Cultural context
Write a 3-5 page essay comparing and contrasting these two works
of art from two different styles .You must cover the following points in your comparison:
Introduction and Thesis
• Introduce the artwork titles, period styles and artists names
• Briefly state what you believe is significant about these artworks
• In other words… Tell your reader what works of art you will be discussing and why you think
they are important
Stylistic analysis
• Correctly identify artwork titles, period styles and artists names
• Compare the artworks by discussing key stylistic characteristics associated with artists and
period styles
• Apply art history vocabulary correctly and uses it to support your stylistic analysis
• In other words… What make these works stylistically significant?
Cultural analysis
• Compare the artworks by discussing key cultural issues associated with artists and periods
• Discuss how the cultural context of each period influenced the artistic development of the
period style (Make connections between cultural context and style)
• In other words… What makes these works culturally significant?
undamentally connected with gene substitution in K103N reverse transcriptase while the mutations in Y181C are more commonly emerges with nevirapine treatment (Johnson et al., 2010). A first-generation NNRTI agents has lower genetic barriers for resistance than the second-generation NNRTIs (i.e., etravirine), requiring numerous mutations for loss of movement (Schiller and Youssef-Bessler, 2009).
4.8 ENTRY INHIBITORS
After interaction with the viral receptor CD4 and the co-receptors CCR5 or CXCR4, HIV enters the cell. One of the HIV entry inhibitor, Maraviroc, prevents the usage of CCR5, the co-receptor, and entry of the viral molecule to the targeted cell (MacArthur and Novak, 2008; Donahue et al., 2010). Nevertheless, maraviroc is unable to inhibit the infection with viral molecules which are not CCR5 tropic.
4.9 INHIBITION OF INTEGRATION
Integration is an interesting, unique and fundamental step in viral replication and, for that, it was recognized as a target for medication advancement many years sgo. Nonetheless, raltegravir, is the first integrase inhibitor, which was affirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just in 2007. The postponement was because of the insolubility of HIV integrase and in this way the ability to change its structure and to design inhibitors. Using integrase inhibitors on viral reservoirs effect is still wrangled about.
In addition, the high efficiency of raltegravir has been identified with its great physical-chemical characteristics and it inhibition of the integrase stage in viral replication (Bar-Magen et al., 2010; Donahue et al., 2010). Integrase inhibitors display moderately low genetic barriers for resistance, by which only one or two mutations are able to cause obvious reduction in susceptibility to raltegravir (Delelis et al., 2010; Hatano et al., 2010). In general, the genetic barrier to integrase inhibitors is lower than that off NRTIs. Second-generation integrase inhibitors ar