Suchergebnisse

A landmark account of gay and lesbian creative networks and the seismic changes they brought to twentieth-century culture In a hugely ambitious study which crosses continents, languages, and almost a century, Gregory Woods identifies the ways in which homosexuality has helped shape Western culture. Extending from the trials of Oscar Wilde to the gay liberation era, this book examines a period in which increased visibility made acceptance of homosexuality one of the measures of modernity. Woods shines a revealing light on the diverse, informal networks of gay people in the arts and other creative fields. Uneasily called "the Homintern" (an echo of Lenin's "Comintern") by those suspicious of an international homosexual conspiracy, such networks connected gay writers, actors, artists, musicians, dancers, filmmakers, politicians, and spies. While providing some defense against dominant heterosexual exclusion, the grouping brought solidarity, celebrated talent, and, in doing so, invigorated the majority culture. Woods introduces an enormous cast of gifted and extraordinary characters, most of them operating with surprising openness; but also explores such issues as artistic influence, the coping strategies of minorities, the hypocrisies of conservatism, and the effects of positive and negative discrimination. Traveling from Harlem in the 1910s to 1920s Paris, 1930s Berlin, 1950s New York and beyond, this sharply observed, warm-spirited book presents a surpassing portrait of twentieth-century gay culture and the men and women who both redefined themselves and changed history

In 1986 president Ronald Reagan passed the largest immigration bill in American history. He granted amnesty to nearly three million undocumented immigrants, but many still considered this immigration bill to be a failure. The 1986 Amnesty Act, more properly known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), was supposed to secure the border, crack down on businesses that continued to hire undocumented immigrants and put an end to illegal immigration here in the United States. It failed to deliver on its promises. Many undocumented immigrants became legal citizen, however the border was never secured, business continued to hire undocumented immigrants and it did not put an end to illegal immigration here in the United States. Consequently, now, 27 years later the American undocumented immigrant population has more than tripled with an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. And once again, the growing Latino voice has forced immigration reform back to the political forefront. But with many still remembering vividly how the last immigration bill played out, it sparks the question, what's going to be different this time? This peace seeks to investigate the differences between the 1986 Amnesty Act and the proposed immigration bill of today and its likely hood of success.

Abstract Context Disease is increasingly becoming a driver of wildlife population declines and an extinction risk. Vaccines are one of the most successful health interventions in human history, but few have been tested for mitigating wildlife disease. The transmissible cancer, devil facial tumour disease (DFTD), triggered the Tasmanian devil's (Sarcophilus harrisii) inclusion on the international endangered species list. In 2016, 33 devils from a DFTD-free insurance population were given an experimental DFTD vaccination before their wild release on the Tasmanian northern coast. Aim To determine the efficacy of the vaccination protocol and the longevity of the induced responses. Method Six trapping trips took place over the 2.5 years following release, and both vaccinated and incumbent devils had blood samples and tumour biopsies collected. Key results In all, 8 of the 33 vaccinated devils were re-trapped, and six of those developed DFTD within the monitoring period. Despite the lack of protection provided by the vaccine, we observed signs of immune activation not usually found in unvaccinated devils. First, sera collected from the eight devils showed that anti-DFTD antibodies persisted for up to 2 years post-vaccination. Second, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes were found in three of four biopsies collected from vaccinated devils, which contrasts with the 'immune deserts' typical of DFTs; only 1 of the 20 incumbent devils with DFTD had a tumour biopsy exhibiting immune-cell infiltrate. Third, immunohistochemical analysis of the vaccinated devils' tumour biopsies identified the functional immune molecules associated with antigen-presenting cells (MHC-II) and T-cells (CD3), and the immune checkpoint molecule PD-1, all being associated with anti-tumour immunity in other species. Conclusions These results correlate with our previous study on captive devils in which a prophylactic vaccine primed the devil immune system and, following DFTD challenge and tumour growth, immunotherapy induced complete tumour regressions. The field trial results presented here provide further evidence that the devil immune system can be primed to recognise DFTD cells, but additional immune manipulation could be needed for complete protection or induction of tumour regressions. Implications A protective DFTD vaccine would provide a valuable management approach for conservation of the Tasmanian devil.

Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is renowned for its successful evasion of the host immune system. Down regulation of the major histocompatabilty complex class I molecule (MHC-I) on the DFTD cells is a primary mechanism of immune escape. Immunization trials on captive Tasmanian devils have previously demonstrated that an immune response against DFTD can be induced, and that immune-mediated tumor regression can occur. However, these trials were limited by their small sample sizes. Here, we describe the results of two DFTD immunization trials on cohorts of devils prior to their wild release as part of the Tasmanian Government's Wild Devil Recovery project. 95% of the devils developed anti-DFTD antibody responses. Given the relatively large sample sizes of the trials (N = 19 and N = 33), these responses are likely to reflect those of the general devil population. DFTD cells manipulated to express MHC-I were used as the antigenic basis of the immunizations in both trials. Although the adjuvant composition and number of immunizations differed between trials, similar anti-DFTD antibody levels were obtained. The first trial comprised DFTD cells and the adjuvant combination of ISCOMATRIX™, polyIC, and CpG with up to four immunizations given at monthly intervals. This compared to the second trial whereby two immunizations comprising DFTD cells and the adjuvant combination ISCOMATRIX™, polyICLC (Hiltonol®) and imiquimod were given a month apart, providing a shorter and, therefore, more practical protocol. Both trials incorporated a booster immunization given up to 5 months after the primary course. A key finding was that devils in the second trial responded more quickly and maintained their antibody levels for longer compared to devils in the first trial. The different adjuvant combination incorporating the RNAase resistant polyICLC and imiquimod used in the second trial is likely to be responsible. The seroconversion in the majority of devils in these anti-DFTD immunization trials was remarkable, especially as DFTD is ...

Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is renowned for its successful evasion of the host immune system. Down regulation of the major histocompatabilty complex class I molecule (MHC-I) on the DFTD cells is a primary mechanism of immune escape. Immunization trials on captive Tasmanian devils have previously demonstrated that an immune response against DFTD can be induced, and that immune-mediated tumor regression can occur. However, these trials were limited by their small sample sizes. Here, we describe the results of two DFTD immunization trials on cohorts of devils prior to their wild release as part of the Tasmanian Government's Wild Devil Recovery project. 95% of the devils developed anti-DFTD antibody responses. Given the relatively large sample sizes of the trials (N = 19 and N = 33), these responses are likely to reflect those of the general devil population. DFTD cells manipulated to express MHC-I were used as the antigenic basis of the immunizations in both trials. Although the adjuvant composition and number of immunizations differed between trials, similar anti-DFTD antibody levels were obtained. The first trial comprised DFTD cells and the adjuvant combination of ISCOMATRIX™, polyIC, and CpG with up to four immunizations given at monthly intervals. This compared to the second trial whereby two immunizations comprising DFTD cells and the adjuvant combination ISCOMATRIX™, polyICLC (Hiltonol®) and imiquimod were given a month apart, providing a shorter and, therefore, more practical protocol. Both trials incorporated a booster immunization given up to 5 months after the primary course. A key finding was that devils in the second trial responded more quickly and maintained their antibody levels for longer compared to devils in the first trial. The different adjuvant combination incorporating the RNAase resistant polyICLC and imiquimod used in the second trial is likely to be responsible. The seroconversion in the majority of devils in these anti-DFTD immunization trials was remarkable, especially as DFTD is hallmarked by its immune evasion mechanisms. Microsatellite analyzes of MHC revealed that some MHC-I microsatellites correlated to stronger immune responses. These trials signify the first step in the long-term objective of releasing devils with immunity to DFTD into the wild.