SIGNAL TRANSFER BY CHEMICAL SYSTEMS

An attempt is made to apply the cathegories of the information and measurement theories to chemical systems. At first the characterization of the quality of a chemical signal is given. This property is also quantitatively expressible by the here defined "chemical frequency". Further, a short survey deals with the chemical multiplex and MODEM systems. Some examples present the chemical signal processing and data transfer

Cyclodextrin modulation of gallic acid in vitro antibacterial activity

The substitution of large spectrum antibiotics for natural bioactive molecules (especially polyphenolics) for the treatment of wound infections has come into prominence in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the use of such molecules depends on their stability during environmental stress and on their ability to reach the action site without losing biological properties. The application of cyclodextrins as a vehicle for polyphenolics protection has been documented and appears to enhance the properties of bioactive molecules. Therefore, the encapsulation of gallic acid, an antibacterial agent with low stability, by -cyclodextrin, (2-hydroxy) propyl--cyclodextrin and methyl--cyclodextrin, was investigated. Encapsulation by -cyclodextrin was confirmed for pH 3 and 5, with similar stability parameters. The (2-hydroxy) propyl--cyclodextrin and methyl--cyclodextrin interactions with gallic acid were only confirmed at pH 3. Among the three cyclodextrins, better gallic acid encapsulation were observed for (2-hydroxy) propyl--cyclodextrin, followed by -cyclodextrin and methyl--cyclodextrin. The effect of cyclodextrin encapsulation on the gallic acid antibacterial activity was also analysed. The antibacterial activity of the inclusion complexes was investigated here for the first time. According to the results, encapsulation of gallic acid by (2-hydroxy) propyl--cyclodextrin seems to be a viable option for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, since this inclusion complex has good stability and antibacterial activity.The authors are grateful for the FCT Strategic Project PEst-OE/EQB/LA0023/2013 and the Project "BioHealth-Biotechnology and Bioengineering approaches to improve health quality", Ref. NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000027, co-funded by the "Programa Operacional Regional do Norte" (ON.2-O Novo Norte), QREN, FEDER. The authors also acknowledge the project "Consolidating Research Expertise and Resources on Cellular and Molecular Biotechnology at CEB/IBB", Ref. FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-027462. This work is, also, funded by FEDER funds through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors-COMPETE and National Funds through FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology under the project PEst-C/CTM/UI0264/2011. Additionally, the authors would like to thank the FCT for the grant for E. Pinho (SFRH/BD/62665/2009)

Biodiversity conservation: history, protected areas and hotspots

Angola is a large country of great physiographic, climatic and habitat diversity, with a corresponding richness in animal and plant species. Legally protected areas (National Parks and Game Reserves) were established from the 1930s and occupied 6% of the country’s terrestrial area at the time of independence in 1975. As a consequence of an extended war, the Protected Areas were exposed to serious neglect, poaching and land invasions. Many habitats of biogeographic importance, and many rare and endemic species came under threat. The recently strengthened administration gives cause for optimism that a new era for biodiversity conservation is at hand. The Protected Areas system was greatly expanded in 2011, and increasing resources are being made available towards achieving management effectivenessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 (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