Glutamatergic Plasticity in Medial Prefrontal Cortex and Ventral Tegmental Area Following Extended-Access Cocaine Self-Administration

Glutamate signaling in prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental area plays an important role in the molecular and behavioral plasticity associated with addiction to drugs of abuse. The current study investigated the expression and postsynaptic density redistribution of glutamate receptors and synaptic scaffolding proteins in dorsomedial and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental area after cocaine self-administration. After 14 days of extended-access (6 h/day) cocaine self-administration, rats were exposed to one of three withdrawal regimen for 10 days. Animals either stayed in home cages (Home), returned to self-administration boxes with the levers withdrawn (Box), or underwent extinction training (Extinction). Extinction training was associated with significant glutamatergic plasticity. In dorsomedial prefrontal cortex of the Extinction group, there was an increase in postsynaptic density GluR1, PSD95, and actin proteins; while postsynaptic density mGluR5 protein decreased and there was no change in NMDAR1, Homer1b/c, or PICK1 proteins. These changes were not observed in ventromedial prefrontal cortex or ventral tegmental area. In ventral tegmental area, Extinction training reversed the decreased postsynaptic density NMDAR1 protein in the Home and Box withdrawal groups. These data suggest that extinction of drug seeking is associated with selective glutamatergic plasticity in prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental area that include modulation of receptor trafficking to postsynaptic density

Embedding social inclusiveness and appropriateness in engineering assessment of green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience

Urban resilience emerges not only from ‘what’ is done in relation to critical infrastructure systems, but in the ‘how’ of their conception, co-creation and integration into complex socio-ecological-technical systems. For green infrastructure, where ownership and agency may be distributed amongst organisations and diverse communities, inclusiveness and appropriateness require embedding in engineering assessments of green infrastructure and resilience. Through consideration of past, present and future engineering and resilience assessments – from monetising, through greening, to humanising – this paper examines the ways in which GI may be or has already contributed to enhancing urban resilience and types of assessment and indicators that have been or could be used. We suggest that enhancing visibility of the ‘whos’ (individuals, communities) is crucial to fully diversifying assessments. We also suggest some ideas for additional indicators and assert that co-production of future indicators needs to be undertaken with appropriate professionals (e.g. social impact assessment professionals)

The Long-Term Structure of Commodity Futures

Futures markets on agricultural commodities typically trade with maximum maturity dates of less than four years. If these markets did trade with maturities eight or ten years distant, futures prices would have value as price forecasts and as a way to structure long-term swaps and insurance contracts. Agricultural commodity markets generally exhibit mean reversion in spot prices and convenience yields. Spot markets also exhibit seasonality. This study develops and implements a procedure to generate long-term futures curves from existing futures prices. Data on lean hogs and soybeans are used to show that the method provides plausible results

Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions

© 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as a promising approach to help cities adapt to climate change through the provision of multiple ecosystem services. However, GI contributions to urban resilience will not be realized until it is more fully mainstreamed in the built environment and design professions. Here, we interrogate five key challenges for the effective implementation of GI: (1) design standards; (2) regulatory pathways; (3) socio-economic considerations; (4) financeability; and (5) innovation. Methods include a literature review, case studies, and interviews with resilience managers. We propose a people-centred and context-dependent approach to advance effective implementation of GI in urban planning. We highlight two underlying currents that run across all of the challenges–(1) the role of political will as a pre-condition for tackling all challenges holistically; and (2) the role of stakeholder engagement in achieving public support, harnessing funding, and maintaining and monitoring GI in the long term. Highlights: • The effective implementation of GI is context-specific and should adhere to the basic principles of appropriate technology. • Continuous community engagement is needed to ensure the inclusivity and multi-functionality of GI. • Challenges to successful GI are intersectional and therefore cannot be addressed singly in isolation

Crop Updates 2002 - Weeds

This session covers fifty eight papers from different authors: 1. INTRODUCTION Vanessa Stewart, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IWM system studies / demonstration sites 2. Major outcomes from IWM demonstration sites, Alexandra Douglas Department of Agriculture 3. Integrated weed management: Katanning, Alexandra Douglas Department of Agriculture 4. Integrated weed management: Merredin, Vanessa Stewart Department of Agriculture 5. Long term resistance site: Get ryegrass numbers low and keep them low! Peter Newman and Glen Adams Department of Agriculture 6. Using pastures to manage ryegrass populations, Andrew Blake and Natalie Lauritsen Department of Agriculture Weed biology and competition 7. Understanding the weed seed bank life if important agricultural weeds, Sally Peltzer and Paul Matson Department of Agriculture 8. Consequence of radish competition on lupin nutrients in wheat-lupin rotation, Abul Hashem and Nerys Wilkins Department of Agriculture 9. Consequence of ryegrass competition on lupin nutrients in a wheat-lupin rotation, Abul Hashem and Nerys Wilkins Department of Agriculture 10. Brome grass too competitive for early sown wheat in a dry year at Mullewa, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam Department of Agriculture Crop establishment and weed management 11. Seeding rate, row spacing and herbicides for weed control, David Minkey Department of Agriculture 12. Effect of different seeding methods on wheat and ryegrass, Abul Hashem, Glen Riethmuller and Nerys Wilkins Department of Agriculture 13. Role of tillage implements and trifluralin on the effectiveness of the autumn tickle for stimulating annual ryegrass emergence, Tim Cusack1, Kathryn Steadman1 and Abul Hashem2,1Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA; 2Department of Agriculture, 14. Timing of autumn tickle in important for non-wetting soils, Pippa Michael1, Peter Newman2 and Kathryn Steadman 2, 1Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA, 2Department of Agriculture 15. Early investigation into weed seed burial by mouldboard plough, Sally Peltzer and Alex Douglas Department of Agriculture 16. Rolling post-emergent lupins to improve weed emergence and control on loamy sand, Paul Blackwell, Department of Agriculture and Dave Brindal, Strawberry via Mingenew IWM tools 17. Crop topping in 2001: How did we do? Peter Newman and Glenn Adam Department of Agriculture 18. Wickwipers work! Peter Newman and Glenn Adam Department of Agriculture 19. Wild radish and ryegrass seed collection at harvest: Chaff carts and other devices, Michael Walsh Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA and Wayne Parker Department of Agriculture 20. Improving weed control in grazed pastures using legumes with low palatability, Clinton Revell, Giles Glasson Department of Agriculture, and Dean Thomas Faculty of Agriculture, University of Western Australia Adoption and modelling 21. Grower weed survey, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam Department of Agriculture 22. Agronomist survey, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam Department of Agriculture 23. Ryegrass RIM model stands the test of IWM field trial data, Alister Draper Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA and Bill Roy, Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA Agricultural Consulting and Research Services 24. Multi-species RIM: An update, Marta Monjardin1,2, David Pannell2 and Stephen Powles 1, 1Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA, 2 ARE, University of Western Australia 25. RIM survey feedback, Robert Barrett-Lennard and Alister Draper Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA 26. Effect of historic input and product prices on choice of ryegrass management strategies, Alister Draper1 and Martin Bent2, 1Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA, 2Muresk Institute of Agriculture 27. Living with ryegrass – trading off weed control and economic performance, Martin Bent1 and Alister Draper2 , 1Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Curtin University, 2Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, UWA HERBICIDE RESISTANCE 28. Glyphosate resistance in WA and Australia: Where are we at? Paul Neve1, Art Diggle2, Patrick Smith3, Mechelle Owen1, Abul Hashem2, Christopher Preston4and Stephen Powles1,1Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture, 3CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 4CRC for Australian Weed Management and Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide 29. We need you weeds: A survey of knockdown resistance in the WA wheatbelt, Paul Neve1, Mechelle Owen1, Abul Hashem2 and Stephen Powles1 1Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 30. A test for resistance testing, Mechelle Owen, Tracey Gillam, Rick Llewellyn and Steve Powles,Western Australia Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia 31. In field testing for herbicide resistance, a purpose built multi-treatment spray boom with results from 2001, Richard Quinlan, Elders Ltd 32. Advantages and limitations of a purpose built multi-treatment spray boom, Richard Quinlan, Elders Ltd 33. Group F resistant wild radish: What’s new? Aik Cheam, Siew Lee Department of Agriculture, and Mike Clarke Aventis Crop Science 34. Cross resistance of Brodal® resistant wild radish to Sniper®, Aik Cheam and Siew Lee, Department of Agriculture 35. Managing a biotype of wild radish with Group F and Group C resistance, Aik Cheam, Siew Lee, David Nicholson, Peter Newman Department of Agriculture and Mike Clarke, Aventis Crop Science HERBICIDE TOLERANCE 36. Herbicide tolerance of new wheat varieties, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and David Nicholson, Agriculture Western Australia 37. Response of barley varieties to herbicides, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper, Department of Agriculture 38. Tolerance of barley to phenoxy herbicides, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper, Department of Agriculture and Chad Sayer, Nufarm Australia Limited 39. Response of Durum wheats to herbicides, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper, Department of Agriculture 40. Response of new field pea varieties to herbicides, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 41. Herbicide tolerance of Desi chickpeas on marginal soil, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 42. Herbicide tolerance of newer lupin varieties, Terry Piper, Harmohinder Dhammu and David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 43. Herbicide tolerance of some annual pasture legumes, Clinton Revell and Ian Rose, Department of Agriculture 44. Herbicide tolerance of pasture legumes, Andrew Blake, Department of Agriculture HERBICIDES – NEW PRODUCTS/PRODUCT USES; USE 45. Knockdown herbicides do not reliably kill small grass weeds, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 46. ‘Hair Cutting’ wheat with Spray.Seed®: Does it work? Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 47. ‘Haircutting’: Does the number one cut work? Robert Barrett-Lennard1 and Jerome Critch2,1WA Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of WA, 2Student, University of WA 48. Hammer EC (Carfentrazone-ethyl): A mixing partner for glyphosate to enhance the control of difficult broadleaf weeds, Gordon R. Cumming, Crop Care Australasia 49. Marshmallow control in reduced tillage systems, Sam Taylor, Wesfarmers Landmark 50. Herbicide options for summer germinating marshmallow, Vanessa Stewart, Department of Agriculture 51. Dual Gold® safe in a dry year at Coorow, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 52. The effect of glyphosate, paraquat and diquat as a crop topping application on the germination of barley, John Moore and Roslyn Jettner, Department of Agriculture 53. Herbicide options for melon control, Vanessa Stewart, Department of Agriculture 54. Herbicide options for the control of Chloris truncate (windmill grass) Vanessa Stewart, Department of Agriculture 55. Allelopathic effects of crop, pasture and weed residues on subsequent crop and pasture establishment, Stuart Bee1, Lionel Martin1, Keith Devenish2 and Terry Piper2, 1Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Curtin University of Technology, Northam, Western Australia, 2Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture WEED ISSUES 56. Role of Roundup ReadyÒ canola in the farming system, Art Diggle1, Patrick Smith2, Paul Neve3, Felicity Flugge4, Amir Abadi5 and Stephen Powles3, 1Department of Agriculture; 2CSIRO, Sustainable Ecosystems; 3Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative; 4Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture; 5Touchstone Consulting 57. ’Weeds for Feed’ and livestock enterprise structures: A feasibility study and farmer survey in the north-easern wheatbelt, Duncan Peter and Stuart McAlpine, Department of Agriculture and Liebe Group, Buntine 58. e-weed, Vanessa Stewart, Agriculture Western Australi

Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Protects Histoplasma Yeast Cells from Host-Derived Oxidative Stress

In order to establish infections within the mammalian host, pathogens must protect themselves against toxic reactive oxygen species produced by phagocytes of the immune system. The fungal pathogen Histoplasma capsulatum infects both neutrophils and macrophages but the mechanisms enabling Histoplasma yeasts to survive in these phagocytes have not been fully elucidated. We show that Histoplasma yeasts produce a superoxide dismutase (Sod3) and direct it to the extracellular environment via N-terminal and C-terminal signals which promote its secretion and association with the yeast cell surface. This localization permits Sod3 to protect yeasts specifically from exogenous superoxide whereas amelioration of endogenous reactive oxygen depends on intracellular dismutases such as Sod1. While infection of resting macrophages by Histoplasma does not stimulate the phagocyte oxidative burst, interaction with polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) and cytokine-activated macrophages triggers production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Histoplasma yeasts producing Sod3 survive co-incubation with these phagocytes but yeasts lacking Sod3 are rapidly eliminated through oxidative killing similar to the effect of phagocytes on Candida albicans yeasts. The protection provided by Sod3 against host-derived ROS extends in vivo. Without Sod3, Histoplasma yeasts are attenuated in their ability to establish respiratory infections and are rapidly cleared with the onset of adaptive immunity. The virulence of Sod3-deficient yeasts is restored in murine hosts unable to produce superoxide due to loss of the NADPH-oxidase function. These results demonstrate that phagocyte-produced ROS contributes to the immune response to Histoplasma and that Sod3 facilitates Histoplasma pathogenesis by detoxifying host-derived reactive oxygen thereby enabling Histoplasma survival

Copy Number Variants Are Ovarian Cancer Risk Alleles at Known and Novel Risk Loci

BACKGROUND: Known risk alleles for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) account for approximately 40% of the heritability for EOC. Copy number variants (CNVs) have not been investigated as EOC risk alleles in a large population cohort. METHODS: Single nucleotide polymorphism array data from 13 071 EOC cases and 17 306 controls of White European ancestry were used to identify CNVs associated with EOC risk using a rare admixture maximum likelihood test for gene burden and a by-probe ratio test. We performed enrichment analysis of CNVs at known EOC risk loci and functional biofeatures in ovarian cancer-related cell types. RESULTS: We identified statistically significant risk associations with CNVs at known EOC risk genes; BRCA1 (PEOC = 1.60E-21; OREOC = 8.24), RAD51C (Phigh-grade serous ovarian cancer [HGSOC] = 5.5E-4; odds ratio [OR]HGSOC = 5.74 del), and BRCA2 (PHGSOC = 7.0E-4; ORHGSOC = 3.31 deletion). Four suggestive associations (P < .001) were identified for rare CNVs. Risk-associated CNVs were enriched (P < .05) at known EOC risk loci identified by genome-wide association study. Noncoding CNVs were enriched in active promoters and insulators in EOC-related cell types. CONCLUSIONS: CNVs in BRCA1 have been previously reported in smaller studies, but their observed frequency in this large population-based cohort, along with the CNVs observed at BRCA2 and RAD51C gene loci in EOC cases, suggests that these CNVs are potentially pathogenic and may contribute to the spectrum of disease-causing mutations in these genes. CNVs are likely to occur in a wider set of susceptibility regions, with potential implications for clinical genetic testing and disease prevention

Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction.

Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction