Why Does the Giant Panda Eat Bamboo? A Comparative Analysis of Appetite-Reward-Related Genes among Mammals

Background: The giant panda has an interesting bamboo diet unlike the other species in the order of Carnivora. The umami taste receptor gene T1R1 has been identified as a pseudogene during its genome sequencing project and confirmed using a different giant panda sample. The estimated mutation time for this gene is about 4.2 Myr. Such mutation coincided with the giant panda’s dietary change and also reinforced its herbivorous life style. However, as this gene is preserved in herbivores such as cow and horse, we need to look for other reasons behind the giant panda’s diet switch. Methodology/Principal Findings: Since taste is part of the reward properties of food related to its energy and nutrition contents, we did a systematic analysis on those genes involved in the appetite-reward system for the giant panda. We extracted the giant panda sequence information for those genes and compared with the human sequence first and then with seven other species including chimpanzee, mouse, rat, dog, cat, horse, and cow. Orthologs in panda were further analyzed based on the coding region, Kozak consensus sequence, and potential microRNA binding of those genes. Conclusions/Significance: Our results revealed an interesting dopamine metabolic involvement in the panda’s food choice

What is (the wrong of) cultural appropriation?

Social media is full of accusations and counter-accusations of a wrong called ‘cultural appropriation’. Our goal in this article is to sift through these deliberations and identify what cultural appropriation is, what it is not, and what, if anything might be wrong with it. We begin by explaining why public discourse about cultural appropriation should matter to political theorists of multiculturalism, especially in the anti-immigrant mood that has engulfed many immigrant-receiving countries. We then place cultural appropriation under the umbrella of cultural engagement, before identifying two forms of problematic cultural engagement – cultural offence and cultural misrepresentation – that are often conflated with cultural appropriation. In the next section, we define cultural appropriation as the appropriation of something of cultural value, usually a symbol or a practice, to others. We go on to explain that two additional conditions must be present to define an act of cultural appropriation: the presence of significant contestation around the act of appropriation, and the presence of knowledge (or negligent culpability) in the act of appropriation. Although this account of cultural appropriation is normative, cultural appropriation is often wrong only in a trivial sense. One of the ways it can become more serious is through the presence of what we term ‘amplifiers’. The contextual conditions that can render acts of cultural appropriation more egregious include: the existence of a power imbalance between the cultural appropriator and those from whom the practice or symbol is appropriated; the absence of consent; and the presence of profit that accrues to the appropriator. Ultimately, we find that there are very few instances of seriously wrongful cultural appropriation, and that many of the actions decried as cultural appropriation may be wrongful, but not because they appropriate.</jats:p