Effects of GPR139 agonism on effort expenditure for food reward in rodent models: Evidence for pro-motivational actions

Apathy, deficiency of motivation including willingness to exert effort for reward, is a common symptom in many psychiatric and neurological disorders, including depression and schizophrenia. Despite improved understanding of the neurocircuitry and neurochemistry underlying normal and deficient motivation, there is still no approved pharmacological treatment for such a deficiency. GPR139 is an orphan G protein-coupled receptor expressed in brain regions which contribute to the neural circuitry that controls motivation including effortful responding for reward, typically sweet gustatory reward. The GPR139 agonist TAK-041 is currently under development for treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia which include apathy. To date, however, there are no published preclinical data regarding its potential effect on reward motivation or deficiencies thereof. Here we report in vitro evidence confirming that TAK-041 increases intracellular Ca2+ mobilization and has high selectivity for GPR139. In vivo, TAK-041 was brain penetrant and showed a favorable pharmacokinetic profile. It was without effect on extracellular dopamine concentration in the nucleus accumbens. In addition, TAK-041 did not alter the effort exerted to obtain sweet gustatory reward in rats that were moderately food deprived. By contrast, TAK-041 increased the effort exerted to obtain sweet gustatory reward in mice that were only minimally food deprived; furthermore, this effect of TAK-041 occurred both in control mice and in mice in which deficient effortful responding was induced by chronic social stress. Overall, this study provides preclinical evidence in support of GPR139 agonism as a molecular target mechanism for treatment of apathy

Understanding Coexistence With Wildlife

As humans and wildlife come into increasing contact under the pressures of climate change, human development, successful conservation and wildlife recovery, and zoonoses, it is urgent that we learn to facilitate coexistence with wildlife in shared multi-use landscapes, for the wellbeing of both wildlife and people. The terms “human-wildlife conflict” and “human-wildlife coexistence” are both used in work aiming to achieve this, but in both cases a variety of definitions exist. While the term “coexistence” is being increasingly mentioned, possibly linked to a preference for a positive framing of human-wildlife interactions in particular, it is not often defined (see however Pooley in this special issue), and remains understudied. This is partly because conservation scientists are less familiar and less comfortable with the kinds of questions and methodologies required to study human-wildlife coexistence. It is also easier to study things you can count (impacts, e.g., attacks, extent of damage or frequency of interactions) than coexistence, which often involves not doing things (e.g., refraining from retaliation or protesting). This collection of papers offers the most comprehensive and cross disciplinary examination of human-wildlife coexistence published so far. Human-wildlife conflict research increasingly draws on approaches from a diversity of social science and humanities disciplines in order to better understand human-human conflicts over interactions with wildlife. The emphasis in human-wildlife conflict is on understanding and addressing conflicts between different groups of people over wildlife, and reducing negative impacts of wildlife on humans and vice versa. Here, research often focuses on risks and benefits of sharing a landscape with wild animals of conservation concern, and attempts to analyse and influence decision-making over how to do so. Solutions often proposed include separating humans and wildlife, or providing material benefits and compensations to those sharing landscapes with wildlife. This is vital work of direct relevance to policymakers and managers. Some additional dimensions that human-wildlife coexistence studies add to this research focus include a direct interest in positive human-wildlife interactions, and in this context, broader consideration of different ways of valuing and interacting with wildlife and the natural world. In our call for papers for this special issue, we asked contributors to think, about what the scope of human-wildlife coexistence should encompass, and how to study it. We wanted to learn more about coexistence from those places where it is being actively cultivated and researched. The focus of this special issue is on reasons for—and approaches to—coexistence which are not directly related to the material costs or benefits of living with particular species of wild animals. We were particularly interested in human-wildlife interactions in “everyday” shared/mixed-use landscapes, rather than only iconic conservation landscapes. We did not offer contributors any definition of coexistence; rather, we suggested that authors should think through their own conceptions of coexistence. We suggest that conservationists should take care when generalizing such conceptions when attempting to facilitate coexistence in particular scenarios of human-wildlife interaction. We agree with contributors Glikman et al. when they advocate for working with those with relevant interests to define coexistence for particular scenarios. As noted by Pooley in his perspective piece, this requires self-reflexivity and recognition of difference.publishedVersio

Understanding Coexistence With Wildlife

As humans and wildlife come into increasing contact under the pressures of climate change, human development, successful conservation and wildlife recovery, and zoonoses, it is urgent that we learn to facilitate coexistence with wildlife in shared multi-use landscapes, for the wellbeing of both wildlife and people. The terms “human-wildlife conflict” and “human-wildlife coexistence” are both used in work aiming to achieve this, but in both cases a variety of definitions exist. While the term “coexistence” is being increasingly mentioned, possibly linked to a preference for a positive framing of human-wildlife interactions in particular, it is not often defined (see however Pooley in this special issue), and remains understudied. This is partly because conservation scientists are less familiar and less comfortable with the kinds of questions and methodologies required to study human-wildlife coexistence. It is also easier to study things you can count (impacts, e.g., attacks, extent of damage or frequency of interactions) than coexistence, which often involves not doing things (e.g., refraining from retaliation or protesting). This collection of papers offers the most comprehensive and cross disciplinary examination of human-wildlife coexistence published so far. Human-wildlife conflict research increasingly draws on approaches from a diversity of social science and humanities disciplines in order to better understand human-human conflicts over interactions with wildlife. The emphasis in human-wildlife conflict is on understanding and addressing conflicts between different groups of people over wildlife, and reducing negative impacts of wildlife on humans and vice versa. Here, research often focuses on risks and benefits of sharing a landscape with wild animals of conservation concern, and attempts to analyse and influence decision-making over how to do so. Solutions often proposed include separating humans and wildlife, or providing material benefits and compensations to those sharing landscapes with wildlife. This is vital work of direct relevance to policymakers and managers. Some additional dimensions that human-wildlife coexistence studies add to this research focus include a direct interest in positive human-wildlife interactions, and in this context, broader consideration of different ways of valuing and interacting with wildlife and the natural world. In our call for papers for this special issue, we asked contributors to think, about what the scope of human-wildlife coexistence should encompass, and how to study it. We wanted to learn more about coexistence from those places where it is being actively cultivated and researched. The focus of this special issue is on reasons for—and approaches to—coexistence which are not directly related to the material costs or benefits of living with particular species of wild animals. We were particularly interested in human-wildlife interactions in “everyday” shared/mixed-use landscapes, rather than only iconic conservation landscapes. We did not offer contributors any definition of coexistence; rather, we suggested that authors should think through their own conceptions of coexistence. We suggest that conservationists should take care when generalizing such conceptions when attempting to facilitate coexistence in particular scenarios of human-wildlife interaction. We agree with contributors Glikman et al. when they advocate for working with those with relevant interests to define coexistence for particular scenarios. As noted by Pooley in his perspective piece, this requires self-reflexivity and recognition of difference

Floral homeotic genes were recruited from homologous MADS-box genes preexisting in the common ancestor of ferns and seed plants

Flowers sensu lato are short, specialized axes bearing closely aggregated sporophylls. They are typical for seed plants (spermatophytes) and are prominent in flowering plants sensu stricto (angiosperms), where they often comprise an attractive perianth. There is evidence that spermatophytes evolved from gymnosperm-like plants with a fern-like mode of reproduction called progymnosperms. It seems plausible, therefore, that the stamens/carpels and pollen sacs/nucelli of spermatophytes are homologous to fern sporophylls and sporangia, respectively. However, the exact mode and molecular basis of early seed and flower evolution is not yet known. Comparing flower developmental control genes to their homologs from lower plants that do not flower may help to clarify the issue. We have isolated and characterized MADS-box genes expressed in gametophytes and sporophytes of the fern Ceratopteris. The data indicate that at least two different MADS-box genes homologous to floral homeotic genes existed in the last common ancestor of contemporary vascular plants, some descendants of which underwent multiple duplications and diversifications and were recruited into novel developmental networks during the evolution of floral organs

Comparative Study between Direct and Pseudomorphic Transformation of Rice Husk Ash into MFI-Type Zeolite

Pre-shaped mesoporous amorphous rice husk ash (RHA) and MCM-41 derived from RHA as a silica source were transformed into MFI-type zeolites using two different structure-directing agents. Tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAOH) was utilized as an alkali source for silica dissolution and structure control during the direct transformation of RHA into zeolite. A monopropylamine (PA)-containing alkaline solution (NaOH) was used for the pseudomorphic transformation of RHA or MCM-41 into zeolite. The hydrothermal conversion of RHA or MCM-41 into MFI-type zeolites was investigated as a function of reaction time at 175 °C. With PA as template, the crystallization took place inside and on the outer surface of RHA or MCM-41 without losing the original shape of the initial silica sources, while TPAOH led to the formation of conventional MFI-type zeolite crystals due to the complete dissolution of RHA. The final products were characterized by X-ray diffraction, nitrogen adsorption, scanning electron microscopy, and optical emission spectroscopy