Previous studies have identified five lymphoma‐related tumour suppressor gene regions on murine chromosome 4. Using detailed allelotype analysis on a range of lympho‐haematopoietic tumour types arising in F1 hybrid mice, we now show a consistent pattern of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) which identifies a common region of loss delineated by microsatellites D4Mit21 and D4Mit53 on proximal chromosome 4. This critical segment corresponds to the thymic lymphoma tumour suppressor region 5 (TLSR5) identified in an earlier study. Tumours of this type have also been reported as showing allelic loss from the Trp53 and Ikaros regions on chromosome 11. In the present study, only a small fraction of tumours showed LOH in the Ikaros region, while a minority of lymphomas, but not acute myeloid leukaemias, showed allelic loss of the chromosome 11 segment encoding Trp53 . These and other data indicate strongly that the genomic regions identified as showing recurrent LOH depend on the genetic background of the mice. Overall, the results indicate a key role for a tumour suppressor gene(s) encoded in an ∼3 cM segment on proximal chromosome 4 and provide an experimental basis for the further investigation of the functional role of candidate genes which include Pax5 and Tgfbr1 . © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This article reports on the first phase of one of several research projects commissioned by the Department of Health to study post-Children Act policy and practice. Its purpose was specifically to look at the relationship between children ‘in need’ and children ‘in need of protection’ because of concerns about neglect or emotional abuse. The research focuses on the families of 349 children under 8 years of age who were referred to three social services departments because of child protection concerns and 363 who were referred for a service but who did not, at least initially, arrive with a ‘child protection’ label. The study found that the initial assessment of the families of children referred because of concerns about emotional abuse and neglect tended to be low key and to concentrate on ‘risks’ rather than on the needs of the children. An opportunity was thus missed to differentiate between those families who would be able to meet the needs of children without the provision of services and those in which the health and welfare of the children would be likely to deteriorate without further assessment and help. The early decisions by team leaders in respect of this group of families most often resulted in a low level of service provision. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.