Los palmares en ecosistemas inundables de la Amazonia peruana: Bajo Ucayali y Alto Huallaga

Se reportan los datos de evaluaciones de comunidades de palmeras que se encuentran en zonas inundables del bajo río Ucayali y el alto río Huallaga. En el alto Huallaga, la vegetación de tierras bajas está dominada por bosques de quebrada irregularmente inundados durante la estación lluviosa, y por bosques sobre suelos aluviales inundados anualmente por el río Huallaga, con presencia de especies como Astrocaryum carnosum, Euterpe precatoria y Oenocarpus mapora entre otros. Por otro lado, en el bajo Ucayali, los bosques de quebrada, en las terrazas medias, inundadas por el agua de escorrentía, son dominados por pocas especies, estos bosques son conocidos como sacha aguajales. En los bosques sobre suelos aluviales se encuentran comunidades de palmeras como los shapajales (Attalea huebneri), huicungales (Astrocaryum chonta) y yarinales (Phytelephas tenuicaulis). En las áreas pantanosas destacan por su extensión los aguajales, formaciones densas de Mauritia flexuosa, mixtas con huasai (Euterpe spp) y varias especies de latifoliadas. También hay otras agrupaciones de palmeras menos extensas en las orillas de los cursos de agua, conocidas como los manchales de huiririma (Astrocaryum jauari) y/o los ñejillales (Bactris riparia)

Los palmares en ecosistemas inundables de la Amazonia peruana: Bajo Ucayali y Alto Huallaga

Se reportan los datos de evaluaciones de comunidades de palmeras que se encuentran en zonas inundables del bajo río Ucayali y el alto río Huallaga. En el alto Huallaga, la vegetación de tierras bajas está dominada por bosques de quebrada irregularmente inundados durante la estación lluviosa, y por bosques sobre suelos aluviales inundados anualmente por el río Huallaga, con presencia de especies como Astrocaryum carnosum, Euterpe precatoria y Oenocarpus mapora entre otros. Por otro lado, en el bajo Ucayali, los bosques de quebrada, en las terrazas medias, inundadas por el agua de escorrentía, son dominados por pocas especies, estos bosques son conocidos como sacha aguajales. En los bosques sobre suelos aluviales se encuentran comunidades de palmeras como los shapajales (Attalea huebneri), huicungales (Astrocaryum chonta) y yarinales (Phytelephas tenuicaulis). En las áreas pantanosas destacan por su extensión los aguajales, formaciones densas de Mauritia flexuosa, mixtas con huasai (Euterpe spp) y varias especies de latifoliadas. También hay otras agrupaciones de palmeras menos extensas en las orillas de los cursos de agua, conocidas como los manchales de huiririma (Astrocaryum jauari) y/o los ñejillales (Bactris riparia)

Morichales, cananguchales y otros palmares inundables de Suramérica. Parte II: Colombia, Venezuela, Brasil, Perú, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay y Argentina

El libro está dividido en cuatro partes. En la primera sección se incluye un análisis muy completo sobre el estado del conocimiento, uso y conservación de Mauritia flexuosa en Suramérica. En la segunda parte se consideran varios casos de estudio (11) sobre comunidades de plantas asociadas, demografía, polinizadores, aves y mamíferos relacionados, así como temas de manejo y ecoturismo en palmares de Mauritia flexuosa. La tercera sección incluye aportes de varios países sobre otros palmares, principalmente de Astrocaryum jauari, Butia odorata, B. paraguayensis, Copernicia alba, C. tectorum, Euterpe oleracea, Manicaria saccifera, Mauritiella aculeata y Roystonea oleracea. También se aporta información de 25 especies adicionales de palmas, incluyendo los usos, dinámica de poblaciones, biología reproductiva, florística de humedales asociados y conservación, entre otros aspectos. Por último, en la cuarta parte se dan las conclusiones y recomendaciones para la conservación de los palmares inundables en Suramérica.Bogotá, D. C

Clinical and genetic characteristics of late-onset Huntington's disease

Background: The frequency of late-onset Huntington's disease (>59 years) is assumed to be low and the clinical course milder. However, previous literature on late-onset disease is scarce and inconclusive. Objective: Our aim is to study clinical characteristics of late-onset compared to common-onset HD patients in a large cohort of HD patients from the Registry database. Methods: Participants with late- and common-onset (30–50 years)were compared for first clinical symptoms, disease progression, CAG repeat size and family history. Participants with a missing CAG repeat size, a repeat size of ≤35 or a UHDRS motor score of ≤5 were excluded. Results: Of 6007 eligible participants, 687 had late-onset (11.4%) and 3216 (53.5%) common-onset HD. Late-onset (n = 577) had significantly more gait and balance problems as first symptom compared to common-onset (n = 2408) (P <.001). Overall motor and cognitive performance (P <.001) were worse, however only disease motor progression was slower (coefficient, −0.58; SE 0.16; P <.001) compared to the common-onset group. Repeat size was significantly lower in the late-onset (n = 40.8; SD 1.6) compared to common-onset (n = 44.4; SD 2.8) (P <.001). Fewer late-onset patients (n = 451) had a positive family history compared to common-onset (n = 2940) (P <.001). Conclusions: Late-onset patients present more frequently with gait and balance problems as first symptom, and disease progression is not milder compared to common-onset HD patients apart from motor progression. The family history is likely to be negative, which might make diagnosing HD more difficult in this population. However, the balance and gait problems might be helpful in diagnosing HD in elderly patients

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field