The phenotype of the genetic polydactyly/arhinencephaly mouse (Pdn/Pdn) is similar to Greig cephalopolysyndactyly syndrome (GCPS), which is induced by mutation of GLI3. Suppression of Gli3 gene expression has been observed in Pdn/Pdn. Thus, the gene responsible for Pdn/Pdn has been considered to be Gli3. Recently, the mutation point was demarcated, that is, a transposon was inserted into intron 3 of the Gli3 gene in the Pdn mouse. Forward and reverse primers were constructed in intron 3 near the insertion point. A forward primer in the long terminal repeat region of the transposon was also constructed. Now we can discriminate +/+, Pdn/+, Pdn/Pdn embryos from the PCR products. After genotyping of the Pdn embryos, Gli3 and other correlated gene expressions, such as sonic hedgehog (Shh), Bmp-2, Bmp-4, ptc-1, were analyzed by real-time PCR method. Gli3 gene expression in Pdn/Pdn was suppressed to 20-30% of +/+, and that in Pdn/+ was about 60% of +/+ through all the embryonic and neonatal periods examined. As Shh has been considered to be an antagonist of Gli3, Shh expression was analyzed, and a difference among genotypes was observed only on day 9 of gestation. We could not detect any alterations among genotypes in other gene expressions examined. Gli3 and Shh gene expression were also analyzed on day 9 by whole-mount in situ hybridization in the +/+ and Pdn/Pdn embryos. Neuroectoderm was positive by Gli3 probe in +/+ but not in Pdn/Pdn. Notochord, floor plate and prechordal mesoderm were positive by Shh probe both in +/+ and Pdn/Pdn embryos, but ectopic and/or over-expression of Shh were not observed in Pdn/Pdn embryos.
The purpose of this study is to investigate ways in which ordinary Japanese people negotiate in a multi-party meeting. We initially gave such a way of negotiation the tentative name of "naïve negotiation". The analysis of the conversational data reveals three structural features of naïve negotiation: (1) at the utterance level, the participants tend to claim their opinions without providing any overt grounds, (2) at the local consensus-building level, they tend to jump to conclusions without the full examination of proposed hypotheses, (3) at the final consensus-making level, there tends to be disjunctions between discussion units. Although these features are not necessarily seen as irrational or illogical, a naïve-negotiation style can still be a trouble-source in achieving successful consensusmaking. This leads us to emphasize the necessity of developing a support system for the discussants.
In this study we investigated the nature of disagreement, which is a necessary component of a good discussion. We obtained 27 group discussion scenes by Japanese undergraduates that were evaluated by two ways: impression rating and ranking. As a result of factor analysis for the impression rating data, five factors were extracted: activeness, multidirection and unification of discussion, relationships of participants, development and sophistication of discussion, and sincerity of the participants, and each factor scores of each scene was simultaneously calculated. Each scene's rank score was also calculated by relative comparisons. A significant positive correlation was found between the mean factor and the rank scores except for Factor 123 280 E. Mizukami et al. (relationships of participants).To consider the reason for the difference relating to Factor 3's score, we scrutinized the discussion process of four scenes of the different patterns of the factor and rank scores. From the analysis of conversations, we suggested that this difference reflected ways of disagreement. By introducing a probative discourse tags for discussion (pDTD), we reasoned that the frequency of disagreement made Factor 3's score negative and the absence of the second part of adjacency pairs made the rank score worse. The explicit speech and actions of blame such as emotional and aggressive expression, and neglect of treatment for the minor opinion made also the discussion unfair, but we think that these behaviors might erupt from the ground made by the accumulated implicit behaviors such as the absence of the second part. We finally concluded that the criticism type of disagreement increased the rank scores, and its censure type produced lower results, and the proper ways of disagreement in group discussions were discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.