5 research outputs found
Vitalism in Early Modern Medical and Philosophical Thought
Vitalism is a notoriously deceptive term. It is very often defined as the view, in biology, in early modern medicine and differently, in early modern philosophy, that living beings differ from the rest of the physical universe due to their possessing an additional âlife-forceâ, âvital principleâ, âentelechyâ, enormon or Ă©lan vital. Such definitions most often have an explicit pejorative dimension: vitalism is a primitive or archaic view, that has somehow survived the emergence of modern science (the latter being defined in many different ways, from demystified Cartesian reductionism to experimental medicine, biochemistry or genetics: Cimino and Duchesneau eds. 1997, Normandin and Wolfe eds. 2013). Such dismissive definitions of vitalism are meant to dispense with argument or analysis.
Curiously, the term has gained some popularity in English-language scholarship on early modern philosophy in the past few decades, where it is used without any pejorative dimension, to refer to a kind of âactive matterâ view, in which matter is not reducible to the (mechanistic) properties of size, shape and motion, possessing instead some internal dynamism or activity (see e.g. James 1999, Boyle 2018, Borcherding forthcoming). The latter meaning is close to what the Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth termed âhylozoismâ, namely the attribution of life, agency or mind to matter, and he implicitly targeted several figures I shall mention here, notably Margaret Cavendish and Francis Glisson, for holding this view. However, one point I shall make in this entry is that when vitalism first appears by name, and as a self-designation, in the Montpellier School (associated with the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Montpellier, in the second half of the eighteenth century; thus vitalisme appears first, followed shortly thereafter by Vitalismus in German, with âvitalismâ appearing in English publications only in the early nineteenth century: Toepfer 2011), it is quite different from both the more âsupernaturalâ view described above â chiefly espoused by its rather obsessive opponents â and from the more neutral, but also de-biologized philosophical view (that of e.g. Cavendish or Conway who are, broadly speaking naturalists). Rather than appealing to a metaphysics of vital force, or of self-organizing matter, this version of vitalism, which I shall refer to as âmedical vitalismâ, seems to be more of a âsystemicâ theory: an attempt to grasp and describe top-level (âorganizationalâ, âorganismicâ, âholisticâ) features of living systems (Wolfe 2017, 2019).
In this entry I seek to introduce some periodization in our thinking about early modern (and Enlightenment) vitalism, emphasizing the difference between the seventeenth-century context and that of the following generations â culminating in the ideas of the Montpellier School. This periodization should also function as a kind of taxonomy or at least distinction between some basic types of vitalism. As I discuss in closing, these distinctions can cut across the texts and figures we are dealing with, differently: metaphysical vs. non-metaphysical vitalism, philosophical vs. medical vitalism, medical vs. âembryologicalâ vitalism, and so on. A difference I can only mention but not explore in detail is that the more medically grounded, âorganismicâ vitalism is significantly post-Cartesian while the more biological/embryological vitalism is, inasmuch as it is a dynamic, self-organizing matter theory, an extension of Renaissance ideas (chymiatry, Galenism and in general theories of medical spirits).
I examine successively vitalismâs Renaissance prehistory, its proliferation as âvital matter theoryâ in seventeenth-century England (in authors such as Cavendish, Conway and Glisson, with brief considerations on Harvey and van Helmont), and its mature expression in eighteenth-century Montpellier (notably with Bordeu and MĂ©nuret de Chambaud)
Using a temporal phylogenetic method to harmonize family- and genus-level classification in the largest clade of lichen-forming fungi
Cyclotides suppress human T-Lymphocyte proliferation by an interleukin 2-dependent mechanism
Cyclotides are a diverse and abundant group of ribosomally synthesized plant peptides containing a unique cyclic cystine-knotted topology that confers them with remarkable stability. Kalata B1, a representative member of this family of mini-proteins, has been found to inhibit the proliferation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Analysis of T-cell proliferation upon treatment with chemically synthesized kalata B1 mutants revealed a region comprising inter-cysteine loops 1 and 2 of the cyclotide framework to be important for biological activity. Cytokine signaling analysis using an 'active' kalata B1 mutant [T20K], and the reference drug cyclosporin A (CsA) demonstrated that treatment of activated T-lymphocytes with these compounds decreased the expression of the interleukin-2 (IL-2) surface receptor as well as IL-2 cytokine secretion and IL-2 gene expression, whereas the 'inactive' kalata B1 mutant [V10K] did not cause any effects. The anti-proliferative activity of [T20K] kalata B1 was antagonized by addition of exogenous IL-2. Furthermore, treatment with [T20K] kalata B1 led to an initial reduction of the effector function, as indicated by the reduced IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha production, but the levels of both cytokines stabilized over time and returned to their normal levels. On the other hand, the degranulation activity remained reduced. This indicated that cyclotides interfere with T-cell polyfunctionality and arrest the proliferation of immune-competent cells through inhibiting IL-2 biology at more than one site. The results open new avenues to utilize native and synthetically-optimized cyclotides for applications in immune-related disorders and as immunosuppressant peptides
Phylogenomic analysis of 2556 single-copy protein-coding genes resolves most evolutionary relationships for the major clades in the most diverse group of lichen-forming fungi
Notes for genera â Ascomycota
Knowledge of the relationships and thus the classification of fungi, has developed rapidly with increasingly widespread use of molecular techniques, over the past 10--15Â years, and continues to accelerate. Several genera have been found to be polyphyletic, and their generic concepts have subsequently been emended. New names have thus been introduced for species which are phylogenetically distinct from the type species of particular genera. The ending of the separate naming of morphs of the same species in 2011, has also caused changes in fungal generic names. In order to facilitate access to all important changes, it was desirable to compile these in a single document. The present article provides a list of generic names of Ascomycota (approximately 6500 accepted names published to the end of 2016), including those which are lichen-forming. Notes and summaries of the changes since the last edition of `Ainsworth Bisby's Dictionary of the Fungi' in 2008 are provided. The notes include the number of accepted species, classification, type species (with location of the type material), culture availability, life-styles, distribution, and selected publications that have appeared since 2008. This work is intended to provide the foundation for updating the ascomycete component of the ``Without prejudice list of generic names of Fungi'' published in 2013, which will be developed into a list of protected generic names. This will be subjected to the XIXth International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen in July 2017 agreeing to a modification in the rules relating to protected lists, and scrutiny by procedures determined by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF). The previously invalidly published generic names Barriopsis, Collophora (as Collophorina), Cryomyces, Dematiopleospora, Heterospora (as Heterosporicola), Lithophila, Palmomyces (as Palmaria) and Saxomyces are validated, as are two previously invalid family names, Bartaliniaceae and Wiesneriomycetaceae. Four species of Lalaria, which were invalidly published are transferred to Taphrina and validated as new combinations. Catenomycopsis Tibell Constant. is reduced under Chaenothecopsis Vain., while Dichomera Cooke is reduced under Botryosphaeria Ces. De Not. (Art. 59)