The role of carbon capture, utilization, and storage for economic pathways that limit global warming to below 1.5°C

The 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, for the first time, stated that CO2 removal will be necessary to meet our climate goals. However, there is a cost to accomplish CO2 removal or mitigation that varies by source. Accordingly, a sensible strategy to prevent climate change begins by mitigating emission sources requiring the least energy and capital investment per ton of CO2, such as new emitters and long-term stationary sources. The production of CO2-derived products should also start by favoring processes that bring to market high-value products with sufficient margin to tolerate a higher cost of goods

Capturing wheat phenotypes at the genome level

Recent technological advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of DNA sequencing, allowing species with large and complex genomes to be sequenced. Although bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the world’s most important food crops, efficient exploitation of molecular marker-assisted breeding approaches has lagged behind that achieved in other crop species, due to its large polyploid genome. However, an international public–private effort spanning 9 years reported over 65% draft genome of bread wheat in 2014, and finally, after more than a decade culminated in the release of a gold-standard, fully annotated reference wheat-genome assembly in 2018. Shortly thereafter, in 2020, the genome of assemblies of additional 15 global wheat accessions was released. As a result, wheat has now entered into the pan-genomic era, where basic resources can be efficiently exploited. Wheat genotyping with a few hundred markers has been replaced by genotyping arrays, capable of characterizing hundreds of wheat lines, using thousands of markers, providing fast, relatively inexpensive, and reliable data for exploitation in wheat breeding. These advances have opened up new opportunities for marker-assisted selection (MAS) and genomic selection (GS) in wheat. Herein, we review the advances and perspectives in wheat genetics and genomics, with a focus on key traits, including grain yield, yield-related traits, end-use quality, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. We also focus on reported candidate genes cloned and linked to traits of interest. Furthermore, we report on the improvement in the aforementioned quantitative traits, through the use of (i) clustered regularly interspaced short-palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (CRISPR/Cas9)-mediated gene-editing and (ii) positional cloning methods, and of genomic selection. Finally, we examine the utilization of genomics for the next-generation wheat breeding, providing a practical example of using in silico bioinformatics tools that are based on the wheat reference-genome sequence

Nuclear localisation of Aurora-A: its regulation and significance for Aurora-A functions in cancer.

The Aurora-A kinase regulates cell division, by controlling centrosome biology and spindle assembly. Cancer cells often display elevated levels of the kinase, due to amplification of the gene locus, increased transcription or post-translational modifications. Several inhibitors of Aurora-A activity have been developed as anti-cancer agents and are under evaluation in clinical trials. Although the well-known mitotic roles of Aurora-A point at chromosomal instability, a hallmark of cancer, as a major link between Aurora-A overexpression and disease, recent evidence highlights the existence of non-mitotic functions of potential relevance. Here we focus on a nuclear-localised fraction of Aurora-A with oncogenic roles. Interestingly, this pool would identify not only non-mitotic, but also kinase-independent functions of the kinase. We review existing data in the literature and databases, examining potential links between Aurora-A stabilisation and localisation, and discuss them in the perspective of a more effective targeting of Aurora-A in cancer therapy

Enhancing the resilience capacity of SENSitive mountain FORest ecosystems under environmental change (SENSFOR): COST Action ES1203: SENSFOR Deliverable 5

Treeline ecotones in mountains all over the world are dynamic and in many cases changing due to human impact, but there is considerable regional variation. Nevertheless, pressures on the treeline ecotone can be differentiated in abiotic (e.g. wind, fire, drought, avalanche), biotic (e.g. insects, browsing, pathogens) and anthropogenic ones (e.g. pollution, overgrazing, global warming). There is a need for a set of indicators but it is difficult to find indicators for entire ecosystems. Indicators within treeline ecotones can be subdivided into those indicating impact on vegetation, soil or fauna. There can be natural ecosystem responses, not triggered by human impact. One example is the influence of strong winds on the growth form of trees. However, there can be responses of the ecosystem and the related ecosystem services due to human impact. One example is the erosion due to overgrazing. The ecosystem service for decomposition and thus nutrient cycling would be hampered. The connection between pressures and indicators using the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR) framework can be clarified by showing two examples. The first example is focusing on climate change. Precipitation is one DRIVER with heavy rain events putting PRESSURE on ecotones. In case for steep slopes (STATE), the heavy rain would lead to an IMPACT on the stability of the slope. The ecological RESPONSE to this impact would be the instability of the slope with the INDICATOR of a landslide. The anthropogenic RESPONSE may be a technical solution fixing the slope. The second example is focusing on land use change. Grazing is one DRIVER and overgrazing the PRESSURE. In case there are sandy and dry soils covered by plants used as forage for the animals (STATE) the ecological RESPONSE would be erosion. In this case, the INDICATOR would be the area with bare soil. The anthropogenic RESPONSE could be the reduction of the number of grazing animals. Due to the high vulnerability of treeline ecosystems, the ecological resilience is low. When vegetation is damaged due to natural and/or human impact, erosion removes the soil cover including most of the carbon. Above- and belowground biodiversity is getting reduced, leading to reduced ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration or decomposition providing nutrients. Meanwhile, those policy makers who have to deal with climate change have following the topics on the agenda: biodiversity, land degradation and carbon sequestration. Thus, there is a slim chance, that recommendations to preserve carbon stocks, to prevent soil erosion and to protect biodiversity (including belowground biodiversity) will be accepted by policy makers. On the other hand, most of the stakeholders are not open to be convinced this way. Most probably, economic benefits will weigh more than biodiversity issues in ecotones for the future. In this deliverable, we introduce 18 indicators that help practitioners and scientists to understand changes, sustainability issues and resilience of sensitive mountain forest ecosystems. Our aim is to identify a common set of indicators to monitor and analyze changes in treeline biodiversity and to develop monitoring methodology. Findings are based on literature, previous and in-project scientific work of the SENSFOR working groups and experimental work, testing the practicality of preliminary indicators with forest technicians (Ferranti 2015). 3 It is important to understand that especially social indicators listed here might be related to treeline issues. Conflicts can take place at local level while economic and population structure changes may not have any effect on the condition of forest ecosystems. This means that following indicators do not necessarily indicate the sustainability issues linked to treeline ecotones. However, there can be connections and causalities between these variables and in each case, potential linkages need to be tested for: 1. to identify a common set of monitoring indicators to analyze changes in the treeline ecotone which could be used for monitoring; 2. to create a holistic set of indicators for the vulnerability and resilience of coupled socio-ecological systems on the basis of the DPSIR framework analysis. The following Indicators could be used for monitoring changes in the treeline ecotone: 1. Ecological Indicators are related to plants, the soil and the fauna. Usually, trees, their growth form or seedling production, are in the focus but soil indicators like carbon stock or soil biodiversity are considered less but with increasing tendency; 2. Economic Indicators, a valuable economic indicator may be the reduction of the amount of income of the stakeholders, e.g. due to reduced tourism in high mountain areas, triggered by global warming. Also, the distribution of benefits (in most cases income) among stakeholders could be influenced. 3. Social and Cultural Indicators, an important social indicator is the conflict between people who use the land and those people who would like to protect nature and the ecological ecosystem services. The indicators are explained in detail in the following, considering several case studies in different parts of Europe