining synaptic strength.It has been suggested that drugs of abuse,such as nicotine,that produce long-term neuronal changes by altering the steady state of intracellular signalling molecules,share mechanisms similar to those used in learning and memory(Nestler,2002).mGluRs and Homer proteins have been implicated in playing an important role in neural stimulation and drug addiction(BrakemanCorrespondence:Dr Ming D.Li,as above.E-mail:lim2@Received16September2004,revised14November2004,accepted15December2004European Journal of Neuroscience,Vol.21,pp.1145–1154,2005ªFederation of European Neuroscience Societies doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03945.xet al.,1997;Kato et al.,1997;Ango et al.,2000;Chiamulera et al., 2001;Swanson et al.,2001;Bottai et al.,2002;Paterson et al.,2003). It has been demonstrated that mGluR5-knockout mice lack the psychostimulant effect of cocaine injections,and a decrease in locomotor activity was observed(Chiamulera et al.,2001).These mice also had no interest in self-administering cocaine.In a separate study(Swanson et al.,2001),repeated cocaine administration blunted glutamate release into the nucleus accumbens and resulted in increased locomotor activity that accompanies intra-accumbens administration of the group I mGluR agonist(RS)-3,5-dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG).An investigation into this response revealed a decrease in Homer1b⁄c protein levels in the nucleus accumbens,suggesting that mGluR1and Homer1b⁄c are involved in the neurochemical and behavioural response to the effects of a drug of abuse like cocaine (Swanson et al.,2001).Moreover,2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)-pyrid-ine(MPEP),a specific mGluR5antagonist,decreased nicotine self-administration by rodents,providing further support for the involvement of mGluR5in mediating the reinforcing effects of the drugs of abuse(Paterson et al.,2003).Finally,Homer-knockout mice displayed behavioural and biochemical characteristics similar to those observed after withdrawal from repeated cocaine administration, pointing to the role of Homers in sensitivity to drugs of abuse (Szumlinski et al.,2004).The neurobiology studies of drug addiction and neuropsychiatric and many neurodegenerative diseases has focused primarily on deciphering the framework that comprises the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system.This system is generally defined by the dopamin-ergic neurons that originate within the ventromedial mesencephalon, such as the VTA and the substantia nigra,and terminate in limbic regions such as the striatum,amygdaloid and accumbal regions,as well as cortical areas such as the prefrontal cortex.In addition to the dopaminergic projections,there is a complex arrangement of gluta-matergic,cholinergic and noradrenergic neurons that profoundly modulate dopamine’s action and physiological effects(Fallon& Moore,1978).The primary reinforcement pathway has been characterized by the excitation of dopaminergic neurons that project from the VTA of the midbrain to the nucleus accumbens.Nicotine administration activates mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons by acting directly at postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors(nAChRs) within the VTA.Further study has indicated that enhanced glutamatergic excitation coupled with a depressed GABAergic inhibition contribute to mesolimbic dopamine plasticity(Pidoplichko et al.,2004).The amygdala plays a predominant role in relaying the communi-cation network between the primary reinforcement motivation toward an abused drug and the memories that are associated with that action. The basolateral amygdala has traditionally been associated with conditioned reinforcement behaviours(Everitt et al.,1989).Lesions of the amygdala have been shown to disrupt the cue conditioning of reward-related stimuli such as drug reinforcement(Hayes&Gardner, 2004).Stimulation of basolateral amygdala produced an increase in dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens,suggesting amygdaloid influence on the primary motor drive underlying drug reinforcement (Howland et al.,2002;Phillips et al.,2003).In the present study,we report the region-and time-specific differences in the expression of the group I mGluR and Homer mRNA and protein levels in the nucleus accumbens,amygdala and VTA of nicotine-treated rats over a period of3,7or14days.Based on prior evidence implicating these proteins in neuronal strength and synaptic plasticity,we hypothesize that these expressional changes are part of the cellular mechanisms responsible for the initial physiological response to nicotine administration.Materials and methodsAnimals,nicotine administration and brain punchesMale Holtzman rats(250–350g;HSD,Madison,WI,USA)received nicotine dihydrochloride at a dose of 4.0mg⁄kg⁄day in saline (pH7.4),or saline alone,by i.p.injection.The dose was determined in previous studies demonstrating consistent expression levels with the least amount of behaviour changes(Li et al.,2000).An initiation phase of48h was implemented to habituate the animals to the stress of the injection;this has been shown to reduce c-fos levels in response to the stress of i.p.injection(Ryabinin et al.,1999).Moreover,saline-control rats were handled and treated exactly as the nicotine-treated group,thereby exposing controls to the same stress-induced effects of i.p.injection.All experiments had six animals in each of the control and treatment groups except when noted.Rats were housed in wire-bottomed cages at22°C and maintained on a12:12-h light:dark cycle.Standard laboratory rat chow and water were freely available. Nicotine was administratedfive times a day from09.00to17.00h at 2-h intervals over a period of3,7or14days.After the indicated time of nicotine administration,rats were injected with a lethal overdose of sodium pentobarbital(100mg⁄mL i.p.)and decapitated,and the brains were removed immediately for sectioning.Coronal2-mm sections were prepared from fresh brains,using a Stoelting tissue slicer (Chicago,IL,USA).Brain punches from selected brain regions were excised using a brain punch tissue set from (St Louis,MO,USA)based on coordinates from Paxinos&Watson (1986).For the ventral tegmental area,each sample contained a single 1.5-mm-diameter punch that was centred in the densefield of dopamine-containing cells.For the amygdala region,each sample contained bilateral2.0-mm-diameter dissections that were centred in the basolateral nuclear complex.Each sample for the nucleus accumbens contained the core and shell of the accumbens dissected using bilateral 2.0-mm-diameter punches.All procedures were conducted in accordance with animal use guidelines,with the approval of our Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. RNA isolation,reverse transcription and real-time polymerase chain reaction(real-time quantitative RT-PCR)Total RNA was isolated from corresponding regions using TRIzol reagent according to the manufacturer’s protocol(Qiagen Inc.,CA, USA).Three brain regions were examined in this study:the amygdala, VTA and nucleus accumbens which are all implicated to play a significant role in drug addiction.Before use,RNA samples were treated with RNAse-free DNAse I at37°C for30min.Assessments were made with respect to the integrity of the samples through viewing of the eithidium bromide-stained28S and18S ribosomal RNA bands.Real-time RT-PCR conditions reported here were determined by the strategy described previously(Li et al.,1997)but some modifications were made to optimize conditions(Bustin,2000;Konu et al.,2001). Briefly,total RNA concentration of each sample was measured in duplicate using a RIBOGreen TM kit(Molecular Probes,Inc.,Eugene, OR,USA).The0.5l g of total RNA was reverse-transcribed in afinal volume of20l L containing4l L of5·reverse transcriptase buffer (Tris-HCl,pH8.8,0.1m;KCl,0.5m;and Triton X-100,1%),MgCl2, 5m m;DTT,10m m;each dNTP,0.625m m;RNasin,20units;50l m random hexamers,1l L;and SuperScript II RNase H–reverse transcriptase,200U(Gibco BRL Life Technologies,Grand Island, NY,USA).The RT mixtures were incubated at42°C for1h and then heated at95°C for5min to inactivate the reverse transcriptase. Amplification of4l L RT mixture(equivalent to0.1l g total RNA)1146J.K.Kane et al.ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience,21,1145–1154was carried out using core reagents from the SYBRÒGreen kit(PE Biosystems,Foster City,CA,USA),5l L of10·SYBRÒGreen PCR buffer,4.0l L of25m m MgCl2,1.0l L of12.5m m dNTP mix with dUTP,1l L of sense or antisense primers(0.1l g⁄l L)and2.5U of AmpliTaq DNA polymerase in a total volume of50l L.The real-time RT-PCRs were initially denatured at94°C for3min and then were subjected to40cycles of denaturation(94°C,30s),annealing(60°C, 30s)and extension(72°C,45s).The iCycler(Bio-Rad,Hercules, CA,USA)was used to perform the real-time quantitative RT-PCR. After the last cycle,a dissociation curve was run to check for product purity.Intensity values were based on the incorporation offluorescent SYBRÒGreen dye(excitation497,emission520nm;Molecular Probes)into the double-stranded PCR products and were measured by the Bio-Rad iCycler.All genes were normalized to18S RNA expression level.The primer sequences used for real-time RT-PCR and related information on each gene are shown in Table1.To confirm the efficacy of the real-time PCR technique and demonstrate that each set of gene-specific primers accurately estimates a two-fold induction per PCR cycle,a10·serial dilution of cDNA was used as template for amplification of18S,Homer2a⁄b,mGluR1a and mGluR5genes using gene-specific primers.The slope of the linear regression demonstrates a difference ranging from3.0to3.5cycles between each10·dilution, which is very close to the theoretically expected value of3.3cycles (see Table1).The expression level of each gene was determined using the calibration method(Winer et al.,1999).Threshold cycles(C t)were determined by the iCycler for both the target gene and the housekeeping gene.In this method,one of the unknown samples is termed the‘calibrator sample’;the expression of this sample is compared against all other samples analysed.The formula used is:fold induction¼2–[DD Ct]where DD C t¼[C t GI(gene of interest, unknown sample))C t18S(unknown sample)])[C t GI(threshold cycles,calibrator sample))C t18S(calibrator sample)].Western blotting analysisTotal protein was extracted from rat brain punches obtained from an independent time-course experiment conducted specifically for protein analysis under the same paradigm as described above except that three rats in each of the control and treatment groups were used.Individual frozen brain punches were suspended in100l L of240m m Tris–HCl, pH6.8,containing20%b-mercaptoethanol,8%SDS and40%(v⁄v) glycerol,and homogenized with the Sonic Dismembrator550sonicator (Fisher Scientific,Houston,TX,USA).Tissue debris were removed by centrifugation at12000g for1h.The supernatant was electrophoresed using8%sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel(SDS-PAGE) followed by blotting to nitrocellulose membranes(Immobilon-P; Sigma).Blots were then blocked with2%nonfat dry milk for1h at room temperature and probed with antibodies against group I mGluRs (BD Sciences,San Jose,CA,USA)and Homers(kindly provided by Dr Paul Worley,The Johns Hopkins University).The respective dilution of each antibody was as follows:Homer1b⁄c,1:5000and Homer2a⁄b, 1:5000;mGluR1,1:2500;mGluR5,1:2500;and a-tubulin, 1:2500.Immune complexes were detected with appropriate secondary antibodies and SuperSignal West Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate (Pierce Inc.,Rockford,IL,USA).Blots were stripped with Restore Western Blot Stripping Buffer(Pierce Inc.).After it was determined that the membranes were free of the immunodetection reagents,they were re-probed with antibodies to a-tubulin(for protein normalization).After thefilms were developed,they were scanned on a Microtek ScanMaker 8700scanner with ScanWizard5.5at a resolution of600dpi for quantitative analysis.Scanned images were analysed with ImageQuant 5.1(Molecular Dynamics,Sunnyvale,CA,USA).Normalized data to either18s rRNA or tubulin were analysed using anova(Systat6.0. SPSS Inc,Chicago,IL,USA).Significant F-tests were followed by comparison using the Bonferroni parisons yielding more than95%statistical confidence(P<0.05)were considered significantly different.ResultsAmygdalaAt day3of nicotine administration,an82%increase in the expression of the longer form of Homer2a⁄b was observed by real-time RT-PCR analysis(P<0.05;Fig.1A)within the amygdala region.Because long forms of Homers are known to cluster and aid in the intracellular signalling of group I metabotropic receptors,quantitative real-time RT-PCR was used to measure the mRNA levels of mGluR1and mGluR5in the amygdala region.As with Homer2a⁄b,mRNA expression levels of mGluR1a(37%,P<0.05;Fig.1B)and mGluR5 (45%,P<0.05;Fig.1C)were induced on day3of nicotine administration but returned to control levels thereafter(see below and Fig.4A for details).To determine whether the protein levels also reflect an acute up-regulation by nicotine as shown with the RNA expression studies, Western blot analysis was employed under the same experimental model as used for quantitative real-time RT-PCR experiments.WhileTable1.A list of genes and their primers used in real-time quantitative RT-PCRGene name Accession number Slope of10·dilutions Primer sequence(5¢)3¢)Product size(bp) 18S X01117)3.3AGA AAC GGC TAC CAC ATC CAA gTGT TAT TTT TCG TCA CTA CCT CCC84Homer1a AAC TCA GAG CCA AGG GCT GACAT GAT TGC TGA ATT GAA TGT G78Homer1b⁄c GCT ATA TTC TCC GCG CAA CCT TGCA ACT CAA CGA GGC AGA CAA T116Homer2a⁄b NM053309)3.5GAG TGG AAA GCG TGT GTG AGCGC ATT ACA GAA GCA AAC GGA g65mGluR1NM017011)3.4ATC ATT GCC AAA CCT GAG AGG AACGCC GTT AGA ATT GGC ATT141mGluR5NM017012)3.0TTC TCT GTC CAC CAC CAA CCTAT TGC TCA CGA ACT GCA CC 51Regulation of Homers and mGluRs by nicotine1147ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience,21,1145–1154we did in fact observe an increase in Homer1b ⁄c protein levels at day 3(16%,P <0.05),no significant increase in Homer2a ⁄b protein levels was present (Fig.2).Using commercially available monoclonal antibodies against mGluR1a and mGluR5,we also measured their protein levels at 3,7and 14days of nicotine administration and found that mGluR1a was increased by 20%(P <0.05)by nicotine at day 3(Fig.3A).mGluR5was also shown to be increased by 20%(P <0.05)in the amygdala at day 3(Fig.3B).Homer1b ⁄c,mGluR1a and mGluR5were all observed to return to control levels by days 7and 14of nicotine administration (Fig.4B).Ventral tegmental areaGlutamatergic neurotransmission within the VTA is important in modulating the mesolimbic dopaminergic system,thought to be critical in the primary reward response to drugs of abuse such as nicotine.We investigated the levels of the group I mGluRs and various Homer isoforms because nicotine administration is known to increase glutamatergic neurotransmission in this region.Western blot analysis showed an 18%increase in Homer1b ⁄c (P <0.05)and a 31%increase in Homer2a ⁄b (P <0.05;Fig.5)proteins without a significant change at the transcript level at day 3of nicotine treatment.Western blotting analysis also showed a significant increase in mGluR1a protein at day 3only (15%,P <0.05;Fig.6).No significant changes were observed for mGluR5at both the mRNA and protein levels in the VTA at any time point (Fig.7B).On the other hand,quantitative real-time RT-PCR demonstrated a consistent increase in the expression level of mGluR1a in the VTA (60,67and 46%at 3,7and 14days,respectively,P <0.05;see Fig.7A).While the mRNA expression levels of mGluR1a and Homer2a ⁄b seemed to be somewhat elevated over the 14days,the protein levels of Homer1b ⁄c,Homer2a ⁄bandFig parison of mRNA expression levels for Homer2a ⁄b and group I mGluRs between nicotine and saline groups in the amygdala region after 3days of nicotine ing gene-specific primers,real-time quantitative RT-PCR showed (A)an 83%increase in Homer2a ⁄b,(B)a 37%increase in mGluR1a mRNA level and (C)a 45%increase in mGluR5mRNA level in the amygdala at day 3.*P <0.05.Fig .2.(A)Western blotting analysis for Homer1b ⁄c and Homer2a ⁄b at 3days of nicotine treatment in the amygdala region.(B)Analysis indicated a 16%increase in Homer1b ⁄c protein levels while no change in Homer2a ⁄b protein levels was observed.*P <0.05.1148J.K.Kane et al.ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience ,21,1145–1154Fig .3.Western blotting analysis for the group I mGluRs in the amygdala after 3days of nicotine treatment.Monoclonal antibodies against the group I mGluRs revealed a complementary 20%increase in protein levels at day 3in the amygdala for both (A)mGluR1a and (B)mGluR5.*P <0.05.Fig .5.Western blotting analysis for Homer1b ⁄c and Homer2a ⁄b in the VTA region.While microarray (data not shown)and quantitative RT-PCR (see Fig.8)show no difference in mRNA levels of Homer2a ⁄b,Western blot demonstrated a 31%increase in protein levels.(A)A representative autoradiograph of Western analysis.(B)Consistent with an increase in Homer2a ⁄b levels,Western blot analysis shows an 18%increase in Homer1b ⁄c protein levels at day 3in the VTA.*P <0.05.Fig . 4.Summary of expression changes in (A)mRNA and (B)protein levels for Homers and group I mGluRs over 14days of nicotine treatment in the amygdala.There appears to be an early up-regulation of both mRNA and protein levels of group I mGluRs and Homer genes in the amygdala that return to control levels thereafter.*P <0.05.Regulation of Homers and mGluRs by nicotine 1149ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience ,21,1145–1154mGluR1a dropped to control levels after day3in a fashion analogous to the amygdala region.Nucleus accumbensReal-time RT-PCR assays indicated that the short form Homer1a and mGluR1a mRNA levels in the nucleus accumbens were down-regulated by65.3%(Fig.8A;P<0.05)and37.1%(Fig.8B; P<0.05),respectively,in response to3days of nicotine administra-tion.However,no significant differences were detected in these mRNA levels at7or14days of nicotine treatment(see Fig.8D).In contrast,Homer2b⁄c was up-regulated by68.2%after14days of administration(Fig.8C;P<0.05).Similarly,we also assayed for the expression levels of other genes mentioned in the present study at both the RNA and protein levels and found that they displayed no significant differences between the nicotine-treated and saline control groups in the nucleus accumbens(data not shown).DiscussionPrevious microarray analyses demonstrated that nicotine increased the constitutive expression of the Homer2a⁄b gene(Konu et al.,2001).The present study confirms the modulation of Homer2a⁄b mRNA expres-sion in nicotine-treated rats.Interestingly,although protein levels of Homer1b⁄c increased by16%(P<0.05),Homer2a⁄b protein did not show significant change in the amygdala at day3(Fig.2).It is possible that the protein levels for Homer2a⁄b had already begun to return to baseline at day3,at which time thefirst samples were assayed.As noted at day7in the amygdala,the mRNA and protein levels of the genes under study were all back to control levels(Fig.4).Homer is a scaffolding protein involved in a complex interplay between membrane receptors and intracellular signalling.It represents an important link in the modulation of a complicated system driven by the excitatory amino acid glutamate upon target neurons.Nicotine affects glutamatergic neurotransmission by acting at nAChRs.nAChRs are located presynaptically where they modulate the release of neurotransmitters such as glutamate and postsynaptically where they affect signalling pathways(McGehee et al.,1995;Wonnacott,1997; Aramakis&Metherate,1998;Guo et al.,1998).Coupled with the widespread CNS distribution of nAChRs,nicotine administration affects physiological conditions such as addiction,learning,memory and more(Levin,1992;Levin&Simon,1998).The cellular adaptations upon nicotine exposure are of particular interest in attempting to explain these effects of nicotine.In this report,mRNA and protein expression analyses suggest that the different forms of Homer and mGluRs are being regulated by nicotine in these brain regions.It has been demonstrated that nicotine regulates glutamatergic neurotransmission within the amygdala region(Girod et al.,2000; Barazangi&Role,2001).Our data support this with expression levels of the two group I metabotropic receptors being acutely up-regulated in the amygdala after nicotine administration.The use of monoclonal antibodies against mGluR1and mGluR5demonstrated that the increase in mRNA expression levels was translated into an increase in protein levels in the amygdala at day3.The amygdala region is known to play a central role in conditioned reinforcement(Everitt et al.,1999;Kalivas&Nakamura,1999;Koob,1999;Parkinson et al., 2001)and in establishing different types of learning and memory (Maren,1999;Walker&Davis,2002).Group I mGluRs are involved in the formation of synaptic plasticity(O’Connor et al.,1994;HuberFig.7.Summary of the target gene(A)mRNA expression and(B)protein levels presented as the percent change relative to control in the VTA.While the protein levels of Homer1b⁄c and mGluR1a dropped in a similar fashion to that observed in the amygdala,the expression level of mGluR1a remained elevated throughout the full14days of nicotine administration.*P<0.05.Fig.6.Western blot analysis of the group1mGluR1in the VTA.A15%increase was observed in mGluR1a protein levels.*P<0.05.1150J.K.Kane et al.ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience,21,1145–1154et al .,1998;Balschun et al .,1999).Group I mGluRs and Homers can modulate LTP and affect the firing pattern of the target neuron (Bortolotto et al .,1999;Zheng &Gallagher,1992;Brakeman et al .,1997;Kato et al .,1997;Rodrigues et al .,2002).Through changing the synaptic strength of the target neuron,these processes are believed to be involved in the formation of learning and memory (Barnes,1995;Kato et al .,1997;Turrigiano &Nelson,2000).The increase in glutamatergic activity in response to nicotine administration may be driving the up-regulation of group I mGluRs,as observed in the amygdala at day 3,thereby providing a mechanism for a new level of responsiveness to the presence of glutamate.An up-regulation in the mGluR and Homer protein levels may help explain a change in the neuroplasticity within the amygdala region that is responsible for the formation of learning and memory events associated with nicotine administration.mGluRs are also known to function postsynaptically through interaction with other glutamate receptors such as NMDARs (Naisbitt et al .,1999;Rodrigues et al .,2002).An up-regulation of both mGluR1a and Homer proteins may indicate an increased association with the NMDA receptor (Fig.9).Tu et al .(1999)demonstrated the existence of the coupling complex,mGluRs–Homer–Shank–F-actin–GKAP–PSD-95–NMDAR.This complex places all receptors in close proximity to one another and also is believed to provide a bridge allowing for the efficient modulation of postsynaptic LTP via modulation of the actin cytoskeleton (Tu et al .,1999).NMDA receptors play an important role in LTP formation and the group I mGluRs are known to modulate LTP through the NMDA receptors (Aniksztejn et al .,1991;Fitzjohn et al .,1996;Pisani et al .,1997;Yu et al .,1997;Rodrigues et al .,2002).Recently,Manahan-Vaughan et al .(2003)reported an increase in mGluR1and mGluR5proteinFig .8.A comparison of the mRNA levels of (A)Homer1a and (B)mGluR1a at day 3and (C)Homer1b ⁄c at day 14in the nucleus accumbens of control and nicotine-treated rats.(D)mRNA expression profiles of Homer1a,Homer1b ⁄c,Homer2a ⁄b,mGluR1a and mGluR5in the nucleus accumbens at different time points of nicotine administration.*P <0.05.Fig .9.Graphical representation of various interacting components of gluta-matergic signalling that lead to restructuring of the actin cytoskeleton in the context of synaptic plasticity.Homer dimers allow for receptor clustering at the cell surface while increasing the intracellular Ca ++levels via their interaction with IP3Rs.Homer-1a,on the other hand,may compete with Homer long forms and thus is able to modulate the strength of the synaptic complexes and cytoskeletal organization.Abbreviations of genes:AMPA2,ionotropic glu-tamate receptor AMPA 2;NMDAR2D,NMDA ionotropic glutamate receptor;mGluR1a,glutamate receptor metabotropic alpha 1;mGluR5,glutamate receptor metabotropic 5;PSD-95,postsynaptic density protein 95kDa;GKAP,guanylate kinase-associated protein;SHANK2,proline-rich synapse associated protein 2;IP3R,inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor.Regulation of Homers and mGluRs by nicotine 1151ª2005Federation of European Neuroscience Societies,European Journal of Neuroscience ,21,1145–1154。