ライフサイエンスコーパス: birch

1 t data: (1) dog/cat/horse, (2) timothy grass/birch, (3) molds, (4) house dust mites, (5) peanut/wheat

2 The results show that silver birch (79% UFP removal), yew (71%), and elder (70.5%) ha

3 patients to receive either grass (N = 47) or birch AIT (N = 48).

4 rass AIT (P < 0.001) but not significant for birch AIT group (P = 0.24).

5 s and -9.81 (-14.13, -5.50; P < 0.001) after birch AIT.

6 reactivity of allergen homologs to the major birch allergen Bet v 1.

7 ive quantification of Bet v 1 in 30 marketed birch allergen products in one laboratory, simulating th

8 urement of Bet v 1 in a panel of 'real-life' birch allergen products indicated better repeatability o

9 allergic patients with sensitization against birch allergen.

10 Immunotherapies for both grass and birch allergens were efficacious and safe.

11 However, the molecular mechanisms of birch allergic sensitization, including the roles of Bet

12 rom murine mDCs and PBMCs from patients with birch allergy.

13 black spruce, burned black spruce and paper birch, allowing us to determine vegetation and edaphic d

14 neighbourhood scale, where the proportion of birch among neighbouring trees varied, but not at the pl

15 enome, and advanced germplasm resources make birch an attractive model for forest biotechnology.

16 operator26PFASs per tree was up to 11 mg for birch and 1.8 mg for spruce.

17 ergenic proteins shared by many pollens (eg, birch and alder) and foods (eg, apple, peach, and soy).

18 haw in unburned dominant forest types (paper birch and black spruce) associated with location on elev

19 EAACI definitions on pollen season for both birch and grass and for a variety of geographical locati

20 pollen were analyzed regarding IgE to major birch and grass pollen allergens Bet v 1 and Phl p 1/p 5

21 munotherapy for patients symptomatic to both birch and grass pollen allergens.

22 Birch and grass pollen allergic individuals underwent sk

23 used to investigate the correlation between birch and grass pollen concentrations during the birch a

24 notherapy with mixed depigmented-polymerized birch and grass pollen extract in 285 patients with alle

25 h and grass pollen concentrations during the birch and grass pollen season defined via the EAACI crit

26 d symptom loads reported by PHD users during birch and grass pollen season.

27 rhinoconjunctivitis symptomatic during both birch and grass pollen seasons.

28 ollen proteases of Kentucky bluegrass, white birch and hazel selectively destroy integrity and anchor

29 , indicating T-cell cross-reactivity between birch and hazelnut allergens in all patients of the stud

30 ollen and examine cross-reactivities between birch and nut species.

31 Birch and other related trees of the families Betulaceae

32 n updated include respiratory allergens from birch and ragweed pollen, midge larvae, and horse dander

33 compositions of the exudates of aspen, white birch and silver birch buds were determined.

34 mentation as the primary factors controlling birch and spruce forest change, respectively.

35 elterwood system with mixed stands of silver birch and spruce in combination with regular harvest of

36 zed both with and without cosensitization to birch and stratified into age-categories.

37 de the birch pollen season and included four birch and two oak EEC sessions.

38 with American beech, sugar maple, and yellow birch, and negatively with red spruce and balsam fir - g

39 ing three types of wood logs, namely, beech, birch, and spruce, were chemically characterized using t

40 d spruce, sugar maple, yellow birch, cordate birch, and striped maple.

41 the major pollen allergen Bet v1 from silver birch as examples and showed that these purified recombi

42 d respective treatment with AIT primarily to birch as the representative allergen of the Fagales tree

43 gic sensitization; however, sensitization to birch as well as grass pollen Phl p 1 and cat Fel d 1 al

44 resent analyses we included 28 children with birch atopy and randomly selected 28 nonatopic children

45 nd (2) IgE responses to birch (children with birch atopy) or no IgE response at all to 9 common aeroa

46 y a relatively frequent byproduct of burning birch bark (a natural tinder) under common, i.e., aerobi

47 ively undemanding connection between burning birch bark and the production of birch tar would have be

48 We show that when birch bark burns close to a vertical to subvertical hard

49 uire a cognitively demanding setup, in which birch bark is heated in anaerobic conditions, a setup wh

50 The burning of birch bark near suitable surfaces provides useable quant

51 tar in a single work session (3 h; including birch bark procurement).

52 Added to recent evidence of birch bark tar, art, and shell beads, the idea that Nean

53 as well as commercial available softwood and birch-bark pellets were investigated.

54 om timothy grass (Phl p 7), alder (Aln g 4), birch (Bet v 4), turnip rape (Bra r 1), lamb's quarter (

55 growth of the dominant vegetation, Himalayan birch Betula utilis and Himalayan fir Abies spectabilis,

56 experiment at three sites with paired paper birch (Betula neoalaskana) and black spruce (Picea maria

57 mbling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) to the north vs. eastern cotto

58 d host trees aspen (Populus tremuloides) and birch (Betula papyrifera).

59 Foliar fungi of silver birch (Betula pendula) in an experimental Finnish forest

60 We dissected the stem of silver birch (Betula pendula) into eight major tissue types, an

61 Silver birch (Betula pendula) is a pioneer boreal tree that can

62 formers, leaf miners and rollers) on silver birch (Betula pendula) trees growing in one-, two-, thre

63 al plant community were taken, namely silver birch (Betula pendula), Norway spruce (Picea abies), bir

64 plots distributed across 1 km(2) of treeline birch (Betula pubescens) forest and willow (Salix lappon

65 re, by manipulating the stem weight of downy birch (Betula pubescens) trees, we show that cambial dev

66 elevant nonphylogenetically related species: birch (Betula verrucosa), pine (Pinus sylvestris), and r

67 tightly constrains the colonization of dwarf birch (Betula, a thermophilous shrub) to 5.9 +/- 0.1 ka,

68 he exudates of aspen, white birch and silver birch buds were determined.

69 ears, and 13 years) and (2) IgE responses to birch (children with birch atopy) or no IgE response at

70 tional feeding experiments on related silver birch confirmed the SOA results.

71 an adults of red spruce, sugar maple, yellow birch, cordate birch, and striped maple.

72 In aspen and birch, CUE and RGR declined significantly with increasin

73 ionally occurring pollen allergens (ragweed, birch, cypress), IgE sensitization was significantly ass

74 y significantly lower TSS during the 24-week birch EEC session for 7 DU and 12 DU compared to placebo

75 s for moderate-to-severe peanut allergy in a birch-endemic region and to create an oral-peanut challe

76 In Hokkaido the prevalence of birch family pollen count was larger than that in other

77 There is cross-reactivity between beech and birch family which related with oral allergic syndrome.P

78 lying regulation by combining an accelerated birch flowering program with a recessive mutation at the

79 and suggests that chewing damage on mountain birch foliage could significantly increase reactive VOC

80 es along replicated natural transitions from birch forest (Betula pubescens), through deciduous shrub

81 er measurements identified net CH4 uptake in birch forest soils.

82 e wider landscape, lichen heath and mountain birch forest.

83 year period, we observed a nonlinear loss of birch forests and a relatively continuous gain of spruce

84 stimates a transition of ~15 km(2) or ~7% of birch forests to wetlands, where the greatest change fol

85 ut driven directly by concurrent declines in birch frequency as tree species richness increased.

86 2016-2017) to at least one of the allergens: birch, grass, house dust mite, or cat.

87 Additionally, birch, grass, or pine-pollen extracts were tested.

88 significant correlation (slightly higher for birch) has been found between the Total Nasal Symptom an

89 ity and sequential pollen seasons within the birch homologous group create a prolonged symptomatic al

90 cross-reactivity towards allergens from the birch homologous group has been observed in basic resear

91 reduction towards different species from the birch homologous group in separate EEC sessions.

92 re the representative allergen source of the birch homologous group including several Fagales trees b

93 to treat allergies to all species within the birch homologous group.

94 s-reactivity to all other species within the birch homologous group.

95 ornbeam, chestnut, and beech) constitute the birch homologous group.

96 erbivore-induced VOC emissions from mountain birch in laboratory experiments and assessed the impact

97 A decline in the frequency of birch in mixed stands resulted in reduced leaf area.

98 This conversion was not observed with birch leaf diets, which had lower carbohydrate content.

99 g(-1) wet weight (ww) and 94 ng g(-1) ww in birch leaves and spruce needles, respectively.

100 ncing revealed greater diversity of fungi on birch leaves than the visual assessment method.

101 ere also highest for the postexposure silver birch leaves; scanning electron microscopy showed that U

102 The conversion of birch lignin to monomer C7-C9 hydrocarbons is nearly qua

103 In the second study, Bowman and Birch-Machin show that mitochondrial complex II activity

104 A fourth-order Birch-Murnaghan equation of state reproduces our experim

105 re <6 GPa, the PAW-GGA can be described by a Birch-Murnaghan equation of state with = 687.4 A(3), = 5

106 By studying this birch mutant, we were able to dissect vertical proprioce

107 Among the birch-negatives, prevalences of nut sensitizations decre

108 uggested increased risks of sensitization to birch (odds ratio [OR] = 1.12 [95% CI = 1.01-1.25] per 1

109 SLIT-tablet reduce ARC symptoms triggered by birch or oak pollen.

110 ly significant for both grass (P = 0.02) and birch (P = 0.02) allergens.

111 ion of effective vaccine candidates to treat birch PFS.

112 he results highlight the potential of chewed birch pitch as a source of ancient DNA.

113 quenced from a 5700 year-old piece of chewed birch pitch from Denmark.

114 group 2 mite allergens (18.2%), Bet v 1 from birch pollen (16.3%) and Fel d 1 from cat (14.4%).

115 -10) protein family and allergic rhinitis to birch pollen (ARbp) from early childhood up to age 16 ye

116 endently of this were children sensitized to birch pollen (Bet v 1).

117 stigated its clinical safety and efficacy in birch pollen (BP)-allergic patients.

118 = 105), Dermatophagoides farina (n = 96) and birch pollen (n = 85).

119 oms were positively correlated with airborne birch pollen abundance, and nasal birch pollen challenge

120 Birch pollen AIT demonstrated real-world benefits up to

121 linical trial data show that the efficacy of birch pollen AIT is not only related to birch pollen all

122 lied to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of birch pollen AIT on birch pollen-related food allergy.

123 gellin A from Listeria monocytogenes and the birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 (recombinant flagellin A [

124 ions and T-cell responses to the recombinant birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and recombinant hypoallerg

125 inly results from sensitization to the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and subsequent cross-react

126 monoclonal human IgE, and the corresponding birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 at a molecular level.

127 t fusion proteins of flagellin and the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 for suitability as allergy

128 The major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 is considered the prototyp

129 The binding of natural ligands by the birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 or the mold allergen Alt a

130 gs which had been immunized with recombinant birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 using patch delivery syste

131 er 25 years ago, the gene encoding the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 was the first such gene to

132 an ELISA for the quantification of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1, established as a referenc

133 minent member of the PR-10 family, the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1, is the main cause of spri

134 effect of intranasal administration of major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1, omalizumab or placebo on

135 ed with the T-cell receptor specific for the birch pollen allergen Bet v 1, respectively.

136 ged intranasally with omalizumab, placebo or birch pollen allergen Bet v 1.

137 city and sensitization capacity of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1.

138 ied after fluorescence labeling of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1.

139 ution of specific surface areas of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1.0101 to binding IgE of ind

140 ed Timothy grass pollen allergen Phl p 7 and birch pollen allergen Bet v 4 to study these effects.

141 llergic patients using recombinant (r) major birch pollen allergen rBet v 1 and major timothy grass p

142 Art v 4 are compared with those of Bet v 2 (birch pollen allergen) as well as with other allergenic

143 ble for quantification of Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, in preceding phases of BSP090.

144 ed by co-sensitization to Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, its cross-reactive food allergens

145 tides (COPs) derived from Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, showed good clinical tolerability

146 aneous immunotherapy with Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, to intervene in birch pollen alle

147 ty and thus represent promising vaccines for birch pollen allergen-specific immunotherapy.

148 Bet v 1 has been identified as the major birch pollen allergen.

149 l allergy symptoms due to the high number of birch pollen allergic individuals.

150 lind placebo-controlled pilot trial in which birch pollen allergic subjects were challenged intranasa

151 Birch pollen allergies are frequently associated with ad

152 ut AD (group 2), 5 allergic patients without birch pollen allergy (group 3), and 5 nonallergic subjec

153 le to activate T-cell lines from donors with birch pollen allergy and from mice immunized with the pa

154 solated from peripheral blood of donors with birch pollen allergy and stimulated with GM-CSF, IFN-gam

155 y of birch pollen AIT is not only related to birch pollen allergy but extends to pollen from other tr

156 cal relevance, PFS, and HRQoL with regard to birch pollen allergy from a European perspective.

157 , meaning that the majority of patients with birch pollen allergy suffer from secondary pollen food s

158 4 sera from Bet v 1-sensitized subjects with birch pollen allergy was determined by using direct ELIS

159 ctions in not only most of the patients with birch pollen allergy with AD (11/15) but also in most of

160 ical study was conducted in 15 patients with birch pollen allergy with AD (group 1), 5 patients with

161 ent late reactions not only in patients with birch pollen allergy with AD but also in those without A

162 Patients with birch pollen allergy with AD had higher Bet v 1-specific

163 ontaining Bet v 1 fragments in patients with birch pollen allergy with and without atopic dermatitis

164 n allergy with AD (group 1), 5 patients with birch pollen allergy without AD (group 2), 5 allergic pa

165 CCR4(+) T cells compared with patients with birch pollen allergy without AD.

166 dergoing a 3-year-long AIT against grass and birch pollen allergy, respectively.

167 l and allergen-specific IgE in patients with birch pollen allergy.

168 for allergen-specific immunotherapy against birch pollen allergy.

169 , and PBMCs were isolated from subjects with birch pollen allergy.

170 pollen profilin, can hamper the diagnosis of birch pollen allergy.

171 ed from studies on those with cross-reactive birch pollen allergy.

172 major birch pollen allergen, to intervene in birch pollen allergy.

173 llergy units native [AUN]/mL) in adults with birch pollen allergy.

174 ver 100 million people worldwide suffer from birch pollen allergy.

175 prolonged symptomatic allergy period beyond birch pollen alone.

176 For Bet v 1-mediated birch pollen and associated food allergies, a single wil

177 zations to nuts in individuals sensitized to birch pollen and examine cross-reactivities between birc

178 to current guidelines on allergen products, birch pollen are the representative allergen source of t

179 Sensitization to birch pollen causes cross-sensitization to nuts, but rar

180 h airborne birch pollen abundance, and nasal birch pollen challenge led to downregulation of type I a

181 patients allergic to grass pollen and 94 to birch pollen completed two questionnaires (RCAT and RQLQ

182 positive cases were correlated with airborne birch pollen concentrations.

183 ll subjects with skin prick tests (SPTs) for birch pollen conducted during 1997-2013 in the Skin and

184 Cor a 8 is diluted by the increased role of birch pollen cross-reactivity with Cor a 1.

185 was defined as upper airway symptoms during birch pollen exposure.

186 cy and safety of sublingual high-dose liquid birch pollen extract (40,000 allergy units native [AUN]/

187 exposed to native or heat-inactivated white birch pollen extract (BPEx) intratracheally and injected

188 birch pollen-allergic patients together with birch pollen extract and human IL-4.

189 ly increased reactivity to grass compared to birch pollen extract in Bet v 2 only sensitized patients

190 d by a 2-week asthma induction protocol with birch pollen extract on alternating days.

191 roles of Bet v 1 and other components of the birch pollen extract, remain incompletely understood.

192 with >90% of Bet v 1 content present in the birch pollen extract, while displaying a weak cross-reac

193 de adjuvant and intranasally challenged with birch pollen extract.

194 recombinant rBet v 1.0101 as well as native birch pollen extracts were measured independently at lea

195 However, specific immunotherapy with birch pollen has inconsistent effects on apple allergy.

196 Over the last few decades, levels of birch pollen have risen and the period of exposure has i

197 explanation for the limited effectiveness of birch pollen immunotherapy in birch pollen-related food

198 r allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) with birch pollen improves birch pollen-related food allergy.

199 lity of life (HRQoL) in patients allergic to birch pollen is significant.

200 Birch pollen is the most dominant tree pollen in Norther

201 dose-finding study with a sublingual liquid birch pollen preparation (SB) was conducted.

202 ly ARC total combined score (TCS) during the birch pollen season (BPS) analyzed for subjects with dia

203 eatment was started 3 to 6 months before the birch pollen season and continued during the season in 4

204 pollen challenges were conducted outside the birch pollen season and included four birch and two oak

205 easured (all measures determined outside the birch pollen season).

206 of Bet v 1 COP immunotherapy during the 2013 birch pollen season.

207 Subsequently, the prevalence of birch pollen sensitization has also increased.

208 for inhalant allergies; however, successful birch pollen SIT does not correlate well with the amelio

209 ted from patients before and during AIT with birch pollen were added to the allergen prior to intrana

210 ients with positive skin prick test (SPT) to birch pollen were analyzed regarding IgE to major birch

211 ) T cells from donors sensitized to grass or birch pollen were stimulated with autologous allergen-pu

212 of AIT in dual-allergic patients (grass and birch pollen) using active untargeted treatments as cont

213 e identified as allergens (e.g. Bet v 7 from birch pollen, Cat r 1 from periwinkle pollen).

214 re detected in oral tissues from healthy and birch pollen-allergic individuals.

215 Bet v 1-sensitized birch pollen-allergic patients (n = 35) were diagnosed f

216 grass pollen-allergic patients and 45.7% of birch pollen-allergic patients receiving guideline-conco

217 blingual challenge tests in a high number of birch pollen-allergic patients that inter alia can be ap

218 ntraperitoneally allergen-reactive PBMC from birch pollen-allergic patients together with birch polle

219 9% NaCl were sublingually administered to 72 birch pollen-allergic patients with apple allergy.

220 L) and clones (TCC) established from PBMC of birch pollen-allergic patients with carrot allergy were

221 tained from three healthy individuals and 23 birch pollen-allergic patients with/without oral allergy

222 s) and a moderate correlation of r = -0.539 (birch pollen-allergic patients).

223 pollen-allergic patients and r = -0.795 for birch pollen-allergic patients.

224 and asthma symptoms/onset, in patients with birch pollen-associated AR and/or asthma.

225 Birch pollen-associated plant food allergy is caused by

226 Here, we examined how known birch pollen-derived molecules influence the endolysosom

227 Birch pollen-driven hazelnut sensitization (Cor a 1) dom

228 Hazelnut allergy is birch pollen-driven in Northern/Western Europe and lipid

229 ents the development of cardinal features of birch pollen-induced allergic asthma in a strain-specifi

230 g adjuvant in epicutaneous immunotherapy for birch pollen-induced allergic asthma.

231 properly mirror symptom loads for grass and birch pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in other European

232 n 406 adult patients with moderate-to-severe birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with o

233 Bet v 1 COPs versus placebo in subjects with birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

234 e BPS and TPS in adolescents and adults with birch pollen-induced ARC (EudraCT 2015-004821-15).

235 role of other immunoglobulin isotypes in the birch pollen-plant food syndrome has not been investigat

236 Birch pollen-related apple allergy is among the most pre

237 Sixty participants with birch pollen-related apple allergy were randomized to da

238 sing approach for the effective treatment of birch pollen-related apple allergy.

239 ns containing either rMal d 1 or rBet v 1 on birch pollen-related apple allergy.

240 1, but not rBet v 1, significantly improved birch pollen-related apple allergy.

241 ble and relevant for sublingual treatment of birch pollen-related apple allergy.

242 n basophils from nontreated individuals with birch pollen-related apple allergy.

243 fectiveness of birch pollen immunotherapy in birch pollen-related food allergy and indicate a dominan

244 munotherapy (AIT) with birch pollen improves birch pollen-related food allergy.

245 therapeutic efficacy of birch pollen AIT on birch pollen-related food allergy.

246 rdized tests to assess clinical reactions to birch pollen-related foods, for example apple.

247 ted between populations, as egg-specific and birch pollen-specific IgE was more common in Finland.

248 from a separate validation cohort exposed to birch pollen.

249 ing, phase IIb trial in patients allergic to birch pollen.

250 adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to birch pollen.

251 yielded four significant SNP associations to birch pollen.

252 Bet v 1 is the main sensitizing allergen in birch pollen.

253 ly suppressed asthmatic features elicited by birch pollen.

254 examine sensitizations in an area with less birch-pollen exposure.

255 birch were similar in Lapland with its lower birch-pollen exposure.

256 umber of patients, ILIT with grass-pollen or birch-pollen extracts appears to reduce nasal allergic s

257 Two hundred and sixty-nine adults with birch-pollen-induced AR were randomized to placebo, SB:

258 Safety, tolerability, birch-pollen-specific immunoglobulin levels and peak nas

259 e (MFC), nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) and birch pulp derivate, nanofibrillated anionic dicarboxyli

260 of cellulose fibres, except when unmodified birch pulp was used.

261 and alginate were produced using unmodified birch pulp, microfibrillated cellulose (MFC), nanofibril

262 An unrelated challenge (birch, rDer p2 or anti-IgE) resulted in 53.4% activation

263 and challenging with optimal doses of grass, birch, recombinant house dust mite (rDer p2) allergen or

264 Girdling birches reduced total soil CO(2) efflux in the peak grow

265 ounds at anoxic sites, catalyze a biological Birch reduction beyond the negative limit of this redox

266 The Birch reduction is a powerful synthetic methodology that

267 m of the reduction shows similarities to the Birch reduction known from organic chemistry.

268 Birch reduction of the benzylated polymers gives water-s

269 Upon Birch reduction of unprotected, C4-alkylated tetrahydroi

270 ed dearomatization and a subsequent directed Birch reduction, enabled by an intramolecular H-source.

271 n a four-step process by means of an initial Birch reduction, followed by an isomerization of the C=C

272 eductive electrosynthetic conditions for the Birch reduction.

273 also report that SmI2(H2O)n cleanly mediates Birch reductions of substrates bearing at least two arom

274 ides as new organic photoredox catalysts for Birch reductions performed at ambient temperature and dr

275 Birch reductions traditionally employ alkali metals diss

276 Birch reductive alkylation of methyl m-(hydroxymethyl)be

277 g variant (FV) of recombinant (r) Bet v 1 on birch-related soya allergy.

278 present data on the effect of rBet v 1-FV on birch-related soya allergy.

279 mbination with regular harvest of leaves and birch sap and an understory of ground elder, it is poten

280 Of subjects with birch sensitization, 84% were cosensitized to hazelnut,

281 In a subgroup without birch sensitization, young children (<5 years) were most

282 Birch-sensitized individuals are frequently cosensitized

283 across dominant groupings of species (dwarf birch shrubs, willow shrubs, other deciduous shrubs, gra

284 rent lignocellulosic biomass, namely, beech, birch, spruce, ash, oak, and pine as well as commercial

285 e and organic matter deposition in aspen and birch stands at the Aspen FACE facility in northern Wisc

286 ommunities compared to similar treatments in birch stands.

287 Thus, the presence of birch tar alone cannot indicate the presence of modern c

288 able surfaces provides useable quantities of birch tar in a single work session (3 h; including birch

289 cal hard surface, such as an adjacent stone, birch tar is naturally deposited and can be easily scrap

290 Birch tar production by Neanderthals-used for hafting to

291 This is because birch tar production per se was assumed to require a cog

292 we demonstrate that recognizable amounts of birch tar were likely a relatively frequent byproduct of

293 een burning birch bark and the production of birch tar would have been readily discoverable multiple

294 The object is a piece of birch tar, encompassing one-third of a flint flake.

295 We report the discovery of a 50,000-y-old birch tar-hafted flint tool found off the present-day co

296 In contrast, associational resistance of birch to leaf miners was not trait-mediated but driven d

297 A new study characterizes a collapsing birch tree mutant and provides a genetic entry point int

298 An alternative approach is the coppicing of birch trees in combination with an understory of ground

299 aracterized by zymography and those of white birch were fully identified for the first time as serine

300 Cosensitizations between nuts and birch were similar in Lapland with its lower birch-polle