Simulated alignments are an alternative of benchmark alignments used to comparing the Multiple Sequence Alignments tools. The true evolutionary history of simulated sequence is most important motivation which is very valuable to generate accurate phylogenetic trees and alignments. Simulated alignments are also used to validate and investigate accuracy of multiple sequence alignments methods. The researcher can generate simulated alignments including varying sequence length, indel size, insertion rate, deletion rate and number of sequences. User may have to reconstruct the large number of simulated alignments using simulated tools which is very cumbersome and time consuming job. It is also required professional training and expertise for generation of such a big data. Currently there is no databank available which may help the researcher to download simulated alignments for their study. Major focus of our study is to develop database of simulated alignments (SAliBASE) with varying parameters including varying insertion rate, varying deletion rate, varying sequence length, varying number of sequences and varying number of indel size. For generation of sequence/alignments specifically we generate a collection of trees and use each as a guided tree in the alignments algorithm. For such big data analysis we will use R software that contains various types of packages (ape, base, boot, class, treesim etc.). We use package Treesim for the generating of phylogenetic Tree. Phylogenetic trees are used to describe the relationship among species and genes. Five types of parameters trees we generated using R in Newick format, which is the standard input tree format for simulated tools. We proposed indel-seq-gen simulated tool for generation of simulated alignments and sequences. As a part of this study comparative study of simulated alignments tools will also be conducted.
شاہ سلیمان احمد چشتی جو حضرات سلسلۂ امدادیہ چشتیہ صابریہ سے تعلق رکھتے تھے انہیں یہ معلوم کرکے بے حد افسوس اور رنج ہوگا کہ حضرت شاہ سلیمان احمد صاحب چشتی صابری نے جودرگاہ شاہ عہدالہادی وشاہ عبدالباری چشتی امروہوی رحمہما اﷲ کے سجادہ نشین تھے۔۹۰ سال کی عمر میں یکم جنوری۱۹۶۲ء مطابق۲۳/رجب۱۳۸۱ھ کو اپنے وطن امروہہ ضلع مرادآباد میں وفات پائی اوراپنے جد امجد کے پائیں مزار دفن ہوئے۔ شاہ صاحب مرحوم حضرت حاجی امداد اﷲ صاحب مہاجر مکی کے اسلاف کی اولاد میں ہونے کے علاوہ معقول ومنقول کے زبردست عالم اور حضرت مولانا احمد حسن صاحب محدث امروہوی کے شاگردرشید تھے، سلسلۂ طریقت میں اپنے والد بزرگوار اورحاجی شاہ محمد ابراہیم اورجدامجد شاہ غلام مصطفےٰ چشتی صابری سے فیض یاب تھے۔ تصوف کانہایت اعلیٰ مذاق اوراس کے دقائق و رموزپرگہری نظر رکھتے تھے۔متبع کتاب وسنت،سیرچشم،متوکل،شب زندہ دار اور اسلاف کرام کی زندگی کاسچا نمونہ تھے۔ ان کے مریدین ومسترشدین کی تعداد ہزاروں تک پہنچتی ہے لیکن انھوں نے کبھی اس کو جلب زرکاذریعہ نہیں بنایا۔اﷲ تعالیٰ جنت الفردوس میں مقام جلیل اوراُن کے پوتے حکیم نظیر احمد صاحب کو جو اب سجادہ نشین ہوئے ہیں بزرگوں کے نقشِ قدم پرچلنے کی توفیق عطافرمائے۔ [فروری۱۹۶۲ء]
The Quran is the last book of Allah. The Quran was revealed in Arabic. The Qur'an was not revealed only to the Arabs. This book has been published to guide all Human beings. There for, translation of the Quran is necessary for non-Arabs. The translation of the Quran was started in the beginning of Urdu language. So far there have been many translations of the Holy Quran in Urdu . I have compared Allama Saeedi's translation of the Qur'an with other translations in this article. I have proved in this article that their translation is an extension of the Quran, the Barelvi school. Their translation is often matched by professional translation in many places. Barelvi School has original (genin), translation, Quran, Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi and Allama Syed Mohammad Kachochvi. This work of mine is unique in its investigation of Allama Ghulam Rasool Saeedi. In my opinion, resding the Qur’an is essential for the understanding of the Qur’an in order to understand the Qur’an but also the study of translations that have a distinct identity and they have been the study of our teachers.
Study Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative morphine-sparing and pain reducing effects of a preemptive, multimodal, perioperative analgesic regimen incorporating the use of preincisional intrathecal blockade plus parenteral anti-inflammatory agents, in patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery. Study design: Prospective Single blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Study setting: The Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya. Methods: 44 ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery were randomly allocated into two groups of 22 patients each. Patients in the Intervention group were given a preincisional subarachnoid injection of 15mg hyperbaric Bupivacaine and 25mcg Fentanyl, plus, parenteral Paracetamol 20mg/kg and Diclofenac 1mg/kg. Patients in the Control group received a standardized general anaesthetic protocol consisting of Midazolam and Propofol, Oxygen, N2O, Isoflurane and cis-atracurium. Analgesia intraoperatively was maintained by remifentanil 0.1-0.3mcg/kg/min with Paracetamol 20mg/kg and Diclofenac 1mg/kg given at the end of surgery. PCA morphine 2mg/ml was instituted once the patient complained of pain. Intramuscular rescue doses of 10mg morphine were administered on patient request. Visual analog score (VAS) was used to assess pain over 48 hours, the cumulative PCA morphine dose and the total number of morphine rescue doses requested were calculated and compared for both groups. Results: 44 consecutive patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery completed the study (Intervention group, n=22; Control group n=22). The cumulative PCA morphine consumption at 2, 24 and 48 hours following patient first request for the control and intervention groups were 6.72 ± 6.33mg versus 5.72 ± 7.62mg ( P=0.6383), 19.682 ± 16.50mg versus 24.09 ± 17.83mg (P=0.3995), 34.409 ± 32.99mg versus 34.818 ± 23.11mg (P=0.9622) respectively. The mean difference in the number of Intramuscular 10mg morphine rescue doses requested by the patients between the control and intervention groups at 48 hours was 8.1818 ± 19.673 versus 3.2727 ± 9.228 (P=0.295). The median VAS at 2 hours was significantly lower in the intervention than control group, 5 ± 2.17 versus 3 ± 2.37 (P=0.0068). VAS at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours postoperatively were not significantly different between the two groups. The McGill pain questionnaire present pain intensity showed a significant difference between the control and intervention group, 2.31 ± 0.70 versus 1.81 ± 0.65 (P=0.00001). There was no significant difference in the pain rating index between the control and intervention group, 8.681 ± 2.46 versus 8.59 ± 2.30 (P= 0.8998). Conclusion: A non-statistically significant trend towards a