How the 'plates' of a health system can shift, change and adjust during economic recessions: A qualitative interview study of public and private health providers in Brazil's Sao Paulo and Maranhao states

Background: Economic recessions carry an impact on population health and access to care; less is known on how health systems adapt to the conditions brought by a downturn. This particularly matters now that the COVID-19 epidemic is putting health systems under stress. Brazil is one of the world’s most affected countries, and its health system was already experiencing the aftermath of the 2015 recession. Methods: Between 2018 and 2019 we conducted 46 semi-structured interviews with health practitioners, managers and policy-makers to explore the impact of the 2015 recession on public and private providers in prosperous (São Paulo) and impoverished (Maranhão) states in Brazil. Thematic analysis was employed to identify drivers and consequences of system adaptation and coping strategies. Nvivo software was used to aid data collection and analysis. We followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research to provide an account of the findings. Results: We found the concept of ‘health sector crisis’ to be politically charged among healthcare providers in São Paulo and Maranhão. Contrary to expectations, the public sector was reported to have found ways to compensate for diminishing federal funding, having outsourced services and adopted flexible–if insecure–working arrangements. Following a drop in employment and health plans, private health insurance companies have streamlined their offer, at times at the expenses of coverage. Low-cost walk-in clinics were hit hard by the recession, but were also credited for having moved to cater for higher-income customers in Maranhão. Conclusions: The ‘plates’ of a health system may shift and adjust in unexpected ways in response to recessions, and some of these changes might outlast the crisis. As low-income countries enter post-COVID economic recessions, it will be important to monitor the adjustments taking place in health systems, to ensure that past gains in access to care and job security are not eroded

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Notes for genera – 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--15 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)