Human development: a long and winding road. history, regulations and case law

Los documentos internacionales se han convertido en un hito para el diseño y contenido de las ideas de desarrollo y desarrollo humano, sin perjuicio de la recepción del derecho al desarrollo en instrumentos regionales de derechos humanos como del efecto relevante que tales textos revelan en las regulaciones constitucionales sobre progreso, desarrollo y/o desarrollo humano. Lo expuesto, sin duda, no obsta a que los jueces se vean desafiados cuando intentan explicar o aplicar estas disposiciones, especialmente cuando enfrentan regulaciones referidas a los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, en general, y, en particular, al desarrollo humano, sin que se avizore un criterio único al analizar la implementación de las disposiciones sociales, económicas y culturales, y menos aún al estudiar el impacto práctico de las cláusulas de desarrollo humano. PALABRAS CLAVES: Desarrollo humano – derechos humanos – instrumentos internacionales ‑ regulaciones constitucionales – interpretación judicia

Desarrollo humano: un largo y sinuoso camino. historia, normas y jurisprudencia

El surgimiento y la evolución de la idea del desarrollo humano no ha sido un camino fácil. Tomó décadas dar forma al concepto. Las contribuciones de filósofos, juristas, economistas y organizaciones internacionales han sido clave en esta tarea. Su reconocimiento como un derecho fundamental comenzó a tener lugar particularmente a mediados de la década de 1980, debido a la Declaración de la ONU sobre el Derecho al Desarrollo. A partir de entonces, el desarrollo humano está presente en casi todos los documentos de la ONU, principalmente en los informes anuales del PNUD. Además, varias naciones han incluido el derecho al desarrollo en sus Constituciones. De allí que el desarrollo humano ha adquirido un contenido técnico y normativo que debe ser estudiado no sólo desde la perspectiva global de los derechos humanos, sino también desde las obligaciones de los Estados

Authoritative subspecies diagnosis tool for European honey bees based on ancestryinformative SNPs

Background With numerous endemic subspecies representing four of its five evolutionary lineages, Europe holds a large fraction of Apis mellifera genetic diversity. This diversity and the natural distribution range have been altered by anthropogenic factors. The conservation of this natural heritage relies on the availability of accurate tools for subspecies diagnosis. Based on pool-sequence data from 2145 worker bees representing 22 populations sampled across Europe, we employed two highly discriminative approaches (PCA and F-ST) to select the most informative SNPs for ancestry inference. Results Using a supervised machine learning (ML) approach and a set of 3896 genotyped individuals, we could show that the 4094 selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provide an accurate prediction of ancestry inference in European honey bees. The best ML model was Linear Support Vector Classifier (Linear SVC) which correctly assigned most individuals to one of the 14 subspecies or different genetic origins with a mean accuracy of 96.2% +/- 0.8 SD. A total of 3.8% of test individuals were misclassified, most probably due to limited differentiation between the subspecies caused by close geographical proximity, or human interference of genetic integrity of reference subspecies, or a combination thereof. Conclusions The diagnostic tool presented here will contribute to a sustainable conservation and support breeding activities in order to preserve the genetic heritage of European honey bees.The SmartBees project was funded by the European Commission under its FP7 KBBE programme (2013.1.3-02, SmartBees Grant Agreement number 613960) https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7.MP was supported by a Basque Government grant (IT1233-19). The funders provided the financial support to the research, but had no role in the design of the study, analysis, interpretations of data and in writing the manuscript

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field