Tri-axial accelerometry shows differences in energy expenditure and parental effort throughout the breeding season in long-lived raptors

Cutting-edge technologies are extremely useful to develop new workflows in studying ecological data, particularly to understand animal behavior and movement trajectories at the individual level. Although parental care is a well-studied phenomenon, most studies have been focused on direct observational or video recording data, as well as experimental manipulation. Therefore, what happens out of our sight still remains unknown. Using high-frequency GPS/GSM dataloggers and tri-axial accelerometers we monitored 25 Bonelli’s eagles Aquila fasciata during the breeding season to understand parental activities from a broader perspective. We used recursive data, measured as number of visits and residence time, to reveal nest attendance patterns of biparental care with role specialization between sexes. Accelerometry data interpreted as the overall dynamic body acceleration, a proxy of energy expenditure, showed strong differences in parental effort throughout the breeding season and between sexes. Thereby, males increased substantially their energetic requirements, due to the increased workload, while females spent most of the time on the nest. Furthermore, during critical phases of the breeding season, a low percentage of suitable hunting spots in eagles’ territories led them to increase their ranging behavior in order to find food, with important consequences in energy consumption and mortality risk. Our results highlight the crucial role of males in raptor species exhibiting biparental care. Finally, we exemplify how biologging technologies are an adequate and objective method to study parental care in raptors as well as to get deeper insight into breeding ecology of birds in general.This work was supported by Red Eléctrica de España, Iberdrola Foundation, and Wildlife Service of the Valencian Community Regional Government (Conselleria d’Agricultura, Desenvolupament Rural, Emergència Climàtica i Transició Ecològica, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain). A.M.P. and J.M.E. were supported by predoctoral grants of the University of Valencia [Grant Number 0113/2019] and the Basque Government [Grant Number PRE_2018_2_0112], respectively

European contribution to the study of ROS: A summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS).

The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) provides an ideal framework to establish multi-disciplinary research networks. COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) represents a consortium of researchers from different disciplines who are dedicated to providing new insights and tools for better understanding redox biology and medicine and, in the long run, to finding new therapeutic strategies to target dysregulated redox processes in various diseases. This report highlights the major achievements of EU-ROS as well as research updates and new perspectives arising from its members. The EU-ROS consortium comprised more than 140 active members who worked together for four years on the topics briefly described below. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) is an established hallmark of our aerobic environment and metabolism but RONS also act as messengers via redox regulation of essential cellular processes. The fact that many diseases have been found to be associated with oxidative stress established the theory of oxidative stress as a trigger of diseases that can be corrected by antioxidant therapy. However, while experimental studies support this thesis, clinical studies still generate controversial results, due to complex pathophysiology of oxidative stress in humans. For future improvement of antioxidant therapy and better understanding of redox-associated disease progression detailed knowledge on the sources and targets of RONS formation and discrimination of their detrimental or beneficial roles is required. In order to advance this important area of biology and medicine, highly synergistic approaches combining a variety of diverse and contrasting disciplines are needed.The EU-ROS consortium (COST Action BM1203) was supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). The present overview represents the final Action dissemination summarizing the major achievements of COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) as well as research news and personal views of its members. Some authors were also supported by COST Actions BM1005 (ENOG) and BM1307 (PROTEOSTASIS), as well as funding from the European Commission FP7 and H2020 programmes, and several national funding agencies

Effect of cold storage on the pupal development of two pollinators, Eristalinus aeneus and Eristalis tenax

Eristalinus aeneus (Scopoli) and Eristalis tenax (L.) (Diptera: Syrphidae, Eristalini), are important pollinator species that can be artificially reared and commercialised. To achieve better control over the pupal development time and adult emergence, cold storage techniques are suitable tools. Insects were reared under controlled conditions: 25 ± 1 °C, 50% r.h., and L12:D12 photoperiod. Pupae of both species were stored at 5 °C at the beginning (early treatments) or at the end (late treatments) of their development for various periods of time (5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 days). Development stopped completely at 5 °C in both treatments, but in general, pupae stored at the beginning of the pupal stage provided better results in terms of survival (adult emergence) and quality of the adults (general morphology). The cold tolerance of E. tenax was lower than that of E. aeneus, with their pupal developmental time successfully extended up to 18 and 23 days, respectively, without compromising survival and morphology. The number and types of morphological alterations due to cold storage were recorded.The funds were provided by the Spanish Ministry of Universities (MIU) as part of the FPU grant (FPU16-01985)

European contribution to the study of ROS:a summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS)

Abstract The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) provides an ideal framework to establish multi-disciplinary research networks. COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) represents a consortium of researchers from different disciplines who are dedicated to providing new insights and tools for better understanding redox biology and medicine and, in the long run, to finding new therapeutic strategies to target dysregulated redox processes in various diseases. This report highlights the major achievements of EU-ROS as well as research updates and new perspectives arising from its members. The EU-ROS consortium comprised more than 140 active members who worked together for four years on the topics briefly described below. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) is an established hallmark of our aerobic environment and metabolism but RONS also act as messengers via redox regulation of essential cellular processes. The fact that many diseases have been found to be associated with oxidative stress established the theory of oxidative stress as a trigger of diseases that can be corrected by antioxidant therapy. However, while experimental studies support this thesis, clinical studies still generate controversial results, due to complex pathophysiology of oxidative stress in humans. For future improvement of antioxidant therapy and better understanding of redox-associated disease progression detailed knowledge on the sources and targets of RONS formation and discrimination of their detrimental or beneficial roles is required. In order to advance this important area of biology and medicine, highly synergistic approaches combining a variety of diverse and contrasting disciplines are needed

European contribution to the study of ROS: A summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS)

The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) provides an ideal framework to establish multi-disciplinary research networks. COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) represents a consortium of researchers from different disciplines who are dedicated to providing new insights and tools for better understanding redox biology and medicine and, in the long run, to finding new therapeutic strategies to target dysregulated redox processes in various diseases. This report highlights the major achievements of EU-ROS as well as research updates and new perspectives arising from its members. The EU-ROS consortium comprised more than 140 active members who worked together for four years on the topics briefly described below. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) is an established hallmark of our aerobic environment and metabolism but RONS also act as messengers via redox regulation of essential cellular processes. The fact that many diseases have been found to be associated with oxidative stress established the theory of oxidative stress as a trigger of diseases that can be corrected by antioxidant therapy. However, while experimental studies support this thesis, clinical studies still generate controversial results, due to complex pathophysiology of oxidative stress in humans. For future improvement of antioxidant therapy and better understanding of redox-associated disease progression detailed knowledge on the sources and targets of RONS formation and discrimination of their detrimental or beneficial roles is required. In order to advance this important area of biology and medicine, highly synergistic approaches combining a variety of diverse and contrasting disciplines are needed

European contribution to the study of ROS: A summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS)

The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) provides an ideal framework to establish multi-disciplinary research networks. COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) represents a consortium of researchers from different disciplines who are dedicated to providing new insights and tools for better understanding redox biology and medicine and, in the long run, to finding new therapeutic strategies to target dysregulated redox processes in various diseases. This report highlights the major achievements of EU-ROS as well as research updates and new perspectives arising from its members. The EU-ROS consortium comprised more than 140 active members who worked together for four years on the topics briefly described below. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) is an established hallmark of our aerobic environment and metabolism but RONS also act as messengers via redox regulation of essential cellular processes. The fact that many diseases have been found to be associated with oxidative stress established the theory of oxidative stress as a trigger of diseases that can be corrected by antioxidant therapy. However, while experimental studies support this thesis, clinical studies still generate controversial results, due to complex pathophysiology of oxidative stress in humans. For future improvement of antioxidant therapy and better understanding of redox-associated disease progression detailed knowledge on the sources and targets of RONS formation and discrimination of their detrimental or beneficial roles is required. In order to advance this important area of biology and medicine, highly synergistic approaches combining a variety of diverse and contrasting disciplines are needed

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