-coding potential of the human brain
Please take a look at the instructions of the assignment. Its a reaction paper on one of these 2 articles. Your choice!
Â
DUF1220-coding potential of the human brain, suggesting that such an increase may have conferred strong selective advantages. The genomic regions that harbor DUF1220 sequences appear to be particularly complex and, as a result, different genome assemblies differ with respect to the predicted number of DUF1220- encoded sequences. However, two recent genome- wide BAC aCGH cross-species studies ( 17 , 18 ) independently support the findings reported here that DUF1220-encoding genes show human lineage–specific increases in copy number and appeared with remarkable rapidity. If they indeed are the result of strong positive selection, they may play an important role in human lineage–specific traits ( 19 ) and serve to illustrate how certain regions of the genome can undergo episodes of B punctuated [ evolution ( 20 ). References and Notes 1. S. Ohno, Evolution by Gene and Genome Duplication (Springer, Berlin, 1970). 2. Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, Nature 437 , 69 (2005). 3. Rhesus Monkey Genome Project, Baylor College of Medicine Human Genome Sequencing Center (www.hgsc.bcm.tmc.edu/projects/rmacaque). 4. J. Cheung et al. , Genome Biol. 4 , R25 (2003). 5. J. R. Pollack et al. , Nat. Genet. 23 , 41 (1999). 6. Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, Nature 431 , 931 (2004). 7. A. Fortna et al. , PLoS Biol. 2 , e207 (2004). 8. K. Vandepoele, N. Van Roy, K. Staes, F. Speleman, F. van Roy, Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 , 2265 (2005). 9. A. Bateman et al. , Nucleic Acids Res. 32 , D138 (2004). 10. E. L. L. Sonnhammer, S. R. Eddy, R. Durbin, Proteins 28 , 405 (1997). 11. S. G. Gregory et al. , Nature 441 , 315 (2006). 12. I. Verde et al. , J. Biol. Chem. 276 , 11189 (2001). 13. D. L. Swofford, PAUP: Version 4 (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1998). 14. M. Kreitman, Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 1 , 539 (2000). 15. C. M. Malcom, G. J. Wyckoff, B. T. Lahn, Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 , 1633 (2003). 16. M. Goodman, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64 , 31 (1999). 17. V. Goidts et al. , Hum. Genet. 119 , 185 (2006). 18. G. M. Wilson et al. , Genome Res. 16 , 173 (2006). 19. J. M. Sikela, PLoS Genet. 2 , e80 (2006). 20. J. E. Horvath et al. , Genome Res. 15 , 914 (2005). 21. We thank S. Burgers, J. Chang, A. Blackler, A. Fortna, A. Solidar, J. Smith, and B. Carstens for technical help; D. Manchester, M. Churchill, J. Pollack, Y. Kim, and J. Kent for helpful discussions; L. Jorde for providing genomic DNAs from diverse human populations; the Macaque Genome Sequencing Consortium for generating genome sequence assemblies and making data available before publication; B. K. DeMasters and C.-I. Sze for providing postmortem human brain tissue; R. Levinson for immunocytochemical expertise and for use of light microscopy facilities; and J. Caldwell for assistance with interpretation of immunofluorescence results. Supported by a Butcher Foundation grant and NIH grant AA11853 (J.M.S.) and the University of Missouri Research Board (G.J.W.). Supporting Online Material www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5791/1304/DC1 Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S6 Tables S1 to S8 References 5 December 2005; accepted 6 July 2006 10.1126/science.1127980 Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap: A Social-Psychological Intervention Geoffrey L. Cohen, 1 * Julio Garcia, 2 * Nancy Apfel, 2 Allison Master 2 †Two randomized field experiments tested a social-psychological intervention designed to improve minority student performance and increase our understanding of how psychological threat mediates performance in chronically evaluative real-world environments. We expected that the risk of confirming a negative stereotype aimed at one’s group could undermine academic performance in minority students by elevating their level of psychological threat. We tested whether such psychological threat could be lessened by having students reaffirm their sense of personal adequacy or ‘‘self-integrity.’’ The intervention, a brief in-class writing assignment, significantly improved the grades of African American students and reduced the racial achievement gap by 40%. These results suggest that the racial achievement gap, a major social concern in the United States, could be ameliorated by the use of timely and targeted social-psychological interventions. T he drive for self-integrity—seeing oneself as good, virtuous, and efficacious—is a fundamental human motivation ( 1–3 ). Membership in valued social groups is often a major source of individuals _ sense of self- integrity ( 4 , 5 ). Consequently, negative character- izations of one _ s group can prove threatening, especially in chronically evaluative environments. Because people subjected to widely known negative stereotypes impugning the intelligence of their group are aware of these negative character- izations, they may worry that performing poorly could confirm the stereotype of their group ( 6–8 ). This situation can create chronic stress at school and work, by burdening people with an extra psychological threat not experienced by those out- side their group. If too severe, stress can undermine performance ( 6–10 ). Indeed, simply observing a group member who might confirm a negative stereotype about one _ s group can induce threat, undermining performance ( 5 ). One potentially effective way to buffer peo- ple against threat and its consequences, we sug- gest, is to allow them to reaffirm their self-integrity ( 2 , 3 ). Self-affirmations, by buttressing self-worth, can alleviate the stress arising in threatening per- formance situations ( 11 ). They can take the form of reflections on personally important, over- arching values, such as the importance of family or a self-defining skill ( 2 , 3 ). Theresearchrepor tedheretes tedwhe thera self-affirmation intervention designed to lessen threat would enhance the academic achievement of negatively stereotyped minority students. The intervention rested on three assumptions: First, people are motivated to maintain self-integrity; second, because group memberships are an im- portant source of self-integrity, negative group characterizations can pose a chronic threat to self-integrity; third, such threat, if too severe, can undermine performance. School settings can be stressful to almost all students regardless of race. However, for African American students, the academic environment involves an extra degree of threat not experienced by nonminority students, due to the negative stereotype about the intelligence of their race. This threat, on average, raises stress to levels that are debilitating to performance ( 6–9 ). According- ly, we expect that a self-affirmation intervention would be particularly effective at improving their academic performance. We would, in fact, expect this intervention to improve the perform- ance of all groups of individuals subjected to a threat sufficiently pervasive and intense to impede that entire group _ s average performance. This prediction was tested in two randomized double-blind field experiments ( 12 ). The second, a replication study, occurred a year after the first and involved a different cohort of students. Par- ticipants were seventh-graders from middle- to lower-middle-class families at a suburban north- eastern middle school whose student body was divided almost evenly between African Ameri- cans and European Americans. The experiments involved 119 African American students and 124 European American students distributed roughly evenly across the two studies. All the teachers who participated taught the same academic subject (one not typically related to gender stereotypes). This subject was the intervention- targeted course in both studies; it was the one in which the intervention was administered. In the fall term of each year, students were randomly assigned, at the level of the individual student, to the affirmation condition or the control condition. For each teacher and classroom period, there were approximately equal numbers of par- ticipants in each condition. Teachers were blind to students _ condition assignment and unaware of the 1 Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Muenzinger Psychology Building, Boulder, CO 80309–0345, USA. 2 Depart- ment of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven CT 06520, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cohen.geoff@gmail.com (G.L.C.); jpmex@gmail.com (J.G.) †Present address: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 1 SEPTEMBER 2006 1307 REPORTS on March 28, 2017 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from
Â
Attachments:
Answers
Status NEW
Posted 09 Oct 2017 01:10 PM
My Price 10.00
----------- He-----------llo----------- Si-----------r/M-----------ada-----------m -----------Tha-----------nk -----------You----------- fo-----------r u-----------sin-----------g o-----------ur -----------web-----------sit-----------e a-----------nd -----------acq-----------uis-----------iti-----------on -----------of -----------my -----------pos-----------ted----------- so-----------lut-----------ion-----------. P-----------lea-----------se -----------pin-----------g m-----------e o-----------n c-----------hat----------- I -----------am -----------onl-----------ine----------- or----------- in-----------box----------- me----------- a -----------mes-----------sag-----------e I----------- wi-----------ll
Not Rated(0)
