Is the bulbus arteriosus of fish homologous to the mamalian intrapericardial thoracic arteries?

El resumen aparece en el Program & Abstracts of the 10th International Congress of Vertebrate Morphology, Barcelona 2013.Anatomical Record, Volume 296, Special Feature — 1: P-089.Two major findings have significantly improved our understanding of the embryology and evolution of the arterial pole of the vertebrate heart (APVH): 1) a new embryonic presumptive cardiac tissue, named second heart field (SHF), forms the myocardium of the outflow tract, and the walls of the ascending aorta (AA) and the pulmonary trunk (PT) in mammals and birds; 2) the bulbus arteriosus (BA), previously thought to be an actinopterygian apomorphy, is present in all basal Vertebrates, and probably derives from the SHF. We hypothesized that the intrapericardial portions of the AA and the PT of mammals are homologous to the BA of basal vertebrates. To test this, we performed 1) a literature review of the anatomy and embryology of the APVH; 2) novel anatomical, histomorphological, and embryological analyses of the APVH, comparing basal (Galeus atlanticus), with apical (Mus musculus and Mesocricetus auratus) vertrebrates. Evidence obtained: 1) Anatomically, BA, AA, and PT are muscular tubes into the pericardial cavity, which connect the distal myocardial outflow tracts with the aortic arch system. Coronary arteries run through or originate at these anatomical structures; 2) Histologically, BA, AA, and PT show an inner layer of endothelium covered by circumferentially oriented smooth muscle cells, collagen fibers, and lamellar elastin. The histomorphological differences between the BA and the ventral aorta parallel those between intrapericardial and extrapericardial great arteries; 3) Embryologically, BA, AA, and PT are composed of smooth muscle cells derived from the SHF. They show a similar mechanism of development: incorporation of SHF‐derived cells into the pericardial cavity, and distal‐to‐proximal differentiation into an elastogenic cell linage. In conclusion, anatomical, histological and embryological evidence supports the hypothesis that SHF is a developmental unit responsible for the formation of the APVH. The BA and the intrapericardial portions of the great arteries must be considered homologous structures.Proyecto P10-CTS-6068 (Junta de Andalucía); proyecto CGL-16417 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación); Fondos FEDER

Incidence and type of bicuspid aortic valve in two model species

Incidence and type of bicuspid aortic valve in two model species. MC Fernández 1,2, A López-García 1,2, MT Soto 1, AC Durán 1,2 and B Fernández 1,2. 1 Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Málaga, Spain. 2 Biomedical Research Institute of Málaga (IBIMA), University of Málaga, Spain. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most frequent human congenital cardiac malformation, with an incidence of 1–2% worldwide. Two morphological types exist: type A (incidence 0.75–1.25%) and type B (incidence 0.25–0.5%), each with a distinct aetiology and natural history. Currently, ten animal models of BAV have been described in two different rodent species: one spontaneous Syrian hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) model of BAV type A and nine mutant laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) models of BAV type B. It remains to be elucidated whether the mutations leading to BAV in these models are typespecific or whether there are inter-specific differences regarding the type of BAV that hamsters, mice and humans may develop. To solve this issue, we have characterized the incidence and types of BAVs in four inbred, two outbred and two hybrid lines of Syrian hamsters (n=4,340) and in three inbred, three outbred and one hybrid lines of laboratory mice (n=1,661) by means of stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. In addition, we have reviewed and calculated the incidence and type of BAVs in the published papers dealing with this anomaly in mice. Our results indicate that the Syrian hamster develops BAVs type A and B including a variety of morphologies comparable to those of humans, whereas the mouse develops only BAVs type B with a short spectrum of valve morphologies. Thus, inter-specific differences between human and mouse aortic valves must be taken into consideration when studying valve disease in murine models. This work was supported by P10-CTS-6068.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech. P10-CTS-6068

Antifungal effect and reduction of Ulmus minor symptoms to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi by carvacrol and salicylic acid

There are still no effective means to control Dutch elm disease (DED), caused by the vascular fungi Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi. Plant phenolics may provide a new strategy for DED control, given their known antifungal activity against pathogens and their involvement in plant defence mechanisms. The in vitro antifungal activity of salicylic acid, carvacrol, thymol, phenol, o-cresol, m-cresol, p-cresol, and 2,5-xylenol against the DED pathogens was tested. Also, the protective effect of watering Ulmus minor seedlings with these compounds was tested against O. novo-ulmi. Salicylic acid, carvacrol, and thymol showed the strongest antifungal in vitro activity, while carvacrol and salicylic acid provided the strongest in vivo protection against O. novo-ulmi (63 and 46% reduction of leaf wilting symptoms with respect to controls, respectively). The effect of the treatments on tree phenology was low, and a significant negative relation was observed between the number of days to bud burst and the leaf wilting symptoms after inoculation, probably determined by genetic differences among the elm tree progenies used. The treatments with salicylic acid, carvacrol and thymol induced the highest shift in phenolic metabolite profile with respect to control trees. The protective effect of carvacrol and salicylic acid is discussed in terms of their combined activity as antifungal compounds and as inductors of tree defence responses

A perturbation density functional theory for the competition between inter and intramolecular association

Using the framework of Wertheim's thermodynamic perturbation theory we develop the first density functional theory which accounts for intramolecular association in chain molecules. To test the theory new Monte Carlo simulations are performed at a fluid solid interface for a 4 segment chain which can both intra and intermolecularly associate. The theory and simulation results are found to be in excellent agreement. It is shown that the inclusion of intramolecular association can have profound effects on interfacial properties such as interfacial tension and the partition coefficient

Dialoguing DeLP-based agents

A multi-agent system is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. They establish dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol. We think argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. In this paper we define dialogues and persuasion dialogues between two agents using Defeasible Logic Programs as a knowledge base, together with an algorithm defining how this dialogue may be engaged. We also show an indication of how an agent could use opponent’s information for its own benefit.Eje: AgentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents

A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6]. Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present. Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved. According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.Eje: Inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Capturing the behaviour of inter-agent dialogues

A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [13]. Argumentation has been used to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems, such as negotiation or coordination [1, 7, 8, 5, 9]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, as a form of social dialogue. According to [15], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all this dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. We also study the use of argumentation formalisms to model the internal process of reasoning of an agent, often called monologues. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.Eje: Inteligencia artificial distribuida, aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificial y teoría de computaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Argument comparison criteria analysis

In this work we show a possible form of classification of comparison methods in argumentation systems [AG95,BV,Dung93,PRAK,Sim92]. The main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. This analysis requires a process of comparison of conflicting arguments, in order to decide which one is preferable. After this dialectical analysis in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. In this classification, the argument comparison method plays a very important role.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems

In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved. In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition. The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems

In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved. In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition. The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI