6β-Amidinopenicillanic Acids—a New Group of Antibiotics

SINCE 6-aminopenicillanic acid became available¹, many semisynthetic penicillins carrying an acyl moiety on the 6-amino-group have been prepared. Thereby penicillins with improved oral absorption, resistance to penicillinase and to a lesser degree increased activity towards Gram-negative bacilli have been made available². Many other N-substitutions are possible, however, but these have not so far resulted in useful compounds^{2, 3}. We report here some of our findings on a new type of N-substituted 6-aminopenicillanic acids.     

The Legal Regulation of Floats and Gliders—In Quest of a New Regime?

This article analyzes the legal status of unmanned instruments (particularly, floats and gliders) for observation purposes in the ocean environment. These new kinds of instruments are being deployed by the thousands into the oceans, not the least as part of the Argo Project of the International Oceanographic Commission. Their uncontrolled drifting has raised legal questions, especially when such instruments enter waters subject to the jurisdiction of foreign states. The authors argue that the current international legal framework is insufficient to address the pertinent issues, and that a new legal regime is needed.     

Brain Evolution: When Is a Group Not a Group?

In testing the 'social brain hypothesis' with comparative data, most research has used group size as an index of cognitive challenge. Recent work suggests that this measure is too crude to apply to a wide range of species, and biologists may need to develop other ways of extending these analyses.     

Study of Caprine β-casein using Reversed-phase High-performance Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectroscopy: Identification of a New Genetic Variant

The genotypes and the main phosphorylation levels of β-casein of goat milk were studied using RP-HPLC/ESI-MS. A new variant of caprine β-casein named E has been characterized using RP-HPLC/ESI-MS, MALDI-MS and NanoESI MS/MS methods. Its sequence differed from that of variant A in the mono amino acid substitution D47 → Y47, which resulted in a 48 Da experimental mass difference between them. The calculated molecular mass of the new variant E 6 P was estimated as 23,869 Da. Its phosphorylation pattern was similar to that of variant A, the most abundant types being those with 5 and 6 P in similar quantities.     

The Proboscis Armature of Turbellaria-Kalyptorhynchia,a Derivative of the Basement Lamina?

The fine structure analysis of the proboscis teeth in the genus Carcharodorhynchus Meixner and of the proboscis hooks in the genus Diascorhynchus Meixner revealed that these structures are not derived from local cuticularizations of the epidermis, but rather are closely associated with the basement lamina of the proboscis sheath epithelium. In Diascorhynchus the hooks are specializations within the basement lamina enclosing the proboscis. The proboscis teeth in Carcharodorhynchus seem to be either an intracellular differentiation within the modified proboscis sheath epithelium or, as in Diascorhynchus , a derivative of the basement lamina. The latter is supported by the finding of similar, dermal teeth clearly derived from the basement lamina in the body wall of several species of the genus Carcharodorhynchus. It appears from this study that most "cutic-ular" differentiations of the body wall in Turbellaria are either derivatives of the basement lamina or of the cytoplasm of the epidermis cells. These considerations are discussed in the light of possible evolutionary pathways leading from a ciliated epidermis (e.g. free-living acoelomates) to a cuticularized hypodermis (e.g. Aschelmimhes and Articulata).     

Genome Sequence of a New Streptomyces coelicolor Generalized Transducing Bacteriophage, ?CAM

Streptomyces coelicolor is a model system for the study of Streptomyces, a genus of bacteria responsible for the production of many clinically important antibiotics. Here we report the genome sequence of ϕCAM, a new S. coelicolor generalized transducing bacteriophage, isolated from a soil sample originating from Lincolnshire, United Kingdom. Many open reading frames within ϕCAM shared high levels of similarity to a prophage from Salinispora tropica and a putative prophage in Streptomyces sp. strain C.     

What Is a Group? Young Children’s Perceptions of Different Types of Groups and Group Entitativity

To date, developmental research on groups has focused mainly on in-group biases and intergroup relations. However, little is known about children’s general understanding of social groups and their perceptions of different forms of group. In this study, 5- to 6-year-old children were asked to evaluate prototypes of four key types of groups: an intimacy group (friends), a task group (people who are collaborating), a social category (people who look alike), and a loose association (people who coincidently meet at a tram stop). In line with previous work with adults, the vast majority of children perceived the intimacy group, task group, and social category, but not the loose association, to possess entitativity, that is, to be a ‘real group.’ In addition, children evaluated group member properties, social relations, and social obligations differently in each type of group, demonstrating that young children are able to distinguish between different types of in-group relations. The origins of the general group typology used by adults thus appear early in development. These findings contribute to our knowledge about children''s intuitive understanding of groups and group members'' behavior.Young children grow up in a complex social world in which they are constantly flooded with social information. Our social world is composed not only of individuals but of an array of different relationships and social groupings. One challenge for children is to decipher which of these social groupings are meaningful. People can appear to be a group from the outside, for example simply because they are in close proximity to each other, but they can be connected with each other at different levels: they can be kin or friends, be on the same sports or work team, be part of the same national or language group, or they can be associated with each other only briefly and loosely when, for instance, they take the same bus to get to the airport, or line up at a counter at the same time. Determining the type of group to which an association of people belongs is not only crucial for being able to understand individual group members’ behavior but can also be a short-cut to predicting how group members will relate to each other. For example, one can expect kin or friends to be loyal to each other, but one might not expect this about people who happen to be lining up at a counter at the same time. Another important form of predictions that can be drawn from social groupings, but which has been understudied in previous research (see also [1]), regards the grouping as a whole. For example, a friendship is supposed to be a longer-lasting, more coherent entity than a gathering in front of a counter.When it comes to the perception of social groupings, Lickel and colleagues [2] have argued that adults apply a folk typology, in which they intuitively distinguish between four qualitatively different types of groups. In support of this idea, Lickel at el. [3] investigated how adult participants sorted 40 examples of real-life groups, and how they rated each of these groups on a set of eight group characteristics such as shared goals, similarity of group members, interaction among group members, and group size. They found that participants distinguished four basic types of groups: intimacy groups (such as families and friends), task groups (such as work or sports teams), social categories (such as women or U.S. citizens), and loose associations (such as people waiting in line at a counter). Participants associated different group characteristics with each group type, for example a long duration and high levels of interaction for intimacy groups, common goals and interaction in task groups, large size and member similarity for social categories, and short duration and low levels of similarity and common goals for loose associations (for an overview, see [2]). Related research has shown that adults treat some social groupings as entities [4–6]. The extent to which a group appears to be a coherent entity and therefore possesses a quality of “groupness” has been referred to as “entitativity” [2–5, 7]. Lickel and colleagues showed that the four types of groups were perceived by adults to have different levels of entitativity, with the highest level for intimacy groups, followed by task groups, social categories, and loose associations.This group typology has received further support and validation from work in anthropology [8, 9]. Interdisciplinary work has linked these different types of groups to different relational models that are more or less prominent within each group type [10]. For example, communal sharing, a relationship in which I see “what is mine as yours” is more pronounced in intimacy groups than in other types of groups. It has been argued that children do not develop a fully-fledged concept of these different relational models before nine or ten years of age [8, 9].Despite the theoretical importance of this group typology, very little research has investigated its origins in childhood. Instead, developmental research on group cognition in young children has focused mainly on children’s in-group biases, that is, their preference for members of their own group over members of other groups. Research in this tradition has shown that children prefer members of their own group on a variety of implicit and explicit measures [11–14]. Another line of research focuses on the inferences children draw about individuals based on their group membership. For example, 4- to 6-year-old children predict what a person will do, like, or intend on the basis of that person’s gender, race, or ethnicity [15–17]. Children also use information about group membership to make inferences about social interactions: Knowing that two individuals are either from the same or from two different groups influences their prediction about whether those individuals will harm each other (around 4 years; [18]), help each other (from 6 years; [18]), or be friends with each other (from 7 years; [19]).However, this body of research leaves at least three significant gaps in our knowledge about children’s understanding of groups. First, previous research has focused primarily on just one type of group: the one Lickel and colleagues refer to as social categories, thus limiting what we can conclude about children’s understanding of group relations more generally (although see, e.g., [7, 20, 21], for work on preferential behavior towards intimacy and task group members). Second, the main focus of this previous research has been on children’s attitudes and expectations about in-group as compared with out-group members. However, as illustrated in our introductory examples, relationships among members of an in-group may differ in systematic ways depending on the type of in-group to which they belong. Finally, previous work has focused mainly on children’s perceptions of and expectations about individual group members rather than on their perceptions of and expectations about the group as a whole. It is thus important for our understanding of the development of group psychology to ask whether children distinguish different types of social groups and whether they expect relationships within and characteristics of these types of groups to differ from each other.One exception to this general trend is a study conducted by Svirydzenka and colleagues [7]. They found that 10-year-old children intuitively distinguish the same four main types of groups as adults: intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations. They also judged the level of entitativity of different group types in similar ways as adults, but their assessments seemed to rely on group characteristics that were more perceptually salient (for example the level of interaction) than adults, who focused on more abstract features such as the importance of the group for its members [22].Inspired by this study and Lickel and colleagues’ work [3], we investigated whether the origins of this folk theory of groups could be seen even in children as young as 5 to 6 years of age. This is an important age in the development of group cognition as 5 to 6 years appears to be just at the border of explicit group understanding. It is at this age that children first show a more general preference for in-group members, even in more abstract and novel groups (in the minimal group paradigm; [21, 23]). Furthermore, it is also at this age that children first become able to predict intergroup relations in third party contexts at least for social categories (e.g., [16, 18]).Thus our objective was to investigate whether, in addition to these preferences and expectations, children of this age also have a more general understanding of groups and different types of group–in other words, an early folk typology of groups. Several prominent theoretical accounts of the origins of intergroup psychology postulate substantial development between the age group in our study and the youngest age, so far, at which a group typology has been found, 10 years [24–26]. However, given their relatively sophisticated abilities in other areas of group cognition, we predicted that already by 5 to 6 years of age, children would be able to make subtle distinctions between different types of groups and use this understanding in order to make inferences about group members’ behaviors within different group types.As a first step, we measured children’s spontaneous definition of a group. We did this to investigate children’s naïve, spontaneous ideas about groups, before presenting them with different group types. We predicted that children would be able to give some appropriate examples of groups and were especially interested in whether they would focus on one particular example or definition when thinking about groups (e.g., mention just one group type), or whether they would be able to give a more abstract definition (covering all group types, such as “a collection of people”). Second, because recent work has shown that 5-year-old children have comparable preferences for two types of group members–task group members and social category members [21]–we investigated which of these two examples (operationalized as people who work together vs. people who are similar to each other) children thought was most representative of a group. Third, we investigated whether preschool children would see an intimacy group, a task group, a social category, and a loose association as qualitatively different.It was impossible, given the young age of our participants, to adopt the exact methods of previous studies, which used complex tasks such as sorting of examples of groups and rating multiple group characteristics for each example. To simplify the procedure so that young children would understand it, we thus created a prototype for each of the four types of groups and asked children to judge these prototypes on entitativity and 12 other group characteristics. These group characteristics were generally inspired by the characteristics Lickel et al. [3] and Svirydzenka et al. [7] chose. However, in addition, we asked about several further characteristics that are important topics in recent work on the developmental origins of group psychology (e.g., [20, 27–29]) and anthropology [8, 9]. There were four main sets of group characteristics. The first three involved judgments and predictions about individual group members and group member relationships (see, e.g., [27]). The first set involved judgments about social obligations and prosocial behaviors among group members (helping, sharing, and loyalty; e.g., [18, 20, 28, 30]). The second involved the quality of group members’ social relationships (liking, familiarity, interdependence, and joint goals; [7, 31]). The third involved properties marking fundamental similarities among group members (group member similarity, shared preferences, and common knowledge; [29, 32, 33]). The fourth set, in contrast, involved traits of the group itself, concerning characteristics that apply to the group as a whole, rather than to individual members (permeability, continuance, and entitativity; [3]). We predicted generally that children’s perceptions of and expectations about groups would be contingent upon the type of group they were presented with and that they would recognize that a loose association was not a real group.     

The First New Zealanders? An Alternative Interpretation of Stable Isotope Data from Wairau Bar,New Zealand

PLOS ONE Volume 8 includes an article “The First New Zealanders: Patterns of Diet and Mobility Revealed through Isotope Analysis”. The paper proposes that burial groups within the settlement phase site of Wairau Bar differ in terms of dietary stable isotopes and ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr. The authors argue this difference is probably due to one group being a founding population while the other burials are later. Here we review the work of Kinaston et al. and present an alternative analysis and interpretation of the isotopic data. Treating the isotope data independently from cultural and biological factors we find that sex best explains dietary variation. Our reassessment of ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr confirms the authors original finding of high mobility of early New Zealanders but suggests a larger range of individuals should be considered ‘non-local’ on current evidence.     

Zika Virus,a New Threat for Europe?

BackgroundSince its emergence in 2007 in Micronesia and Polynesia, the arthropod-borne flavivirus Zika virus (ZIKV) has spread in the Americas and the Caribbean, following first detection in Brazil in May 2015. The risk of ZIKV emergence in Europe increases as imported cases are repeatedly reported. Together with chikungunya virus (CHIKV) and dengue virus (DENV), ZIKV is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. Any countries where these mosquitoes are present could be potential sites for future ZIKV outbreak. We assessed the vector competence of European Aedes mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus) for the currently circulating Asian genotype of ZIKV.Conclusions/SignificanceIn combination with the restricted distribution of European Ae. albopictus, our results on vector competence corroborate the low risk for ZIKV to expand into most parts of Europe with the possible exception of the warmest regions bordering the Mediterranean coastline.     

The nuclear protein HMGB1, a new kind of chemokine?

The chromosomal protein HMGB1 is now regarded as a proinflammatory cytokine. Importantly, HMGB1 has chemotactic activity suggesting its involvement in the early and late events of the inflammatory reaction. Therefore, HMGB1 has all the hallmarks of a chemokine (chemotactic cytokine). We propose to classify HMGB1 into a new group of proteins unrelated structurally to chemokines but having chemokine-like functions, and to name this class CLF (chemokine-like functions). The CLF class should include other unrelated molecules such as urokinase and its receptor, cytokines macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) and interleukin (IL)-6, anaphylatoxin C5a, ribosomal protein S19, and thioredoxin that have similar chemokine-like activities. This innovative concept may lead to the identification of new therapeutic targets.     

The Lengthening of a Giant Protein: When, How, and Why?

Subcommissural organ (SCO)-spondin is a giant glycoprotein of more than 5000 amino acids found in Vertebrata, expressed in the central nervous system and constitutive of Reissner’s fiber. For the first time, in situ hybridization performed on zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos shows that the gene encoding this protein is expressed transitionally in the floor plate, the ventral midline of the neural tube, and later in the diencephalic third ventricle roof, the SCO. The modular organization of the protein in Echinodermata (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), Urochordata (Ciona savignyi and C. intestinalis), and Vertebrata (Teleostei, Amphibia, Aves and Mammalia) is also described. As the thrombospondin type 1 repeat motifs represent an increasingly large part of the protein during Deuterostomia evolution, the duplication mechanisms leading to this complex organization are examined. The functional significance of the particularly well-preserved arrangement of the series of SCO-spondin repeat motifs and thombospondin type 1 repeats is discussed. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Why Did a Female Penis Evolve in a Small Group of Cave Insects?

The evolution of a female penis is an extremely rare event and is only known to have occurred in a tribe of small cave insects, Sensitibillini (Psocodea: Trogiomorpha: Prionoglarididae). The female penis, which is protrudable and inserted into the male vagina‐like cavity during copulation to receive semen, is thought to have evolved independently twice in this tribe, in the Brazilian Neotrogla and the African Afrotrogla. These findings strongly suggest that there are some factors unique to Sensitibillini that have facilitated female penis evolution. Here, several hypothetical factors are presented that may have enabled the evolution of the female penis in Sensitibillini. The female–female competition for nutritious semen, the oligotrophic environment, and the twin insemination slots with switching valve are considered to be the driving factors for female penis evolution. Additionally, the following factors are considered responsible for relaxing the constraint against female penis evolution: preexistence of the female‐above mating position, the elongated duct connecting the female pre‐penis with the sperm storage organ, and the small male genital cavity accepting the female genital tubercle bearing the opening of this duct. Understanding the factors enabling female penis evolution may also shed light on the evolution of the male penis.