Resistance. The rights and corrective measures of the lessor on the basis of this Agreement, as well as the rights stipulated by law, are aggregate, and none of them excludes other rights or corrective measures. 25.
Resistance. The term ‘resistance’ is used to describe the capacity of animals to endure the venomous effects of a toxin or venom without suffering serious harm (Edmunds, 1974). Resistance among reptiles and mammals, to different snake venoms, has been examined for many years (Allyn, 1937; Calmette, 1895). Toxin resistance is common in those animals who are liable to be frequently exposed to venomous or toxic animals, for example, when there is a predator prey-relationship and their territories overlap geographically (Xxxxxx, Xxxxx & Xxxx, 2006; Xxxxxx Xx, Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx XXX et al., 2002; Xxxxxxx, Xxxx & Xxxxx, 2015; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2005). The toxin-producing animal may, in turn, develop countermeasures to overcome prey resistance through adaptive mutation and toxin gene duplication (Xxxxxxx, Parchman, Xxxxx et al., 2003; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2013; Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx, 1979; Xxxx & Xxxxxxx, 1999b; Xxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxx et al., 2003). Animals use a variety of strategies to avoid being adversely effected by venoms or toxins (Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx et al., 2020). For examples of strategies of resistance, see Table 2; and for examples of selected molecular modifications relevant to this review, see Figure 2). These strategies include not only the molecular strategies that are the subject of my thesis, but might also include less obvious things such as the scaly skin on the legs of birds that might provide a physical barrier to envenomation, and the behavioural agility of mammals and birds (Figure 3) that allows them to avoid being bitten in the first place (Xxxx et al., 2020). The molecular mechanisms of resistance in the vertebrates against toxins offer a significant insight into the understanding of the evolutionary arms race (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2005; Xxxxxx et al., 2001; Xxxxxx et al., 2016; Xxxxxx et al., 2015; Xxxxxxxxx et al., 2005). Moreover, inter-specific competition and a long-time presence of predator and prey in the same geographic area are factors that help drive the arms race (Xxxxxxxx, 2013). Among vertebrates, there are a small number of examples of such an arms race (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx et al., 1992a; Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx et al., 1995; Xxxxxxx et al., 2015; XxXxxxxxxx et al., 2016; Xxxx & Xxxxx, 2012). Our aim here is to review the literature relevant to toxin resistance in general, and the evolutionary arms race in particular, in the vertebrates. Serum factors resistance against snake venom toxins One cause of resistance to snake toxins is the presenc...
Resistance the ability of a plant variety to restrict the growth and development of a specified pathogen or pest and/or the damage they cause when compared to susceptible plant varieties under similar environmental factors and pathogen or pest pressure. Resistant varieties may exhibit some disease symptoms or damage under heavy pathogen or pest pressure. Two levels of resistance are defined:
Resistance. Those actions made by the offender that use or threaten to use physical force or violence to prevent arrest/custody.
Resistance. The tribunals also rewarded defendants who had actively resisted the Nazis. That resistance took four basic forms. First, three tribunals highlighted a defendant’s opposition to Xxxxxx himself: the Xxxx tribunal credited Xxxxxxx with playing “an active part” in the “underground movement working against the regime”82; the Flick tribunal pointed out that Xxxxx himself “knew in advance of the plot on Xxxxxx’x life in July 1944, and sheltered one of the conspirators”83; and the Ministries tribunal accepted von Xxxxxxxxxxx’s claim that he remained in the Foreign Office so that “he might thereby continue to be at least a cohesive factor in the underground opposition to Xxxxxx.”84 Second, a number of tribunals focused on a defendant’s efforts to prevent the issuance of illegal orders. The Hostage tribunal, for example, said that Xxxxxx was entitled to mitigation because he regularly protested the harshness of orders he received concerning the execution of hostages.85 Similarly, the High Command tribunal gave xxx Xxxx significant credit for his repeated attempts to prevent Xxxxxx from issuing the Commissar Order, which he believed to be both “stupid” and “in violation of international law.”86 Third, multiple tribunals acknowledged that defendants had either attempted to prevent the commission of crimes or had softened illegal orders and decrees. The Flick tribunal noted that Xxxxxxxxxxx had prevented “several instances” of pillaging.87 The Hostage tribunal found that Xxxxxx’x attempts to ensure that his soldiers complied with the laws of war “warrant[ed] mitigation of punishment.”88 The Ministries tribunal said that it would “not ignore” Xxxxx’s efforts “to alleviate the 78 Justice, III TWC 1128.
Resistance