The immunological network at the site of tumor rejection

The tumor mass irrespective of its type or location in the body has long been shrouded in mystery and even today we still have only a tentative handle on its secrets. Attempts to manipulate either the tumor cells per se or host-derived leukocytes have, on the whole, not been successful or at best questionable. The ability of the host to respond immunologically to TSTA is well documented, yet again attempts to manipulate this response have been disappointing. One of the problems has been a lack of knowledge concerning the tumor mass and its constituents, such as the intratumor leukocytes, and the significance of their presence to the biological properties of the neoplasm [8,9,80]. The purpose in studying the immunological network is, in part, to try to assign a function to these cells on the premise that lymphoid elements and macrophages have a potential role to play in recognition of TSTA. The advantage of adoptive immunotherapy model systems is that tumor rejection can be achieved under controlled conditions and this allows an analysis of the immunological network and its individual circuits. At the same time, valuable information on the mechanisms of action during adoptive immunotherapy and how best to improve therapeutic protocols is acquired.     

Histochemical detection of horseradish peroxidase activity in the rat by the vibratome-paraplast method

A method is described for the histochemical detection of horseradish peroxidase in Paraplast Plus embedded brain sections. The procedure uses 150-micron-thick Vibratome-cut slices of glutaraldehyde-paraformaldehyde-fixed brain tissue. Tetramethylbenzidine stabilized by diaminobenzidine/cobalt/H2O2 is used as chromogen. The Vibratome-cut slices are dehydrated through a graded series of acetone, cleared in toluol and flat-embedded in Paraplast Plus embedding medium. Serial sections can be cut as thin as 5-7 micron. The method is universal in its application and permits optimal visualization of labeled neurons with great morphological detail at the light-microscopic level.     

Sinistral snail shells in the sea: developmental causes and consequences

The paucity of sinistral (left-coiling) relative to dextral (right-coiling) species of gastropods in the marine realm is an enigma. In Conus , one of the most diverse marine animal genera, sinistral shell coiling has evolved as a species-wide character only once. Fossils of this species, Conus adversarius , are found in Upper Pliocene and lowermost Pleistocene deposits in the southeastern USA. Conus adversarius had nonplanktonic larval development; this may have been a critical factor for the early establishment of the species, as well as sinistral marine species in other clades. Notably, most specimens of aberrantly sinistral modern Conus are derived from typically dextral species that have nonplanktonic development. If C. adversarius was reproductively isolated from dextral conspecifics, then this species may provide an example of nearly instantaneous sympatric speciation in the fossil record. Furthermore, the common and widespread – while geologically short-lived – fossil shells of C. adversarius show large amounts of variability in form and this variation may be related, at least in part, to a pleiotropic effect associated with the reversed coiling direction of this species.     

Interrelationships of Staphyliniform groups inferred from 18S and 28S rDNA sequences, with special emphasis on Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera, Staphyliniformia)

The series Staphyliniformia is one of the mega‐diverse groups of Coleoptera, but the relationships among the main families are still poorly understood. In this paper we address the interrelationships of staphyliniform groups, with special emphasis on Hydrophiloidea and Hydraenidae, based on partial sequences of the ribosomal genes 18S rDNA and 28S rDNA. Sequence data were analysed with parsimony and Bayesian posterior probabilities, in an attempt to overcome the likely effect of some branches longer than the 95% cumulative probability of the estimated normal distribution of the path lengths of the species. The inter‐family relationships in the trees obtained with both methods were in general poorly supported, although most of the results based on the sequence data are in good agreement with morphological studies. In none of our analyses a close relationship between Hydraenidae and Hydrophiloidea was supported, contrary to the traditional view but in agreement with recent morphological investigations. Hydraenidae form a clade with Ptiliidae and Scydmaenidae in the tree obtained with Bayesian probabilities, but are placed as basal group of Staphyliniformia (with Silphidae as subordinate group) in the parsimony tree. Based on the analysed data with a limited set of outgroups Scarabaeoidea are nested within Staphyliniformia. However, this needs further support. Hydrophiloidea s.str., Sphaeridiinae, Histeroidea (Histeridae + Sphaeritidae), and all staphylinoid families included are confirmed as monophyletic, with the exception of Hydraenidae in the parsimony tree. Spercheidae are not a basal group within Hydrophiloidea, as has been previously suggested, but included in a polytomy with other Hydrophilidae in the Bayesian analyses, or its sistergroup (with the inclusion of Epimetopidae) in the parsimony tree. Helophorus is placed at the base of Hydrophiloidea in the parsimony tree. The monophyly of Hydrophiloidea s.l. (including the histeroid families) and Staphylinoidea could not be confirmed by the analysed data. Some results, such as a placement of Silphidae as subordinate group of Hydraenidae (parsimony tree), or a sistergroup relationship between Ptiliidae and Scydmaenidae, appear unlikely from a morphological point of view.