Cultural transfer as a field for the observation of historical cultural studies. The example of the Russian Empire

This essay was first given as a talk at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, in March 2012 and was slightly revised as a result of the instructive discussions with my colleagues there. Translated from German by John Deasy, Mainz. The article was submitted on 30.04.2014.The article focuses on the concept of cultural transfer not as a historical method per se, but as a field of historical observation. Referring to the examples of individuals, networks and urban milieus, the author discusses the possibilities to highlight the practices of transfer between the Russian Empire and Western Europe, but also within the Russian Empire. It is argued that studies on cultural transfer may firstly fill an important gap between microleveled and macro-leveled approaches. The observation of transfer processes is also a prerequisite for historical comparison. Thus, studying processes and practices of transfers leads to a broader understanding of how culture and society of the Russian Empire functioned.Статья рассматривает явление культурного трансфера не как собственно исторический метод, но как поле исторического наблюдения. На примере отдельных людей и их групп, а также разных типов городской среды изучаются возможности трансфера между Российской империей и Западной Европой, а также внутри Российской империи. Утверждается, во-первых, что изучение культурного трансфера может стать важным звеном между микро- и макроподходами в историческом исследовании. Кроме того, наблюдение над процессами трансфера является необходимым условием для исторического сравнения. Таким образом, изучение процессов и практики трансфера ведет к более глубокому пониманию того, как функционировали культура и общество в Российской империи

Facilitating access to vegetation data - introduction to the special issue

Contains fulltext : 103362.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Regnum Vegetabile Volume 159

The rules that govern the scientific naming of algae, fungi, and plants are revised at the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress (IBC). This edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants embodies the decisions of the XIX IBC, which took place in Shenzhen, China in July, 2017. This Shenzhen Code supersedes the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), published six years ago after the XVIII IBC in Melbourne, Australia, and like its five predecessors, it is written entirely in (British) English. The Melbourne Code was translated into Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish; it is anticipated that the Shenzhen Code, too, will become available in several languages. In questions about the meaning of provisions in translated editions of this Code, the English edition is definitive.© 2018, International Association for Plant Taxonomy. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, or be translated into any other language, without written permission from the copyright holder. https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.ph

(276–279) Proposals to provide for registration of new names and nomenclatural acts

The Melbourne Congress of 2011 authorized a Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils), which was established the following year (Wilson in Taxon 61: 878–879. 2012). Its explicit mandate was “to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included in the Code as Art. 42”, but expectations at the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne went farther than that. There was the hope that registration systems for at least some of the main groups would soon be set up, to be used and tested on a voluntary basis and, if found to be generally accepted, would persuade the subsequent Congress in Shenzhen, in 2017, to declare registration of new names an additional requirement for valid publication. The Melbourne Congress also approved mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties in fungi, starting on 1 Jan 2013. The new Art. 42 of the Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) requires authors to register any fungal nomenclatural novelty, prior to publication, with a recognized repository, whereupon they are provided with a unique identifier for each name, to be included in the protologue along with other Code-mandated information. Years before registration became mandatory, mycologists had been encouraged, often prompted by journal editors, to register their nomenclatural novelties prior to publication. Most complied. Consequently, when mandatory registration was proposed, it had strong support from the mycological community. There are currently three recognized repositories for fungal names. They vary somewhat in how they operate, but they share records of their registered novelties as soon as publication has been effected. One consequence of implementing mandatory registration is that locating new fungal names and combinations and associated protologue information is much simpler now than it was before. This makes it easier to incorporate the information into taxonomic studies and to update taxonomic treatments, inventories, and indices. A corollary is that, no matter what publication outlet an author chooses, the name cannot fail to be noticed. The positive experience in mycology makes extension of the registration concept to plants and algae a compelling idea. That experience shows that the best way to make mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties palatable to botanists and phycologists is the establishment of trial registration at repositories with a history of involvement in and commitment to the indexing of names. Trial registration enables users to acquaint themselves with registration procedures, make suggestions on how they might be improved, and appreciate, by personal experience, the benefits of registration. Unfortunately, the task of establishing such repositories proved to be more complex and time-consuming than had been foreseen. Substantial progress has been made in the establishment of such centres (Barkworth & al., in this issue, pp. 670–672) but the Committee is not in a position to make firm proposals to regulate registration procedures, even less to make registration mandatory from a concrete future date. Nevertheless, the Committee sees it as imperative that the Shenzhen Congress be offered the opportunity to move forward with registration without having to wait six more years. In this spirit, we offer the proposals below. Proposal (276) would declare registration an ongoing concern of the botanical, mycological, and phycological community and provide the basic structure for making it possible. Proposal (277) and Prop. (278) would, in addition, define a flexible framework within which a system of voluntary registration could be developed for various categories of organisms. Proposal (279) would provide for future mandatory registration in a way that does not depend on the six-year intervals between International Botanical Congresses. Presentation of each proposal is followed by a summary of the support received from members of the Committee.Fil: Barkworth, Mary E.. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Watson, Mark. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Barrie, Fred R.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Belyaeva, Irina V.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Chung, Richard C. K.. Forest Research Institute ; MalasiaFil: Dasková, Jirina. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Davidse, Gerrit. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Dönmez, Ali A.. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Doweld, Alexander B.. National Institute Of Carpology; RusiaFil: Dressler, Stefan. Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut Und Naturmuseum; AlemaniaFil: Flann, Christina. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Gandhi, Kanchi. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Geltman, Dmitry. Russian Academy of Science; RusiaFil: Glen, Hugh F.. Forest Hills; SudáfricaFil: Greuter, Werner. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Head, Martin J.. Brock University; CanadáFil: Jahn, Regine. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Janarthanam, Malapati K.. Goa University; IndiaFil: Katinas, Liliana. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División de Plantas Vasculares; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Kirk, Paul M.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Klazenga, Niels. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria; AustraliaFil: Kusber, Wolf-Henning. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Kvacek, Jirí. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Malécot, Valéry. Universite D'angers; FranciaFil: Mann, David G.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Marhold, Karol. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Nagamasu, Hidetoshi. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Nicolson, Nicky. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Paton, Alan. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Patterson, David J.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Michelle J.. Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève; SuizaFil: van Reine, Willem F Prud' Homme. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Schneider, Craig W.. Trinity College Hartford; Estados UnidosFil: Sennikov, Alexander. Russian Academy Of Sciences; RusiaFil: Smith, Gideon F.. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Stevens, Peter F.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Yang, Zhu-Liang. Kunming Institute Of Botany Chinese Academy Of Sciences; ChinaFil: Zhang, Xian-Chun. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Zuccarello, Giuseppe C.. Victoria University Of Wellington; Nueva Zeland

Shigella flexneri Adherence Factor Expression in In Vivo-Like Conditions

The Shigella species are Gram-negative, facultative intracellular pathogens that invade the colonic epithelium and cause significant diarrheal disease. Despite extensive research on the pathogen, a comprehensive understanding of how Shigella initiates contact with epithelial cells remains unknown. Shigella maintains many of the same Escherichia coli adherence gene operons; however, at least one critical gene component in each operon is currently annotated as a pseudogene in reference genomes. These annotations, coupled with a lack of structures upon microscopic analysis following growth in laboratory media, have led the field to hypothesize that Shigella is unable to produce fimbriae or other traditional adherence factors. Nevertheless, our previous analyses have demonstrated that a combination of bile salts and glucose induces both biofilm formation and adherence to colonic epithelial cells. The goal of this study was to perform transcriptomic and genetic analyses to demonstrate that adherence gene operons in Shigella flexneri strain 2457T are functional, despite the gene annotations. Our results demonstrate that at least three structural genes facilitate S. flexneri 2457T adherence for epithelial cell contact and biofilm formation. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that host factors, namely, glucose and bile salts at their physiological concentrations in the small intestine, offer key environmental stimuli required for adherence factor expression in S. flexneri. This research may have a significant impact on Shigella vaccine development and further highlights the importance of utilizing in vivo-like conditions to study bacterial pathogenesis. IMPORTANCE Bacterial pathogens have evolved to regulate virulence gene expression at critical points in the colonization and infection processes to successfully cause disease. The Shigella species infect the epithelial cells lining the colon to result in millions of cases of diarrhea and a significant global health burden. As antibiotic resistance rates increase, understanding the mechanisms of infection is vital to ensure successful vaccine development. Despite significant gains in our understanding of Shigella infection, it remains unknown how the bacteria initiate contact with the colonic epithelium. Most pathogens harbor multiple adherence factors to facilitate this process, but Shigella was thought to have lost the ability to produce these factors. Interestingly, we have identified conditions that mimic some features of gastrointestinal transit and that enable Shigella to express adherence structural genes. This work highlights aspects of genetic regulation for Shigella adherence factors and may have a significant impact on future vaccine development