Modulation of olfactory information in the antennal lobe of Spodoptera littoralis

In order to respond appropriately to external stimuli, e.g. odours in the environment,insects have to evaluate these stimuli in a context of relevance and need. These decisions are, in turn, based on internal physiological status, such as mating status. In the cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis, mating induces profound physiological changes that alter the behavioural output to fit with the current needs of the animal. In female S. littoralis, mating switches the behavioural attraction from food sources to oviposition sites and concurrently down- and up-regulates olfactory neuron sensitivity. This switch in olfactory sensitivity is correlated with a transient increase in dopamine levels in the primary olfactory brain centres, the antennal lobes. In male S. littoralis, mating induces a transient behavioural and olfactory inhibition towards female-emitted sex pheromone as well as to mating site-related odours. However, responses towards food sources remain constant. The shift in olfactory responsiveness is not correlated with changes in dopamine levels, but may be regulated by neuropeptides expressed in the olfactory system. Distribution patterns of 6 of the most abundant neuropeptides reveal distinct differential expressions within the antennal lobe glomerular array, providing the possibility for selective and state-dependent modulation of the olfactory system

A novel derivative of thioridazine shows low toxicity and efficient activity against gram‐positive pathogens

Thioridazine hydrochloride (HCl) has been suggested as a promising antimicrobial helper compound for the treatment of infections with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Unfortunately, the therapeutic concentration of thioridazine HCl is generally higher than what can be tolerated clinically, in part due to its toxic side effects on the central nervous system. Therefore, we aimed to synthesize a less toxic thioridazine derivative that would still retain its properties as a helper compound. This resulted in a compound designated 1-methyl-2-(2-(2-(methylthio)-10H-phenothiazin-10-yl)ethyl)-1-pentylpiperidin-1-ium bromide (abbreviated T5), which exhibited low blood–brain barrier permeability. The lowest minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) against Staphylococcus aureus exposed to the novel compound was reduced 32-fold compared to thioridazine HCl (from 32 µg/mL to 1 µg/mL). The MIC values for T5 against five Gram-positive pathogens ranged from 1 µg/mL to 8 µg/mL. In contrast to thioridazine HCl, T5 does not act synergistically with oxacillin. In silico predictive structure analysis of T5 suggests that an acceptably low toxicity and lack of induced cytotoxicity was demonstrated by a lactate dehydrogenase assay. Conclusively, T5 is suggested as a novel antimicrobial agent against Gram-positive bacteria. However, future pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are needed to clarify the clinical potential of this novel discovery

BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be able to perform new tasks based on a few demonstrations or natural language instructions. While these capabilities have led to widespread adoption, most LLMs are developed by resource-rich organizations and are frequently kept from the public. As a step towards democratizing this powerful technology, we present BLOOM, a 176B-parameter open-access language model designed and built thanks to a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. BLOOM is a decoder-only Transformer language model that was trained on the ROOTS corpus, a dataset comprising hundreds of sources in 46 natural and 13 programming languages (59 in total). We find that BLOOM achieves competitive performance on a wide variety of benchmarks, with stronger results after undergoing multitask prompted finetuning. To facilitate future research and applications using LLMs, we publicly release our models and code under the Responsible AI License

A Viking silver hoard from Brokhøj, Gjerrild Klint

A Viking Silver Hoard from Brokhøj, Gjerrild Klint The coins The hoard of Gjerrild includes 20 pieces of scrap silver and 74 coins. Most of the coins are Cufic dirhems but there is also a fragment from Hedeby (no. 72) and what appears to be a German 10th century coin (no. 73). Only four of the dirhems are whole; the others are more or less unreadable fragments, most of which Gert Rispling never the less has succeded in identifying. A cross or a rune has been scratched into one of the dirhems (no. 23). Such graffiti occur on several of the dirhems found in Scandinavia and may have been a sort of owner's marking. Most of the coins were issued by the Samanids in the 10th cent., but there are also a few items from the Abbasids in the 9th cent. (no. s. 1-3) and the Buwhayids in the 10th cent. (no. 59). Apart from the regular Arabic issues the board includes two Samanid imitations (nr. 61-62). The earliest coin of the hoard (no. 1) was struck 832-47 A.D., and the latest one (no. 28) is from 953/54 A.D. The Gjerrild hoard with its mixture of scrap silver and coins is parallelled by other Scandinavian viking age hoards. The c. 3000 dirhems found in Denmark derive from a number of stray finds and from 60-70 hoards of different size. Some of the hoards are purely Cufic, others are mixed with European coins and normally they contain both coins and jewellery. The Swedish material consists of c. 70.000 dirhems, 60.000 of which come from Gotland. In Finland c. 1700 dirhems were found and in Norway about 400. Similar hoards occur out­side Scandinavia -at the south coast of the Baltic sea, at the Gulf of Finland and along the Polish and Russian rivers. It seems that the import of dirhems to North Europe began c. 800, even if it did not reach Denmark until somewhat later. The stream culminates about the middle of the 8th cent. and stops almost completely in 1010-20. It is fairly certain that the dirhems found in Denmark did not all arrive at the same time. If we compare the latest coins in the Danish 10th cent. hoards, it appears that all decennii between 910 and 970 A.D. are represented (fig. 1). Thus it is likely chat there was a regular coin import to Denmark during a sixty-year period, but at present we cannot decide whether the coins were acquired by trade or by less peaceful activities. Since the dirhems which reached Denmark must have left Russia either via Sweden or via Poland, it seems worth while to see if a comparation between the Danish hoards and those of Sweden and Poland might improve our knowledge of the import routes. An analysis of the Swedish hoards has been made by Thomas S. Noonan, but it is difficult to make a similar analysis of the Danish material, since so few details are known of the hoards found in the 18th and 19th cent. Thus the present survey, which is based on a very small number of coins, must be used with caution, and the same is true of the Polish/Pomeranian survey. When we -with such reservations in mind -compare the hoards (fig. 2-6), we find that, even if the percentage of coins from the period before 890 is approximately the same in all the three groups, there are certain differences in the structure of the hoards. The Swedish material culminates after 900 and declines rapidly after 920. The Polish/Pomeranian material has a similar, if less marked rise in the same period, followed by another rise in the 940’es. The Danish hoards which also culminate around the year 900, decline as early as c. 910. But in the Danish finds the period between 930 and 950 is more richly represented than in the Swedish hoards. The Swedish material has an earlier character than chat of the other countries, since as much as. c. 62% of the coins were struck before 920. In Poland/Pomerania the corresponding figure is c. 52% and in Denmark only c. 50%. A conclusion might be that Danish hoards were not deposited immediately after importation from Sweden or Poland, but circulated long enough for the two groups to get mixed. But what does "circulation" signify in this connection? Since the first Danish coins were issued as early c. 825, it seems likely that coins were known and used at least in some places, but it is doubtful, if their use was widespread. Hedeby coins of the earliest types are not frequent in Danish finds, and the fact that most dirhem hoards also include scrap silver indicates that dirhems may have been used as payment but not as coins whose weight and metal were guaranteed by the stamp. It is true that some of the fragments are carefully cut in halfs quarters as small change. But such pieces also occur in the Islamic countries, and were probably made there. After an examination of the fragments in Polish dirhem hoards, S. Suchodolski has come to the conclusion that the farther a board has been removed from its homeland, the more fragments it contains, and the smaller the fragments. The weight of the fragments in the Polish hoards varies, but it keeps inside certain limits, and it seems that there was need for very small units as payment in the Baltic zone. Turning to the Danish finds it appears that the Over Randlev hoard has no fragments at all. In the Stengade board the fragments are neatly cut pieces, but almost all the other hoards contain both cut and rudely broken fragments. In this connection it seems to be of no importance at all where the hoards have been found, or whether they are early or late. Most of the fragments of the Gjerrild board are irregularly broken bits weighing between 0.02 and 1.98 g. As small change they must have been very difficult to use, and it is more likely that our board functioned as a small metal store, which could be weighed out and used as payment, or could be melted down and transformed into other objects. The structure of Danish 10th cent. hoards with their varying proportion of dirhems and Euorpean coins signifies that the ordinary Dane had little interest in the nationality of the coins he got hold of as long they were made of good silver. The Gjerrild board appears to have more in common with the Polish hoards than with the Swedish ones -but here again we must remember the defectiveness of the material on which the examination was based. With its strong concentration of coins from the 940's and 930's the find from Gjerrild is no typical Danish dirhem board, and it is tempting to suggest that the deposition in fact took place some years later than the date of the youngest coin from 954 seems to indicate. Anne Kromann                      &nbsp