Integrin Antagonists: A Special Emphasis on Structural Requirements of N-benzoyl-L-biphenylalanines as α4β7 and α4β1 Antagonists

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-118
Author(s):  
Sk. Abdul Amin ◽  
Nilanjan Adhikari ◽  
Shovanlal Gayen ◽  
Tarun Jha
Keyword(s):  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Integrin Antagonists

Transformation of scientific genres in the context of scientometric strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-282
Author(s):  
Vadim Viktorovich Dementyev
Keyword(s):  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Modern Culture ◽  
The Core ◽  
Speech Genre ◽  
Quantitative Indicators

The transformation of scientific genres in the context of the general digitalization of modern culture is considered. It is shown that the speech genre content of this process is based on the mechanisms of generation and transformation of the text of two types, the interpretation of which can be useful in order to better understand the nature, tasks and tools of scientometry at this stage, and in order to better understand the speech genre structure of scientific speech. Firstly, the structural requirements for articles and monographs indexed in scientometric systems (Scopus, WoS, DOAJ, RSCI, etc.) are approved and streamlined, and thereby our knowledge of what an article is from its structure (i.e. knowledge about the genre of the article). Secondly, the requirements of indexing systems lead to the fact that the texts of articles change, they are “written differently”, and sometimes redone after appropriate recommendations from publishers. The points highlighted in scientometric systems can be understood as signs that an article must comply with in order to be assigned to the “speech genre of a scientific article”. The largest quantitative indicators for these items are indicators of how close to the core of the genre this or that text will turn out.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kiesewetter
Keyword(s):  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Rational Requirements

This concludes my account of structural irrationality. I have argued, in Chapters 9 and 10, that structural irrationality claims such as (AI)–(MI) can be explained without recourse to structural requirements of rationality, by adherence to rational requirements to respond to available reasons alone. This enables us to respond to the problem that I described in ...

The Myth of Structural Rationality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kiesewetter
Keyword(s):  
Wide Scope ◽  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Rational Requirements ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Scope Interpretation

While Chapters 4 and 5 suggest that structural requirements of rationality cannot be normative, Chapter 6 argues for the stronger conclusion that there are no such requirements to begin with. The argument is that both narrow- and wide-scope interpretations of structural requirements face problems independently of whether these requirements are understood as being normative. Starting with the narrow-scope interpretation, the chapter discusses the problem that it licenses bootstrapping of rational requirements (6.1), that it entails inconsistent requirements (6.2), and that it entails requirements that undermine each other in a counterintuitive way (6.3). Turning to the wide-scope interpretation, the chapter discusses the charge that wide-scope requirements cannot capture an important asymmetry involved in structural irrationality (6.4–6.5), and that they are incapable of guiding our responses (6.6). It is argued that all of these objections pose serious problems for the respective accounts. This supports the conclusion that there are no structural requirements of rationality (6.7).

The Why-Be-Rational Challenge

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kiesewetter
Keyword(s):  
Structural Requirements ◽  
The Third ◽  
Rational Requirements ◽  
Buck Passing ◽  
Apparent Reasons

Besides the problems with detachment, proponents of the view that structural requirements of rationality are normative face the challenge to identify a reason that counts in favour of conforming to rational requirements. There are three possible ways to account for this challenge. The first is to present instrumental or other derivative reasons to conform to rational requirements (5.1). The second is to argue that rational requirements are themselves reasons (5.2). The third is to give some kind of buck-passing account of rational requirements, according to which such requirements are verdictive statements about reasons that exist independently of them (5.3–5.4). Chapter 5 argues that none of these strategies succeed. Finally, two accounts that have claimed to explain the normativity of structural rationality without assuming that rational requirements are necessarily accompanied by reasons, are discussed and rejected: the transparency account (5.5), and the apparent reasons account (5.6).

Parentheticalism and Requirements of Rationality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Henning
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
Structural Requirements

It is suggested that parentheticalism obviates the need to think of rationality as a distinct normative category, different from the category of support by normative reasons. So-called structural requirements are discussed as a potential obstacle to this proposal. It is shown that a parentheticalist account of the antecedents of rationality conditionals can explain away the impression that there are structural requirements of rationality. This account also solves the bootstrapping problem without introducing wide-scope oughts or the like. A notion of pseudo-detachment is introduced to describe the inferential behavior of the relevant conditionals. It is also explained how parentheticalism can capture the elusive idea of taking the subject’s point of view.

scholarly journals Structural requirements for protection by small amino acids against hypoxic injury in kidney proximal tubules 1

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (15) ◽  
pp. 3347-3354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M. Weinberg ◽  
Manjeri A. Venkatachalam ◽  
Ricardo Garzo‐Quintero ◽  
Nancy F. Roeser ◽  
Julie A. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Amino Acids ◽  
Proximal Tubules ◽  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Hypoxic Injury ◽  
Kidney Proximal Tubules

In vitro screen of inhibitors of rat brain serotonin synthesis

1969 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 501-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. McGeer ◽  
D. A. V. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Rat Brain ◽  
Tryptophan Hydroxylase ◽  
Inhibitory Effect ◽  
Complexing Agents ◽  
Serotonin Synthesis ◽  
Structural Requirements ◽  
Class A ◽  
Numerous Data ◽  
Comparison Of The Results

Over 700 compounds were screened at 10−4 M concentration as inhibitors of the conversion of L-tryptophan-14C to serotonin-14C in crude rat brain homogenates. Most of the compounds had little or no inhibitory effect. Those with strong inhibitory properties were tested as inhibitors of 5-hydroxytryptophan decarboxylase and, if active on the decarboxylase, were assayed as tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitors. Except for a few oxidizing and complexing agents and for some substituted p-phenylenediamines, the compounds found to inhibit tryptophan hydroxylase by >50% belonged to the three types of inhibitors already known, i.e. catechols, phenylalanine and ring-substituted phenylalanines, and 6-substituted tryptophans. The numerous data in this screen make possible some comments as to the structural requirements for activity within each class. A comparison of the results on tryptophan hydroxylase with data on tyrosine hydroxylase inhibition in similar homogenates makes it clear that two separate, if somewhat similar, enzymes are involved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document