The many possible climates from the Paris Agreement’s aim of 1.5 °C warming

The United Nations’ Paris Agreement includes the aim of pursuing efforts to limit global warming to only 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, it is not clear what the resulting climate would look like across the globe and over time. Here we show that trajectories towards a ‘1.5 °C warmer world’ may result in vastly different outcomes at regional scales, owing to variations in the pace and location of climate change and their interactions with society’s mitigation, adaptation and vulnerabilities to climate change. Pursuing policies that are considered to be consistent with the 1.5 °C aim will not completely remove the risk of global temperatures being much higher or of some regional extremes reaching dangerous levels for ecosystems and societies over the coming decades

Summary of linear regressions fit to dual pericyte membrane potential records during vasoconstrictor application.

<p>Summary of linear regressions fit to dual pericyte membrane potential records during vasoconstrictor application.</p

Dual recording from pericytes and endothelia during AngII exposure, cells associated or spatially separated.

<p><b>A.</b> Resting potential of pericytes and endothelia that are associated on the DVR wall (as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0154948#pone.0154948.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5A</a>). Endothelial cells were significantly hyperpolarized relative to the pericytes (paired t-test, n = 6, ** P < 0.01). <b>B.</b> Simultaneous endothelial and pericyte resting membrane potentials from panel A superimposed on the line of identity. By linear regression, values were highly correlated (DF = 5, F = 221, R = 0.99, P < 0.001). <b>C.</b> Resting potential of pericytes and endothelia dissociated from one another (as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0154948#pone.0154948.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5B</a>). Resting potentials were not significantly different (n = 7). <b>D.</b> Simultaneous endothelial and pericyte resting membrane potentials from panel C superimposed on the line of identity. A significant correlation was not observed (DF = 6, F = 0.13, R = 0.16, P = 0.73).</p

Summary of simultaneous pericyte and endothelial membrane potential responses to AngII with and without cell contact.

<p><b>A.</b> Summary of average membrane potential before (resting), during peak depolarization (AngII), and after washout (n = 6, P-E configuration, as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0154948#pone.0154948.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5A</a>). The depolarizations (mean ± SEM) were significant (repeated measures ANOVA, DF = 17, F = 12.9, P < 0.01). By Holm-Sidak multiple comparison; **, P < 0.01 resting vs AngII, ##, P < 0.01 AngII vs washout. Pericyte and endothelial depolarizations were nearly identical (no significant differences between cell types). <b>B.</b> Summary of average membrane potentials before, during AngII, and after washout (n = 6, PxE configuration as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0154948#pone.0154948.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5A</a>). The pericyte depolarizations (mean ± SEM) were significant (repeated measures ANOVA, DF = 17, F = 53.5, P < 0.01). By Holm-Sidak multiple comparison; ##, P < 0.01 resting vs AngII or AngII vs washout. In contrast to the P-E configuration, in the absence of pericyte contact, AngII did not alter endothelial membrane potential; (group t-test, ** P < 0.01 endothelia vs pericytes during AngII exposure).</p

Dual recording from pericyte and endothelium during AngII exposure and gap junction blockade.

<p><b>A.</b> Photomicrograph of the dual pericyte, endothelial preparation that yielded the recording in panel B. The black bar = 10 microns. <b>B.</b> Electrophysiological record; square wave depolarizations from -80 to -30 mV were imposed at regular intervals on a voltage clamped pericyte. The endothelial response during pericyte depolarization (top) and the pericyte command potential (bottom) are shown before, during and after application of heptanol (2 mM). <b>C.</b> Summary of experiments similar to that shown in panel B. The average membrane potential deviation of the endothelium is shown before, during and after washout of heptanol, which reversibly attenuated conduction (mean ± SEM, n = 6). Repeated measures ANOVA, DF = 17, F = 19.5, P < 0.001. By Holm-Sidak multiple comparison; * P < 0.05 baseline vs heptanol, # P < 0.05, heptanol vs washout. <b>D.</b> Summary of experiments similar to that shown in panel B, but with 18BGRA (20 microM) as the gap junction blocker (mean ± SEM, n = 8). Repeated measures ANOVA, DF = 23, F = 38.6, P < 0.001. By Holm-Sidak multiple comparison; ** P < 0.01 baseline vs 18BGRA, # P < 0.05 18BGRA vs washout.</p

Configurations for simultaneous recording from DVR pericytes and endothelia.

<p><b>A.</b> Left and right panels show schematic depiction and photomicrograph of a partially denuded DVR with simultaneous dual-cell patch clamp of a pericyte and an endothelial cell that retain contact (abbreviated P-E). <b>B.</b> Left and right panels show a schematic depiction and photomicrograph of a DVR, fully denuded of pericytes, with simultaneous dual-cell patch clamp of each cell type when they have no contact (abbreviated PxE). These configurations were used to test the importance of cell contact for AngII dependent membrane potential responses. The black bars = 10 microns.</p

Simultaneous membrane potential recording in two pericytes during exposure to vasoconstrictors.

<p><b>A. AngII:</b> Left panel shows an example of membrane potential responses of two pericytes on a DVR during exposure to AngII (10 nM, similar to n = 5). Resting potentials prior to AngII were -71 mV and -69 mV. <b>B. AVP:</b> Left panel shows an example of membrane potential responses of two pericytes during exposure to AVP (100 nM, similar to n = 5). Resting potentials prior to exposure were -61 mV and -62 mV. <b>C. ET1:</b> Left panel shows an example of membrane potential responses of two pericytes during exposure to Endothelin 1 (ET1, 1 nM, similar to n = 5). Resting potentials prior to exposure were -46 mV and -45 mV. For all constrictors, temporally similar variations of paired pericytes persisted throughout the recordings. Right panels show dashed lines of identity with individual data points of the adjacent records superimposed upon them.</p

Descending Vasa Recta Endothelial Membrane Potential Response Requires Pericyte Communication - Fig 4

<p><b>A.</b> Single examples of AngII (10 nM) stimulated membrane potentials of paired pericytes isolated from endothelium, either in contact (<b>A</b>, P-P) or without contact (<b>B</b>, PxP). In each example the individual data points are superimposed upon the dashed line of identity. <b>C.</b> Summary of mean ± SEM of correlation coefficients for P-P and PxP configurations (n = 8 each; **, P < 0.01). Other summaries are provided in <b><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0154948#pone.0154948.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a></b>.</p

Simultaneous membrane potential recording from isolated pericytes; pericytes in contact.

<p>Schematic drawings and photomicrographs of dual recording from isolated pericytes in contact (<b>A, B,</b> designated P-P) on a coverslip or isolated without contact (<b>C, D,</b> designated PxP). The black bars = 10 microns.</p