Can season interfere with diatom ecological quality assessment?

To understand whether seasons influence the ecological quality assessment of streams on the basis of diatoms, a study was undertaken in two lowland water courses located in northwest Portugal, between autumn 2008 and summer 2009. Temporal variation in the chemical pollution of these streams was small as revealed by a number of physical and chemical parameters analyzed. PERMANOVA global test revealed significant variation in water temperature among seasons. The diatom communities also showed a temporal variation although not all the seasons were statistically different. The multidimensional scaling analysis showed that the main differences in the diatom communities were between two groups of seasons: autumn/winter and spring/summer. Species such as Cocconeis pseudolineata, Gomphonema parvulum var. exilissimum, Fragilaria vaucheriae, Encyonema minutum, and Nitzschia recta were more abundant in spring/summer, while species such as Mayamaea atomus and Nitzschia pusilla were more abundant in autumn/winter. The BIOENV routine confirmed that the biological and temperature patterns are highly correlated. Despite the effects observed on diatom communities, these differences were buffered by the EQR (IPS) values which do not reflect seasonal differences. Therefore, the use of the index IPS seems to allow the monitoring of the streams’ ecological quality throughout the year without the interference of the natural temporal variability of diatom communities.     

Is a differentiated advice by season and region necessary?

The ultraviolet radiation component in the solar spectrum varies greatly with season. In the summer, the significant short-wavelength (UV-B) radiation at midday can produce erythema in sensitive skin in less than 20 min in middle latitudes, and yet in winter months, the same midday exposure dose would require hours of exposure. The challenge for public health authorities is to provide simple, understandable messages for sensitive individuals to limit excessive exposure at appropriate times of the day during spring and summer months and yet not to take needless precautions or limit exposure during fall and winter months at mid and circumpolar latitudes. The appropriate exposure for beneficial effects is not possible to achieve at many latitudes during winter months, but is readily achieved in summer months. Simple messages should be tailored to the local times of day, reflecting the locale and season. One simple means to communicate the relative UV-B exposure relates to the length of one's shadow (the "Shadow Rule"). Further challenges are presented when apparently mixed messages would be justified for different skin phototypes.     

May the definition of pollen season influence aerobiological results?

This paper reviews the terms and major criteria used to define and limit the pollen season. Pollen data from Cordoba (Spain), Ourense (Spain) and Bologna (Italy) were used to ascertain the extent to which aerobiological results and pollen curves are modified by the criteria selected. Results were analysed using Spearmanȁ9s correlation test. Phenological observations were also used to determine synchronization between pollen curves and plant phenology. The criteria for limiting the shortest and longest pollen season periods, as well as the earliest and latest start and end dates, varied according to the city and the taxon under study; in many cases, results for a given taxon also depended on the year. The smallest differences were obtained for Platanus and the greatest for Poaceae.     

Open access gastroscopy: too much to swallow?

OBJECTIVES--To ascertain the proportion of endoscopic examinations with normal findings in patients referred for gastroscopy through hospital medical staff or directly by their general practitioner and to assess the likely effect of targeting endoscopy in older patients. DESIGN--Retrospective audit of the gastroscopy practice of one consultant from 1986 to 1988 from information recorded on a standard form completed at the time of the examination, which contained details of patients, their endoscopic findings, and mode of referral (open access or clinic). SETTING--One district general hospital. PATIENTS--1545 Consecutive patients from primary catchment area attending for their first gastroscopy; 454 were referred through the outpatient clinic or by hospital colleagues (clinic group) and 1091 were accepted for endoscopy solely on their general practitioner''s clinical diagnosis (open access group). RESULTS--Similar numbers (about 40%) of examinations with normal findings were performed in each group, although in patients aged over 40 the proportion with normal findings was significantly higher in the clinic group (p less than 0.03). Endoscopic evidence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulceration, and gastroduodenal inflammation was equally common in each group; upper gastrointestinal malignancy, however, was significantly more common in patients referred through hospital doctors (5%, 23/454 v 2%, 22/1091 respectively; p less than 0.005) (although many of these patients had already been extensively investigated). IMPLICATIONS--Open access gastroscopy does not increase the number of unnecessary examinations and should become more widely available. Targeting this service to patients aged over 40 would reduce the number of requests but increase the diagnostic yield.     

Actives from MMV Open Access Boxes? A suggested way forward

It is estimated that more than 1 billion people across the world are affected by a neglected tropical disease (NTD) that requires medical intervention. These diseases tend to afflict people in areas with high rates of poverty and cost economies billions of dollars every year. Collaborative drug discovery efforts are required to reduce the burden of these diseases in endemic regions. The release of “Open Access Boxes” is an initiative launched by Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) in collaboration with its partners to catalyze new drug discovery in neglected diseases. These boxes are mainly requested by biology researchers across the globe who may not otherwise have access to compounds to screen nor knowledge of the workflow that needs to be followed after identification of actives from their screening campaigns. Here, we present guidelines on how to move such actives beyond the hit identification stage, to help in capacity strengthening and enable a greater impact of the initiative.     

Do elephants prevent other African herbivores from using waterholes in the dry season?

In some African protected areas, concerns have arisen about the influence of locally high elephant numbers on other forms of biodiversity. In arid and semi-arid savannas, surface-water resources are scarce and agonistic interactions between elephants and other herbivores have been reported at waterholes, yet surprisingly very little is known about the impact of elephants on the use of waterholes by other herbivores. Here, we test whether when there are elephants at a waterhole, other herbivores (1) do not change their drinking behaviour; (2) spend shorter time around the water because they are disturbed by elephants’ presence and consequently have to leave the waterhole area probably without having met their water requirements, or (3) spend more time around the water probably owing to an increase in vigilance activities or because the presence of elephants may signal safety from predators. Results show that all species spend longer time around water when there are elephants at the waterhole, although the difference is not large. Consequently, this study strongly suggests that elephants do not prevent other herbivores from drinking (time at waterholes is not shortened when elephants are around). Further, if the additional time spent to drink is linked to an increased vigilance, the difference is not large, and hence unlikely to affect the population dynamics of other herbivores.     

The season‐of‐birth paradox

Abstract

Vital statistics data show a remarkably consistent seasonality in U.S. birth patterns, with peaks in late summer and winter months, and a valley in the spring. An attitude survey of college students suggests that peaks in the actual birth distribution occur in unpopular months in which to give birth; the valley in the actual birth distribution occurs in popular months. This paradoxical finding is named the Season‐of‐Birth Paradox. Explanations to resolve the paradox include biological and psychological components. A psychological mechanism—named the Misinformed Reproducer Hypothesis—is tested using NSFG data from the 1973–75 and 1979–81 cycles. Results suggest that women stop contracepting with the expectation that they will get pregnant almost immediately. When it takes several months on the average for a successful conception to occur, the actual birth distribution is shifted away from the preferred birth distribution. These results suggest that psychological as well as biological mechanisms underlie the consistent seasonality patterns in U.S. births.     

Open Right Hemicolectomy:Lateral to Medial or Medial to Lateral Approach?

Objective

Currently, no published studies have compared the clinical outcomes of the medial-to-lateral approach (MA) and lateral-to-medial approach (LA) for open right hemicolectomy. Thus, the present study aimed to assess whether one of these approaches has any potential benefits over the other.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent open right hemicolectomy with pathologically confirmed disease who met the eligibility criteria between June 2008 and June 2012. The population was divided into an MA group and an LA group by propensity scoring. We compared patient demographic and clinical characteristic variables between the two groups and assessed short-term and long-term outcomes.

Results

A total of 450 patients (MA, n = 150; LA, n = 300) were evaluated. The operation time (MA,138.4 minutesvs.LA,166.2 minutes; P < .05) and blood loss (MA,52.0mL vs. LA,62.6mL; P < .05)were significantly lower in the MA group. No differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes and oncologic outcomes were observed between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis for stage III colon cancer revealed that the MA group had significantly more retrieved lymph nodes (MA,18.8vs. LA,16.0; P = .028). There were no differences in other variables between the two groups.

Conclusions

The MA reduced operative time and blood loss compared with the LA. We thus concluded that the MA provided short-term benefits compared with the LA in open right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer.     

Strong Emergence in Biological Systems: Is It Open to Mathematical Reasoning?

Acta Biotheoretica - Complex, multigenic biological traits are shaped by the emergent interaction of proteins being the main functional units at the molecular scale. Based on a phenomenological...     

How to Open the Treasure Chest? Optimising DNA Extraction from Herbarium Specimens

Herbarium collections are potentially an enormous resource for DNA studies, but the use of herbarium specimens in molecular studies has thus far been slowed down by difficulty in obtaining amplifiable DNA. Here we compare a set of commercially available DNA extraction protocols and their performance in terms of DNA purity and yield, and PCR amplification success as measured by using three differentially sized markers, the rbcL barcoding marker (cpDNA), the LEAFY exon 3 (nrDNA), and the trnL((UAA)) P6 loop (cpDNA). Results reveal large differences between extraction methods, where DNA purity rather than yield is shown to be strongly correlated with PCR success. Amplicon size shows similarly strong correlation with PCR success, with the shortest fragment showing the highest success rate (78%, P6 loop, 10-143 base pairs (bp)) and the largest fragment the lowest success (10%, rbcL, 670 bp). The effect of specimen preparation method on PCR success was also tested. Results show that drying method strongly affects PCR success, especially the availability of fragments longer than 250 bp, where longer fragments are more available for PCR amplification in air dried material compared to alcohol dried specimens. Results from our study indicate that projects relying on poor-quality starting material such as herbarium or scat samples should focus on extracting pure DNA and aim to amplify short target regions (<200-300 bp) in order to maximise outcomes. Development of shorter barcoding regions, or mini-barcodes within existing ones should be of high importance as only a few options are currently available; this is particularly important if we hope to incorporate the millions of herbarium samples available into barcoding initiatives and other molecular studies.     

Open questions: why should we care about ER-phagy and ER remodelling?

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is one of the most complex organelles in the eukaryotic cell. Recent findings suggest that a process called ER-phagy plays a major role in maintaining the ER’s shape and function.     

Open access: A revolution in scientific publication? Or just a minor amendment of accessibility?

Scientific communication is a misnomer. The process of scientific publication is much less a forum where information is exchanged for information than a market where information is exchanged for attention. Nevertheless, the exchange of information for attention is a somewhat peculiar market, since it seems much more natural to sell the information one has produced laboriously for money. Why publish a discovery, why share it with other researchers when knowledge is power?In antiquity and in the middle ages, scientists were not preoccupied with publishing their findings. Up to the 17^th century, scholars, even in mathematics and astronomy, were pre-eminently concerned with protecting their claims to priority through secretiveness and mystification (Cf. ^{ref. 1}; on priority conflicts, see ^{ref. 2}). It was only through the emergence of new means of information sharing, such as academies and learned societies with their meetings and published proceedings, that the temptation to monopolize knowledge could be overcome. Ironically, these novel means of information sharing started as a novel branch of entertainment. The purpose of the academies and learned societies mushrooming in early modernity was the entertainment of noblemen bored of the habitual kinds of pastimes. Aristocrats were supposed to observe a code of conduct different from that of researchers and businessmen. The scholar, accordingly, did not risk his right of authorship and priority being stolen when presenting his findings to an audience of noblemen. As long as there were reliable witnesses around, this risk was minimal even when other scholars were in the audience. Testimony of a noble audience, rather, became the first step to what later came to be called intellectual property (^{ref. 3} and literature cited therein).As soon as scientists work for publication, they work for the “wage of fame,” i.e., for being paid attention.⁴ Publication puts intellectual property at the disposal of the general public under the sole condition that its processing into the user''s intellectual property is credited by citation. In terms of attention, citation is not free of cost. It means, rather, transfer of a part of the attention that the citing author earns for her or his work to the cited author. Citation, thus, tests the preparedness to pay on the part of the scientist looking for pre-processed information as a means of production. Since the account of the citations a theory or a theorem earns is a measure of its productivity (i.e., of the times it was used as a means of production), the process of citation amounts to a measuring process of the pragmatic value of scientific information.⁵Maximizing the pragmatic value of output is the best thing that the individual scientist can do for the collective advancement of knowledge. This means that scientists, as long as observing the pertinent rules of conduct, are doing exactly what they are supposed to do if they maximize citations in the way businessmen maximize profits.⁵ They are themselves entrepreneurs, who are supposed to maximize their income of expertise attention. This means that they have to have a professional interest in their products being marketed professionally. Marketing is the professional service publishers have to offer to scientists. At the same time, publishers can offer the service of pre-selection to those looking for pre-processed information as a means of production. Blind publication would have the disadvantage of a substantial waste of attention in looking for useful information. Since publishers are commercial enterprises, these services are not offered for free, but sold to the buyer or to the producer of the marketed product (or to both parties).Since its beginnings with the published proceedings of the learned societies’ meetings, the business of scientific publication has been a regular part of scientific communication by and large. As long as dissemination had to rely on analog media, it was only natural to package scientific information together with those services of pre-selection and marketing into the books and journals sold on commercial markets. Since the advent of digital media and, in particular, the Internet, a new business model has become popular that leaves the selling of information for money behind. Where what counts is just the attention a piece of information earns, offer it for free and advertise with the download figures! Where there are costs of providing to be covered, try to sell the service of attraction to the advertising industry! At any rate, don’t charge those demanding the information, since that might shoo them. With this business model, Google, for example has successfully entered the field of scientific communication. Google Scholar not only competes with traditional publishers, but was even invited to do so by the price policies some publishers of high-impact media were adopting. Since the advent of the Internet, complaints have been growing about publishers that use their market position to plunder library budgets.Google and the like, however, are no full-fledged competitors to Elsevier and the like. They just recycle material already published. In order to compete in full extent, another business idea was launched: open access. Open access means that the information is offered for free, whereas the production costs of the marketing and pre-selection services are borne by the author. It will be understood that this solution is hailed on the demand side. In a community where expecting that information is something one can download for free has become a general attitude, this solution may seem even mandatory. Open access, however, has an appeal for authors as well. Offering one’s product in free access media raises, other things being equal, the probability of being read and, accordingly, of being cited. In a sense, thus, paying for an open access publication amounts to buying into the probability of being cited. As long as the prices charged for the publication just compensate for the outlays incurred by the publisher, this possibility may be considered harmless. As soon, however, as the prices become negotiable, conflicts of objectives are imminent. The higher the impact factor of the medium, the higher its price expectations will be. With price expectations, the probability of discrimination between producers according to ability to pay will rise, as well as of interference between the requirement of objective selection and the commercial interest on the part of the publisher.Already we are warned of allowing the hopes raised by open access to fly too high. Open access is to be welcomed as an enrichment of business models competing in the market of scientific publication. Intensifying competition is the best-proven means to fight monopoly power. Open access, however, is suited to foster competition on the commercial market only. It is neutral with regards to competition in the market where information is exchanged for attention. It is neutral, accordingly, with regard to the monopoly power played off by the owners of high-impact media. The impact a medium calls its own is a function of its renown, which, in turn, is wealth of attention activated as an asset. The probability of a paper being cited depends, among other things, on the renown of the medium it is published in. The higher the renown of the medium, the more attractive it is for authors as well as for readers, and thus, for the libraries serving the readers’ needs. This is what the power of publishers owning high-impact media to plunder library budgets relies on. It is hopeless to fight this kind of monopoly power by fostering competition on the commercial market.Publishers are entrepreneurs in the commercial economy as well as in the economy of attention. In the attention economy, the interests of publishers largely coincide with those of authors. The attention a publication earns is shared between author and publisher. The higher the earnings, the higher the gain of reputation on both parts. The author is as interested in the reputation of the publisher as is the publisher in the reputation of the author. For the author, the reputation of the publisher is what the expected value of the publication heavily depends on. For the publisher, the reputation of the author is what the attractiveness of the organ for other reputed authors depends on. For him, the reputations of his authors are like bank deposits that he can turn into credits to newcomers who seem promising to him. By way of this credit, a reputed publisher can grant an expectation value of citations that otherwise would remain fantastic for a newcomer. All those who have really made it in science took advantage of such a credit at some point of their career. Remarkably, though, publishers granting credits in terms of guaranteed attention income are entering, and thus opening, the business field of finance in the scientific economy of attention.Regarding the promotion of the talented, importing the business model of finance is certainly among the commendable functions of publishers in the scientific economy of attention. By acting as bankers, however, they are active in wealth management as well. They are managing the wealth of scientists by translating the accumulated wage of fame (account of citations) into an asset yielding interest. Wealth yielding interest is wealth activated as a capital enhancing itself according to size. The bigger the size, the bigger, as a rule, is the rate of growth. Renown that has reached the critical mass for triggering self-enhancement gives rise, thus, to economies of scale in building up renown. Markets where suppliers realize economies of scale will be shot through by moments of monopolistic competition.In fact, since the citation process is monitored and charted statistically, a remarkably uneven distribution of citations is observed. There are few who receive many citations and many who get only a few. Robert Merton (1968) called this conspicuously uneven distribution the “Matthew effect in science.” The Matthew effect refers to the biblical parable of being entrusted with talents, the text reading that “those who have will be given and those who have not will be taken away” (Matthew 25:14–30).The skewed distribution of citations is not reducible to the uneven distribution of publications authors call their own. The explanation lies in the working of reputation as an income-generating asset. The Matthew effect denotes the role that hype plays in science. It is due not to extraordinary productivity, but to the homage that scientists, as do other people, pay to renown, prominence, fame. If you have grown prominent, you will be cited not only for the discovery you owe your prominence to, but just for being a celebrity. To be paid attention for being a celebrity means to be given because of having.The gains generated by the Matthew effect are shared between author and publisher. These gains are monopoly profits. Since the publisher is engaged in both the market where information is exchanged for attention and in the market where information is exchanged for money, he is particularly well-equipped to translate his monopoly position in the economy of attention into a monopoly position in commercial economy. This translation cannot be suppressed by toughening competition on the commercial market. The only way of pre-empting monopoly due to renown would lie in preventing the Matthew effect.If there are any means to suppress the Matthew effect, open access is certainly not among them. Nor is it clear, however, whether it makes sense at all to fight the manifestations of celebrity culture in science. In order to do so, you would have to start with abolishing the distinguished awards such as the Nobel prize and the Fields medal. You would have to ban any talk of excellence and even suppress the publication of citation indices and other ratings. Even working for the wage of fame would have to be frowned upon. Finally, social media’s way of amassing entourage would have to be suspected politically incorrect.Open access, to sum up, is far from a revolutionary innovation. It is a mode of redistributing the costs incurred by the publisher for delivering the services of marketing and pre-selection. Scientists eager to publish in renowned journals can be exploited, as libraries eager to make accessible renowned journals can. Since, as a rule, the publication outlays of the scientists will be borne by the same institution as the acquisitions of the libraries, the conversion risks to be just a switch between cost centers.