Clinical Findings in Cows after Experimental Infection with Ehrlichia phagocytophila

1997 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-10) ◽  
pp. 385-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Pusterla ◽  
U. Braun
2000 ◽  
Vol 37 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.L Garcı́a-Pérez ◽  
N Mandaluniz ◽  
M Barral ◽  
R.A Juste

1998 ◽  
Vol 45 (1-10) ◽  
pp. 193-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Brun-Hansen ◽  
H. Grønstøl ◽  
F. Hardeng

1998 ◽  
Vol 143 (11) ◽  
pp. 303-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Pusterla ◽  
H. Lutz ◽  
U. Braun

1997 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-10) ◽  
pp. 235-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Brun-Hansen ◽  
D. A. Christensson ◽  
F. Hardeng ◽  
H. Grønstø

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 643-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Pusterla ◽  
J Huder ◽  
C Wolfensberger ◽  
U Braun ◽  
H Lutz

Author(s):  
G. D. Gagne ◽  
M. F. Miller ◽  
D. A. Peterson

Experimental infection of chimpanzees with non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANB) or with delta agent hepatitis results in the appearance of characteristic cytoplasmic alterations in the hepatocytes. These alterations include spongelike inclusions (Type I), attached convoluted membranes (Type II), tubular structures (Type III), and microtubular aggregates (Type IV) (Fig. 1). Type I, II and III structures are, by association, believed to be derived from endoplasmic reticulum and may be morphogenetically related. Type IV structures are generally observed free in the cytoplasm but sometimes in the vicinity of type III structures. It is not known whether these structures are somehow involved in the replication and/or assembly of the putative NANB virus or whether they are simply nonspecific responses to cellular injury. When treated with uranyl acetate, type I, II and III structures stain intensely as if they might contain nucleic acids. If these structures do correspond to intermediates in the replication of a virus, one might expect them to contain DNA or RNA and the present study was undertaken to explore this possibility.


1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-335
Author(s):  
George E. Lynn ◽  
Jack A. Willeford
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


1974 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 382-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Doeglas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document