Identification of field caught Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis by TaqMan single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping

BACKGROUND: Identification of Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis from field-collected Anopheles gambiae s.l. is often necessary in basic and applied research, and in operational control programmes. The currently accepted method involves use of standard polymerase chain reaction amplification of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) from the 3' 28S to 5' intergenic spacer region of the genome, and visual confirmation of amplicons of predicted size on agarose gels, after electrophoresis. This report describes development and evaluation of an automated, quantitative PCR method based upon TaqMan™ single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. METHODS: Standard PCR, and TaqMan SNP genotyping with newly designed primers and fluorophore-labeled probes hybridizing to sequences of complementary rDNA specific for either An. gambiae s.s. or An. arabiensis, were conducted in three experiments involving field-collected An. gambiae s.l. from western Kenya, and defined laboratory strains. DNA extraction was from a single leg, sonicated for five minutes in buffer in wells of 96-well PCR plates. RESULTS: TaqMan SNP genotyping showed a reaction success rate, sensitivity, and species specificity comparable to that of standard PCR. In an extensive field study, only 29 of 3,041 (0.95%) were determined to be hybrids by TaqMan (i.e., having rDNA sequences from both species), however, all but one were An. arabiensis by standard PCR, suggesting an acceptably low (ca. 1%) error rate for TaqMan genotyping in mistakenly identifying species hybrids. CONCLUSION: TaqMan SNP genotyping proved to be a sensitive and rapid method for identification of An. gambiae s.l. and An. arabiensis, with a high success rate, specific results, and congruence with the standard PCR method

Bringing Power Back in: A Review of the Literature on the Role of Business in Welfare State Politics

What is the impact of business interest groups on the formulation of public social policies? This paper reviews the literature in political science, history, and sociology on this question. It identifies two strands: one analyzes the political power and influence of business, the other the preferences and interests of business. Since the 1990s, researchers have shifted their attention from questions of power to questions of preferences. While this shift has produced important insights into the sources of the policy preferences of business, it came with a neglect of issues of power. This paper takes a first step towards re-integrating a power-analytical perspective into the study of the role of business in welfare state politics. It shows how a focus on variation in business power can help to explain both why business interest groups accepted social protection during some periods in the past and why they have become increasingly assertive and averse to social policies since the 1970s.Wie beeinflussen Unternehmensverbände die Gestaltung staatlicher Sozialpolitik? Dieses Papier bietet einen Überblick über die politikwissenschaftliche, geschichtswissenschaftliche und soziologische Forschungsliteratur zu diesem Themenfeld. Es identifiziert zwei Forschungsstränge: Einer befasst sich mit politischer Macht und Einflussnahme von Unternehmen und der andere mit deren sozialpolitischen Interessen und Präferenzen. Seit den 1990er-Jahren verlagert sich der Schwerpunkt der Forschung vom ersten zum zweiten Strang. Diese Verlagerung brachte wichtige neue Einsichten in die sozialpolitischen Präferenzen von Unternehmen, führte jedoch zu einer Vernachlässigung von Fragen nach Ursachen und Stärke des politischen Einflusses von Unternehmen. Der Bericht versucht, die machtanalytische Perspektive in die Untersuchung der Ausgangsfrage - wie Unternehmensinteressen Sozialpolitik beeinflussen - zu reintegrieren. Durch diesen Blick auf die verschiedenen Ausprägungen politischen Einflusses kann erklärt werden, warum Unternehmensverbände sozialpolitische Reformen in bestimmten Perioden akzeptierten, jedoch seit den 1970er-Jahren staatlicher Sozialpolitik zunehmend kritisch gegenüberstehen