A framework for the practical science necessary to restore sustainable, resilient, and biodiverse ecosystems

Demand for restoration of resilient, self-sustaining, and biodiverse natural ecosystems as a conservation measure is increasing globally; however, restoration efforts frequently fail to meet standards appropriate for this objective. Achieving these standards requires management underpinned by input from diverse scientific disciplines including ecology, biotechnology, engineering, soil science, ecophysiology, and genetics. Despite increasing restoration research activity, a gap between the immediate needs of restoration practitioners and the outputs of restoration science often limits the effectiveness of restoration programs. Regrettably, studies often fail to identify the practical issues most critical for restoration success. We propose that part of this oversight may result from the absence of a considered statement of the necessary practical restoration science questions. Here we develop a comprehensive framework of the research required to bridge this gap and guide effective restoration. We structure questions in five themes: (1) setting targets and planning for success, (2) sourcing biological material, (3) optimizing establishment, (4) facilitating growth and survival, and (5) restoring resilience, sustainability, and landscape integration. This framework will assist restoration practitioners and scientists to identify knowledge gaps and develop strategic research focused on applied outcomes. The breadth of questions highlights the importance of cross-discipline collaboration among restoration scientists, and while the program is broad, successful restoration projects have typically invested in many or most of these themes. Achieving restoration ecology's goal of averting biodiversity losses is a vast challenge: investment in appropriate science is urgently needed for ecological restoration to fulfill its potential and meet demand as a conservation too

Author Correction: Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts

1 Pág. Correción errata.In the version of this Article originally published, the surname of author Tina Parkhurst was incorrectly written as Schroeder. This has now been corrected.Peer reviewe

Bis(oxyphenylene)benzimidazoles: a novel class of anti-Plasmodium falciparum agents

A small library of 26 2,2'-[alkane-alpha,omega-diylbis(oxyphenylene)]bis-1H-benzimidazoles has been prepared and evaluated against Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica, Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, Trypanosoma cruzi, Leishmania donovani, and Plasmodium falciparum. Among the tested compounds, eight derivatives (17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32 and 35) exhibited an anti-Plasmodium falciparum activity characterized by IC(50) values in the range of 180-410nM (0.11-0.21mug/mL) and selectivity indexes (IC(50) rat skeletal myoblasts L6 cells vs IC(50)P. falciparum K1 strain) varying between 92 and more than 450. Two of the eight novel drug leads, namely compounds 19 and 32, were also active against G. intestinalis and L. donovani with selectivity indexes of 122 and <164 respectivel

1,4-diarylpiperazines and analogs as anti-tubercular agents: synthesis and biological evaluation36446

&lt;p&gt;Despite progress in modern chemotherapy to combat tuberculosis, the causative pathogen&lt;/p&gt;</p

Alkanediamide-Linked Bisbenzamidines are Promising Antiparasitic Agents

A series of 15 alkanediamide-linked bisbenzamidines and related analogs was synthesized and tested in vitro against two Trypanosoma brucei (T.b.) subspecies: T.b. brucei and T.b. rhodesiense, Trypanosoma cruzi, Leishmania donovani and two Plasmodium falciparum subspecies: A chloroquine-sensitive strain (NF54) and a chloroquine-resistant strain (K1). The in vitro cytotoxicity was determined against rat myoblast cells (L6). Seven compounds (5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15) showed high potency against both strains of T. brucei and P. falciparum with the inhibitory concentrations for 50% (IC50) in the nanomolar range (IC50 = 1-96 nM). None of the tested derivatives was significantly active against T. cruzi or L. donovani. Three of the more potent compounds (5, 6, 11) were evaluated in vivo in mice infected with the drug-sensitive (Lab 110 EATRO and KETRI 2002) or drug-resistant (KETRI 2538 and KETRI 1992) clinical isolates of T. brucei. Compounds 5 and 6 were highly effective in curing mice infected with the drug-sensitive strains, including a drug-resistant strain KETRI 2538, but were ineffective against KETRI 1992. Thermal melting of DNA and molecular modeling studies indicate AT-rich DNA sequences as possible binding sites for these compounds. Several of the tested compounds are suitable leads for the development of improved antiparasitic agents