Why are we shaped differently, and why does it matter?

Body fat distribution is an important predictor of metabolic abnormalities in obese humans. Dysregulation of free fatty acid (FFA) release, especially from upper body subcutaneous adipose tissue, appears to contribute substantially to these metabolic disturbances. Why different individuals preferentially store fat in upper vs. lower body subcutaneous fat or subcutaneous vs. visceral fat is not completely understood. Current evidence suggests that defects in regional lipolysis are not the cause of net fat retention in larger fat depots. Regional variations in the storage of fatty acids, both meal derived and direct reuptake, and storage of circulating FFAs that may help to explain why some depots expand at the expense of others have been reported. We review the quantitative data on regional lipolysis, meal, and FFA storage in adults to provide an overview of fat balance differences in adults with different fat distribution patterns.     

Who is where in the Plastisphere,and why does it matter?

To fully understand how plastic is affecting the ocean, we need to understand how marine life interacts directly with it. Besides their ecological relevance, microbes can affect the distribution, degradation and transfer of plastics to the rest of the marine food web. From amplicon sequencing and scanning electron microscopy, we know that a diverse array of microorganisms rapidly associate with plastic marine debris in the form of biofouling and biofilms, also known as the “Plastisphere.” However, observation of multiple microbial interactions in situ, at small spatial scales in the Plastisphere, has been a challenge. In this issue of Molecular Ecology Resources, Schlundt et al. apply the combination labelling and spectral imaging – fluorescence in situ hybridization to study microbial communities on plastic marine debris. The images demonstrate the colocalization of abundant bacterial groups on plastic marine debris at a relatively high taxonomic and spatial resolution while also visualizing biofouling of eukaryotes, such as diatoms and bryozoans. This modern imaging technology provides new possibilities to address questions regarding the ecology of marine microbes on plastic marine debris and describe more specific impacts of plastic pollution in the marine food webs.     

Replication origins: why do we need so many?

During the G1 phase of the cell cycle, replication origins are prepared to fire, a process that is referred to as origin licensing. It was often pondered what a cell's fate would be if not all of its replication origins were licensed and subsequently activated during S phase. One obvious prediction was that S phase would simply be prolonged. As it turns out, however, the consequences are much more complex. A short G1 phase enforced by premature entry into S phase, or other events that negatively affect origin licensing, will ultimately compromise the cell's ability to complete DNA replication before entering mitosis. As a result, the cell becomes genomically unstable when it attempts to repair unreplicated DNA during anaphase. Thus, the density of active replication origins in the chromosomes of eukaryotic cells determines S phase dynamics and chromosome stability during mitosis.     

Regeneration: if they can do it,why can't we?

The therapeutic potential of stem cells and nuclear cloning has led to renewed interest in classical models of regeneration. This longstanding problem is undergoing a renaissance spurred by the availability of new techniques that finally allow analysis on the cellular and molecular level.     

Widespread gamma-secretase activity in the cell, but do we need it at the mitochondria?

gamma-Secretase cleavage of the amyloid precursor protein already subjected to a prior beta-secretase cleavage generates beta-amyloid (Abeta) peptide fragments, which are major constituents of the amyloid plagues found in Alzheimer's disease brain tissues. gamma-Secretase activity and components of the gamma-secretase complex are found in the endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi intermediate compartment, the Golgi, the trans-Golgi network, the plasma membrane, the endosomal-lysosomal system and recently, the mitochondria. Abeta fragments have been shown to be neurotoxic, leading to mitochondrial dysfunction and enhanced apoptotic cell death. However, if Abeta fragments are indeed detrimental to neurons, the widespread presence of enzymatic activity that would result in their generation in the cell appears to make little sense. The presence of a gamma-secretase complex in the mitochondrion, an organelle that is particularly susceptible to Abeta toxicity, is even more puzzling. Emerging evidence suggests that both secreted and intracellular Abeta fragments have endogenous functions. Also, while the fibrillogenic Abeta1-42 is clearly neurotoxic, the more abundant and soluble Abeta1-40 is an antioxidant and could potentially be neuroprotective in several ways. A "physiological" amount of Abeta1-40 production by cellular gamma-secretase activity may be part of the neuron's natural counter against oxidative damage, in addition to endogenous roles in neuronal survival and modulation of synaptic transmission. In any case, whether Abeta is produced locally in the mitochondria and the function for mitochondrial Abeta, if produced, is yet unclear.     

Which humans behave adaptively,and why does it matter?

There has long been debate about the relevance of evolutionary theory to the study of humans. To many of us, however, the debate has shifted from whether to proceed with an evolutionary approach to how to proceed. Increasingly, it has been argued that studies of the current reproductive function of human traits make little or no contribution to the understanding of the psyche (e.g., Symons 1989). Here, on the basis of arguments about the relationship between an adaptation and an adaptive outcome, and a review of studies that assess current adaptiveness, I argue to the contrary that knowledge of the contexts in which people do or do not behave adaptively provides important information about the nature of the mechanisms that comprise the human psyche. In particular, studies that indicate that people behave adaptively in at least some contemporary environments cast doubt on many nonevolutionary constructions of human nature, and can be used now to distinguish alternative evolutionary constructions that are at odds over many issues pentaining to the human psyche's ontogeny and evolutionary background, especially the extent to which the human psyche is general purpose.     

Introduction: why do we need a science of well-being?

Introduction: why do we need a science of well-being?     

Examining the developing bone: What do we measure and how do we do it?

The clinical tools available to evaluate bone development in children are often ambiguous, and difficult to interpret. Unfortunately bone densitometry methods (i.e., dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, DXA) which have a relatively straightforward application in adult osteoporosis, are far more difficult to evaluate in the growing skeleton. Even with adequate "adjustment" for bone size or maturity, bone "density" (areal or volumetric) alone often gives an inaccurate assessment of bone strength--especially in children. Ideally, we would like to measure both material and geometric properties of bone to accurately estimate "strength". Mechanically meaningful measures of bone geometry (bone cross-sectional area, cortical thickness) and estimates of bending strength (section modulus, or SSI) are available with non-invasive techniques such as (p)QCT and some DXA software. With new technology it might be possible to also measure bone material properties, which will be especially important in some pediatric disorders. In children, we also need to know something about the loads imposed on a child's bone and consider not only absolute bone strength, but also the strength of bone relative to the physiologic loads. Interpreting bone strength in light of the loads imposed (particularly muscle force) is critical for an accurate diagnosis of the developing bone.     

Nucleosome positioning: How is it established, and why does it matter?

Packaging of eukaryotic genomes into chromatin affects every process that occurs on DNA. The positioning of nucleosomes on underlying DNA plays a key role in the regulation of these processes, as the nucleosome occludes underlying DNA sequences. Here, we review the literature on mapping nucleosome positions in various organisms, and discuss how nucleosome positions are established, what effect nucleosome positioning has on control of gene expression, and touch on the correlations between chromatin packaging, sequence evolution, and the evolution of gene expression programs.     

Ultrastructure in cell biology: do we still need it?

John Heuser is being honored in this special issue for his enormous contributions to cell biology using morphological approaches. Foremost in this context is his ability to use light and electron microscopy to visualize structures and processes such that the information has both scientific and artistic value. The beauty of his images helps to focus the observer more intensely on the scientific messages, which have been numerous and important. His recent studies of living cells using state-of-the-art light and video microscopy fits into a general pattern of a huge explosion in the application of these methods worldwide that is revolutionizing cell biology. However, whereas John Heuser continues to use light microscopy (LM) for a low-resolution global and dynamical overview he then moves on to the electron microscopy (EM) level to see the details; in this he is--unfortunately--in a minority; and EM is an approach that a majority of today's cell biologists never use. The continued drop in EM usage has already been articulated in recent reviews. Here, I suggest that an additional problem for EM in cell biology, in its continued crises, is the declining number of scientists who can confidently interpret the--admittedly--complex information in most electron micrographs of cells. A major re-education is needed, or cell biology as a discipline will have a real problem in the 21st century.     

Do we realize the full impact of pollinator loss on other ecosystem services and the challenges for any restoration in terrestrial areas?

Pollinators are key agents for ecosystems and humankind concerning biodiversity, agriculture, climate change adaptation, and all other ecosystem services. Particularly in industrialized countries pollinator diversity is in decline. The bulk of research is on entomological or plant‐pollinator network related topics, but the broad range of impacts of pollinator loss on coupled human and natural systems is not yet studied. As 87% of all flowering plants depend on pollinators, they are basic for all ecosystem services to some extent. Therefore, pollinator loss might cause simultaneous degradation of ecosystem services inducing counterproductive human responses and interlinked poverty spirals. The interaction of climate change, a main risk factor for pollinators, and unadvised human responses to pollinator decline are rarely studied. Tipping points of pollinator loss are not yet identified. Can counterproductive human responses to pollinator deficiency upscale pollinator decline toward a pollinator‐loss syndrome in the course of climate change? The article argues for research on the impacts of pollinator loss on other ecosystem services, useful and counterproductive human strategies on pollinator‐loss induced degradation, and the integration of pollinator protection into all terrestrial restoration efforts.     

Why do we need to regulate autophagy (and how can we do it)? A cartoon depiction

In a recent issue of this journal I attempted to explain the purpose of macroautophagy/autophagy to a non-specialist audience through the use of cartoons. In the present article, I am continuing this approach by considering the topic of autophagy regulation—why does the cell need to modulate the autophagic response, and what are the basic morphological mechanisms that can be used to attain different levels of autophagy activity?     

What are lightness illusions and why do we see them?

Lightness illusions are fundamental to human perception, and yet why we see them is still the focus of much research. Here we address the question by modelling not human physiology or perception directly as is typically the case but our natural visual world and the need for robust behaviour. Artificial neural networks were trained to predict the reflectance of surfaces in a synthetic ecology consisting of 3-D “dead-leaves” scenes under non-uniform illumination. The networks learned to solve this task accurately and robustly given only ambiguous sense data. In addition—and as a direct consequence of their experience—the networks also made systematic “errors” in their behaviour commensurate with human illusions, which includes brightness contrast and assimilation—although assimilation (specifically White's illusion) only emerged when the virtual ecology included 3-D, as opposed to 2-D scenes. Subtle variations in these illusions, also found in human perception, were observed, such as the asymmetry of brightness contrast. These data suggest that “illusions” arise in humans because (i) natural stimuli are ambiguous, and (ii) this ambiguity is resolved empirically by encoding the statistical relationship between images and scenes in past visual experience. Since resolving stimulus ambiguity is a challenge faced by all visual systems, a corollary of these findings is that human illusions must be experienced by all visual animals regardless of their particular neural machinery. The data also provide a more formal definition of illusion: the condition in which the true source of a stimulus differs from what is its most likely (and thus perceived) source. As such, illusions are not fundamentally different from non-illusory percepts, all being direct manifestations of the statistical relationship between images and scenes.     

Quantitation of NAD+: Why do we need to measure it?

Background

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺) is an essential pyridine nucleotide that is currently investigated as an important target to extend lifespan and health span. Age-related NAD+ depletion due to the accumulation of oxidative stress is associated with reduced energy production, impaired DNA repair and genomic instability.

Birds do it. Bees do it. So why not single women and lesbians?

Infertile couples have come to take assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for granted. An increasing number of single women and lesbian couples also desire to have children and turn to ART, especially donor insemination, to fulfill this desire. While most married couples find that access to ART is limited primarily by the ability to pay, for single women and lesbian couples, the story may be much different. In the United States, they may find that doctors and infertility clinics view their desires as immoral and refuse to accept them as patients, although other doctors and clinics readily accept them. In most other countries, however, it is against the law for single women and lesbian couples to make use of ART, including donor insemination.
In this paper I will argue that marital status and sexual orientation should not serve as a barrier to accessing the world of reproductive medicine. I will base this conclusion on two arguments. First, that justice requires that we treat like cases alike. Just as we would not accept or reject patients for cardiac rehabilitation programs based on factors such as a history of poor eating habits, so too we should not look at nonmedical factors such as marital status when deciding whether to treat infertility. For the second justification for the conclusion of equal access to ART, I will examine the concept of the family. I will argue that it is morally acceptable for single women and lesbian couples to have children and to head families.