Miscellaneous

The human brain contains over 100 billion neurons (there are over 100 million in the mouse brain), yet memories are thought to be stored in only small groups of them. Identifying the precise neurons encoding a given memory has been a longstanding challenge. In the past, scientists had deleted an entire brain region in mice to try and erase a memory in the hopes of finding out about how memories are normally stored, but in this study led by Sheena Josselyn, Assistant Professor of Physiology, Canada Research Chair in Molecular and Cellular Cognition and a SickKids scientist, researchers took a more targeted approach and removed only the small portion of neurons thought to be involved in a specific memory.

"Though previous studies have provided important evidence suggesting that specific neurons are involved in a memory, we believe this paper is the first to establish causal links," said Josselyn.

In a previous paper, the research team showed evidence suggesting that in mice, fear memories are stored in specific neurons within a brain structure known as the lateral amygdala (LA) that have a high amount of a specific protein (CREB). This means that CREB levels helps dictate which neurons are involved in storing a memory. In the latest study, the scientists went on to destroy only these LA neurons with high levels of CREB and found that mice no longer remembered the fearful event. More importantly, they illustrated that random removal of a similar number of LA neurons does not impact the fear memory. These findings are the first to definitively show which specific set of neurons store a memory.

"Our experiences, both good and bad, teach us things," said Josselyn. "If we didn't remember that the last time we touched a hot stove we got burned, we would be more likely to do it again. So in this sense, even memories of bad or frightening experiences are useful. However, there are some cases in which fearful memories become maladaptive, such as with post-traumatic stress disorder or severe phobia. Selectively erasing these intrusive memories may improve the lives of afflicted individuals," she said.

"Do our results suggest that someday this might be possible? Our studies suggest that one strategy would be to target interventions to that small subset of neurons actually involved in storing a memory, rather than the entire brain. It sounds like a futuristic film, but our results in mice do provide proof-of-principle that this may one day be possible in humans," added Paul Frankland, SickKids Scientist, Assistant Professor of Physiology, Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Neurobiology and co-investigator of the study.

"Our memories are an essential part of who we are, in fact some believe it is the ongoing connection between our thoughts and memories that constitutes our identity," said Christine Harrison, SickKids Director of Bioethics. "As the research in this area continues to evolve, so do the ethical considerations related to potential future therapies."

via [techno]

With the support of the National Institutes of Health, the Arnolds and their team have been able to take a piece of HIV that is involved with helping the virus enter cells, put it on the surface of a common cold virus, and then immunize animals with it. They found that the animals made antibodies that can stop an unusually diverse set of HIV isolates or varieties.

Some researchers have previously been able to elicit effective antibodies, but usually only against a very limited number of HIV types. With HIV’s known propensity to mutate, antibodies developed against one local strain may not recognize and combat mutant varieties elsewhere. These geographic varieties with different mutations constitute one of the great challenges to finding a broad spectrum vaccine capable of protecting against the vast array of HIV varieties.

Human rhinovirus showing pieces of HIV (red) that stimulate helpful immune responses displayed on the rhinovirus surface, thereby creating a safe mimic of HIV. Credit: Gail Ferstandig Arnold

“The part that we targeted plays a role in the ability of HIV to enter cells, and is common to most HIV varieties,” Gail Ferstandig Arnold said. “That is a mechanism that would not be easy for the virus to reinvent on the fly, so it turns out to be a really helpful target.”

The Arnolds are both members of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, a joint center of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Also, Gail Ferstandig Arnold is a research professor and Eddy Arnold is a professor, both in Rutgers’ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology.

“The idea is to trick the immune system into thinking it is acting upon HIV before the virus shows actually shows up on the scene,” said Eddy Arnold.

To actually accomplish this is a big problem in engineering. The goal was to take a small piece of the HIV out of its native context, put it in a completely different system (rhinovirus), and have it look the same and act the same. Eddy Arnold likens this to taking the Rocky Mountains, putting them on India and having them look exactly right.

Using recombinant engineering, the research team developed a method to systematically test millions of varied presentations of the HIV segment with the rhinovirus. They tried millions of different variations on how to graft (or splice) one onto the other, creating what are called combinatorial libraries.

“It’s like the lottery,” Eddy Arnold commented. “The more tickets you buy the better chance you have of winning.”

“The really exciting part is that we were able to find viruses that could elicit antibodies against a huge variety of isolates of HIV. That is an immense step and a very important step,” said Gail Ferstandig Arnold.

“However, we need to be careful to not overstate things because the quantity of response is not huge, but it is significant,” added Eddy Arnold. “This is actually the first demonstration of this particular Achilles heel being presented in way to generate a relevant immune response. It is probably not potent enough by itself to be the vaccine or a vaccine, but it is a proof of principle that what we are trying to do is a very sound idea.”

via [techno]

Different companies will apply different factors to the way they finally arrive at a price for your Car Insurance. Generally speaking though the concept is the same. This involves collecting various bits of information from you and feeding it through a computer system which adds or takes away money depending on the answers you give.

The value put on these answers is decided by the individual Car Insurance company.

For example, some Car Insurance companies may believe that having a speeding conviction increases your chance of having a personal injury accident in the future - therefore they may add money to your price if you have such a conviction.

Similarly, some Car Insurance companies may decide that because you have a lot of No Claims Bonus Years then you are less likely to claim - therefore they may discount your price. All in all there are around 30 different factors that may affect your final premium. Now you can see why you get such a difference in the price of your Car Insurance by going to various companies. Each company will have it's own view of what they believe should be assigned to each answer you give. The Car Insurance quote you get through the Accept Direct website will look at lots of different Car Insurance prices from lots of companies.

That way you can get the best possible price for your profile.

via [ezinearticles]

Underwriting and investing

The business model can be reduced to a simple equation: Profit = earned premium + investment income - incurred loss - underwriting expenses.

Insurers make money in two ways: (1) through underwriting, the process by which insurers select the risks to insure and decide how much in premiums to charge for accepting those risks and (2) by investing the premiums they collect from insured parties.

The most complicated aspect of the insurance business is the underwriting of policies. Using a wide assortment of data, insurers predict the likelihood that a claim will be made against their policies and price products accordingly. To this end, insurers use actuarial science to quantify the risks they are willing to assume and the premium they will charge to assume them. Data is analyzed to fairly accurately project the rate of future claims based on a given risk. Actuarial science uses statistics and probability to analyze the risks associated with the range of perils covered, and these scientific principles are used to determine an insurer's overall exposure. Upon termination of a given policy, the amount of premium collected and the investment gains thereon minus the amount paid out in claims is the insurer's underwriting profit on that policy. Of course, from the insurer's perspective, some policies are winners (i.e., the insurer pays out less in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income) and some are losers (i.e., the insurer pays out more in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income).

An insurer's underwriting performance is measured in its combined ratio. The loss ratio (incurred losses and loss-adjustment expenses divided by net earned premium) is added to the expense ratio (underwriting expenses divided by net premium written) to determine the company's combined ratio. The combined ratio is a reflection of the company's overall underwriting profitability. A combined ratio of less than 100 percent indicates underwriting profitability, while anything over 100 indicates an underwriting loss.

Insurance companies also earn investment profits on “float”. “Float” or available reserve is the amount of money, at hand at any given moment, that an insurer has collected in insurance premiums but has not been paid out in claims. Insurers start investing insurance premiums as soon as they are collected and continue to earn interest on them until claims are paid out. The Association of British Insurers (gathering 400 insurance companies and 94% of UK insurance services) has almost 20% of the investments in the London Stock Exchange.

In the United States, the underwriting loss of property and casualty insurance companies was $142.3 billion in the five years ending 2003. But overall profit for the same period was $68.4 billion, as the result of float. Some insurance industry insiders, most notably Hank Greenberg, do not believe that it is forever possible to sustain a profit from float without an underwriting profit as well, but this opinion is not universally held. Naturally, the “float” method is difficult to carry out in an economically depressed period. Bear markets do cause insurers to shift away from investments and to toughen up their underwriting standards. So a poor economy generally means high insurance premiums. This tendency to swing between profitable and unprofitable periods over time is commonly known as the "underwriting" or insurance cycle.

Property and casualty insurers currently make the most money from their auto insurance line of business. Generally better statistics are available on auto losses and underwriting on this line of business has benefited greatly from advances in computing. Additionally, property losses in the United States, due to unpredictable natural catastrophes, have exacerbated this trend.

Claims

Finally, claims and loss handling is the materialized utility of insurance; it is the actual "product" paid for, though one hopes it will never need to be used. Claims may be filed by insureds directly with the insurer or through brokers or agents. The insurer may require that the claim be filed on its own proprietary forms, or may accept claims on a standard industry form such as those produced by ACORD.

Insurance company claim departments employ a large number of claims adjusters supported by a staff of records management and data entry clerks. Incoming claims are classified based on severity and are assigned to adjusters whose settlement authority varies with their knowledge and experience. The adjuster undertakes a thorough investigation of each claim, usually in close cooperation with the insured, determines its reasonable monetary value, and authorizes payment. Adjusting liability insurance claims is particularly difficult because there is a third party involved (the plaintiff who is suing the insured) who is under no contractual obligation to cooperate with the insurer and in fact may regard the insurer as a deep pocket. The adjuster must obtain legal counsel for the insured (either inside "house" counsel or outside "panel" counsel), monitor litigation that may take years to complete, and appear in person or over the telephone with settlement authority at a mandatory settlement conference when requested by the judge.

In managing the claims handling function, insurers seek to balance the elements of customer satisfaction, administrative handling expenses, and claims overpayment leakages. As part of this balancing act, fraudulent insurance practices are a major business risk that must be managed and overcome. Disputes between insurers and insureds over the validity of claims or claims handling practices occasionally escalate into litigation; see insurance bad faith.

Introduction:

Alabama Rates:

Auto insurance premiums in Alabama averaged $0.00 in Alabama in 2004, representing a change of 0.03 percent from the previous year when rates averaged $0.00. The 2004 figures show that, liability coverage averaged $0.00, collision averaged $0.00, and comprehensive averaged $0.00. There were 38 states that had higher average premiums and 11 that were lower. In 2003 there were 39 states with higher rates than Alabama. Taking a look at a longer trend, premiums for car insurance in Alabama in 2000 averaged $0.00 and in 2001, $0.00. In the year 2000, 34 states had higher premiums.

Factors Affecting Insurance Costs In Alabama:

Alabama Auto Insurance Premium Data

Other Resources For Alabama Residents