Snake venom is highly modified saliva containing __________

1. Snake venom is highly modified saliva containing ___________.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Saliva converts:....

QA->Anti coagulant present in the saliva of leech is _______?....

QA->Which gland secretes saliva in the mouth?....

QA->The saliva helps in the digestion of which thing?....

QA->The salivary gland secrete saliva that contains which enzyme?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: Rajendran belongs to the hula tribe, one of India's oldest indigenous communities, who live along the north-eastern coast of the state of Tamil Nadu. They are known for their ancient and intimate knowledge of snakes, and their skills form an important but nearly invisible part of the healthcare system in India. "Many people are scared of snakes," Rajendran said, "But we must remember that the snake is only interested in survival. If we move in agitation, the snake perceives a threat and can strike. If we stand still, however, it will often slither away." We were at the offices of the hula Snake Catchers Industrial Co-Operative Society, which was formed in 1978 in Vadanemmeli to capture snakes and extract their venom. Nearly 50,000 people die of snakebites each year in the country, and the only reliable treatment is the prompt administration of anti-venom. Six companies across India produce around 1.5 million vials of anti-venom annually, and most of it is derived from the venom extracted by the Indas. Rajendran showed us a sunken sandpit enclosed by a low brick wall A high thatched roof protected the space from the sun. and a small raised platform in the centre of the pit had a simple blackboard with details of the snakes being held in the facility. This was the venom extraction site. We aren't holding too many snakes right now," he said, pointing to the numerous rows of empty clay pots, neatly arranged outside the thatch structure. Each pot will be half-filled with sand before housing two snakes each, and the mouth of the pot will be carefully sealed with porous cotton cloth so that the snakes can't leave the pot but there is still enough air. The co-operative has official licenses to hold about 800 snakes at a time. "We keep every snake for 21 days, and extract venom four times during that period," Rajendran said. The snakes are then released into the wild. A small mark on their belly scales prevents the same snake from being caught repeatedly. "The mark goes away after a few moultings." Rajendran's confidence in handling snakes and his deep understanding of these creatures are derived from a childhood spent in the forests and scrublands of the region. Before he turned 10. he had seen hundreds of snakes being captured. The Imlas usually work in silence, even when they go into the forest with others. They instinctively know the significance of faint signs on the ground to either follow clues or dismiss them. However, they often find it hard to articulate the details of their understanding, even to people who study reptiles.What is the best way to save yourself when a snake is near you?
....

MCQ-> The controversy over genetically modified food continues unabated in the West. Genetic modification (GM) is the science by which the genetic material of a plant is altered, perhaps to make it more resistant to pests or killer weeds, or to enhance its nutritional value. Many food biotechnologists claim that GM will be a major contribution of science to mankind in the 21st century. On the other hand, large numbers of opponents, mainly in Europe, claim that the benefits of GM are a myth propagated by multinational corporations to increase their profits, that they pose a health hazard, and have therefore called for government to ban the sale of genetically-modified food.The anti-GM campaign has been quite effective in Europe, with several European Union member countries imposing a virtual ban for five years over genetically-modified food imports. Since the genetically-modified food industry is particularly strong in the United States of America, the controversy also constitutes another chapter in the US-Europe skirmishes which have become particularly acerbic after the US invasion of Iraq.To a large extent, the GM controversy has been ignored in the Indian media, although Indian biotechnologists have been quite active in GM research. Several groups of Indian biotechnologists have been working on various issues connected with crops grown in India. One concrete achievement which has recently figured in the news is that of a team led by the former vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru university, Asis Datta — it has successfully added an extra gene to potatoes to enhance the protein content of the tuber by at least 30 percent. It is quite likely that the GM controversy will soon hit the headlines in India since a spokesperson of the Indian Central government has recently announced that the government may use the protato in its midday meal programme for schools as early as next year.Why should “scientific progress”, with huge potential benefits to the poor and malnourished, be so controversial? The anti-GM lobby contends that pernicious propaganda has vastly exaggerated the benefits of GM and completely evaded the costs which will have to be incurred if the genetically-modified food industry is allowed to grow unchecked. In particular, they allude to different types of costs.This group contends that the most important potential cost is that the widespread distribution and growth of genetically-modified food will enable the corporate world (alias the multinational corporations – MNCs) to completely capture the food chain. A “small” group of biotech companies will patent the transferred genes as well as the technology associated with them. They will then buy up the competing seed merchants and seed-breeding centers, thereby controlling the production of food at every possible level. Independent farmers, big and small, will be completely wiped out of the food industry. At best, they will be reduced to the status of being subcontractors.This line of argument goes on to claim that the control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor since the MNCs, guided by the profit motive, will only focus on the high-value food items demanded by the affluent. Thus, in the long run, the production of basic staples which constitute the food basket of the poor will taper off. However, this vastly overestimates the power of the MNCs. Even if the research promoted by them does focus on the high-value food items, much of biotechnology research is also funded by governments in both developing and developed countries. Indeed, the protato is a by-product of this type of research. If the protato passes the field trials, there is no reason to believe that it cannot be marketed in the global potato market. And this type of success story can be repeated with other basic food items.The second type of cost associated with the genetically modified food industry is environmental damage. The most common type of “genetic engineering” involved gene modification in plants designed to make them resistant to applications of weed-killers. This then enables farmers to use massive dosages of weedkillers so as to destroy or wipe out all competing varieties of plants in their field. However, some weeds through genetically-modified pollen contamination may acquire resistance to a variety of weed-killers. The only way to destroy these weeds is through the use of ever-stronger herbicides which are poisonous and linger on in the environment.The author doubts the anti-GM lobby’s contention that MNC control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor because
....

MCQ->Snake venom is highly modified saliva containing ___________.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questionsOnce a king saw some young boys pelting stones on a snake. He prevented the boys from killing the snake. Thus he saved its life.The snake, which was the King of the Snake World, thanked him and favoured him with a supernatural gift by which he could understand the language of any animal. But he warned him that that divulgence of the secret would cost him his life. One day, when the King was sitting in his garden and enjoying breakfast, a small portion of the sweet fell on the ground.Soon he heard an ant shouting, “My God”, what a big wagon-ful of sweet has fallen and there is none to consume it.Ah ! I can enjoy all, now.”Hearing this, the King smiled and chuckled.The queen, who was sitting next to him,was curious to note the changing countenance of the King.She asked him to tell her the reason for the smile. But the King kept silence,she attacked his self-respect by calling him a “liar” and muttered that all his expressions of endearment like-You are dearer to me than my very life”.-were nothing but a pack of lies.The King, however,could not bear the attacks on his self-respect and eventually conceded to divulge the secret on the following day in the royal,garden; and made up his mind to sacrifice his life. A donkey overheard the King’s resolve and decided to save him,because the King was righteous.So, he picked up one of his friends-the goat and they both decided to save the King. Next day, when the King and his retinues were on the way to the royal park,the donkey and the goat stood conversing on one side of the path.The King overheard the goat saying to the donkey, “You are a fool but not as big a fool as in the king. “Having heard so, the King was curious to know as to why was he being called a “bigger fool”. So, he said to the goat. “Pray, then tell me what to do as I am now committed to tell her on her back”. When the King reached the garden he said to the queen “I am now ready to tell you the secret on the condition that you are willing to receive one hundred lashes in return”.The queen considered the condition a joke and nodded in agreement.The King then waved at one of his guards to lash her with all his power.And no sooner than she received two lashes she wailed and shouted “No ! No ! Stop, do not lash me ! I don’t want to know the secret now”. The King then said scornfully, “You wanted to know the secret at the cost of my life, but now you don’t want to know because you have to save your skin.You deserve a few more lashes.”But before he could order his man to give her a few more lashes, the King’s trustworthy minister intervened and requested him to forgive her.Thus the queen was not lashed further, yet she received the same honour and dignity.Why did the snake give a gift to the King ?
....

MCQ-> When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post- experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post- experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization’s or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals’ reactions may vary as a function of a: their prior level of commitment and b: the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals a: commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and b: perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than a: less- committed group members or b: highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.
....