NCX1 represents an ionic Na+ sensing mechanism in macrophages

Inflammation and infection can trigger local tissue Na(+)accumulation. This Na+-rich environment boosts proinflammatory activation of monocyte/macrophage-like cells (M phi s) and their antimicrobial activity. Enhanced Na+-driven M phi function requires the osmoprotective transcription factor nuclear factor of activated T cells 5 (NFAT5), which augments nitric oxide (NO) production and contributes to increased autophagy. However, the mechanism of Na(+)sensing in M phi s remained unclear. High extracellular Na(+)levels (high salt [HS]) trigger a substantial Na(+)influx and Ca(2+)loss. Here, we show that the Na+/Ca(2+)exchanger 1 (NCX1, also known as solute carrier family 8 member A1 [SLC8A1]) plays a critical role in HS-triggered Na(+)influx, concomitant Ca(2+)efflux, and subsequent augmented NFAT5 accumulation. Moreover, interfering with NCX1 activity impairs HS-boosted inflammatory signaling, infection-triggered autolysosome formation, and subsequent antibacterial activity. Taken together, this demonstrates that NCX1 is able to sense Na(+)and is required for amplifying inflammatory and antimicrobial M phi responses upon HS exposure. Manipulating NCX1 offers a new strategy to regulate M phi function

Der Status von Peter Stemmers Metaethik

Peter Stemmer provides a moral theory that construes moral normativity and correlated phenomenona as essentially constituted by sanctions. Neither Stemmer nor his critics reflect sufficiently on the metaethical status of these claims, even though it is important to be clear about this status to evaluate the approach. I argue that there are two different readings of the theory: Either the “Sanktionstheorie” is a kind of descriptive metaethical theory or it is what I call a constructive (or revisionary) theory. Stemmer’s approach is better understood as a constructive metaethical theory, whereas critics mainly focus on a descriptive reading.publishe

Critical Thinking in the Educational Sciences: Concept and Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Co-Teaching Seminar for Prospective Teachers

Eine wissenschaftliche Lehramtsausbildung muss neben der fachwissenschaftlichen, pädagogischen und fachdidaktischen Befähigung auch die Ausbildung von Kompetenzen fördern, die eine fundierte Meinungsbildung zu Fragen bildungsbezogener Themen mit gesellschaftlicher und praktischer Relevanz ermöglichen. Dazu gehört wesentlich, den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs über Lehren und Lernen verfolgen und wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse verstehen, einordnen und ihre praktischen Implikationen reflektieren zu können. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt einen Einblick in die konzeptuelle Gestaltung der interdisziplinären Lehrveranstaltung „Kritisches Denken in den Bildungswissenschaften“, deren Ziel die Vermittlung von Grundlagen und Voraussetzungen für kritische Reflexionen von bildungswissenschaftlichen Diskursen ist.The qualifications acquired during teacher training must, in addition to content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, also include competencies that enable future teachers to form well-founded opinions on educational issues with social and practical relevance. This essentially includes being able to follow the scientific discourse on teaching and learning, understanding scientific results, and being able to critically reflect on the practical implications. To acquire these qualifications, teacher training needs to offer appropriate learning opportunities. The present contribution describes the conceptual design and implementation of an interdisciplinary co-teaching course on “Critical Thinking in Educational Sciences”, which focuses on fundamentals for critical reflection

German funders' data sharing policies-A qualitative interview study.

BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders' data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders' data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German' funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees' perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders' data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice

Getting the Residents' Attention: The Perception of Warning Channels in Smart Home Warning Systems

About half a billion households are expected to use smart home systems by 2025. Although many IoT sensors, such as smoke detectors or security cameras, are available and governmental crisis warning systems are in place, little is known about how to warn appropriately in smart home environments. We created a Raspberry Pi based prototype with a speaker, a display, and a connected smart light bulb. Together with a focus group, we developed a taxonomy for warning messages in smart home environments, dividing them into five classes with different stimuli. We evaluated the taxonomy using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) in a field study at participants' (N = 13) homes testing 331 warnings. The results show that taxonomy-based warning stimuli are perceived to be appropriate and participants could imagine using such a warning system. We propose a deeper integration of warning capabilities into smart home environments to enhance the safety of citizens

Sampling procedure.

BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders’ data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders’ data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German’ funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees’ perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders’ data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.</div

Category system.

BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders’ data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders’ data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German’ funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees’ perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders’ data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.</div

Transcription and coding guideline.

BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders’ data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders’ data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German’ funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees’ perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders’ data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.</div