Canine Curiosity: What We Do and Don’t Know, and What Human Infants Could Teach Us

The phenomenon of domesticated dogs looking to humans for information is ubiquitous, yet infrequently observed among other interspecies interactions. Dogs’ inclination to solicit information from humans is in large part a result of the two species’ shared social evolution and niche. Perhaps a more compelling aspect of this relationship is how dogs respond in the face of unexpected, uncertain, and/or novel cues from humans, from whom they frequently solicit information. The influence of human presence on canines’ curiosity about and engagement with their immediate environment is understudied, in part due to challenges in study design. SomeS of these challenges are common to working with and learning from babies of our own species. And, as dogs have developed many mental processes and behaviors similar to preverbal human infants, illuminating strategies for understanding curiosity in babies may prove useful in learning more about how dogs experience the world, with and without people

ManyDogs Project: A Big Team Science Approach to Investigating Canine Behavior and Cognition

Dogs have a special place in human history as the first domesticated species and play important roles in many cultures around the world. However, their role in scientific studies has been relatively recent. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Darwin, Pavlov, Scott, and Fuller), domestic dogs were not commonly the subject of rigorous scientific investigation of behavior until the late 1990s. Although the number of canine science studies has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, most research groups are limited in the inferences they can draw because of the relatively small sample sizes used, along with the exceptional diversity observed in dogs (e.g., breed, geographic location, experience). To this end, we introduce the ManyDogs Project, an international consortium of researchers interested in taking a big team science approach to understanding canine behavioral science. We begin by discussing why studying dogs provides valuable insights into behavior and cognition, evolutionary processes, human health, and applications for animal welfare. We then highlight other big team science projects that have previously been conducted in canine science and emphasize the benefits of our approach. Finally, we introduce the ManyDogs Project and our mission: (a) replicating important findings, (b) investigating moderators that need a large sample size such as breed differences, (c) reaching methodological consensus, (d) investigating cross-cultural differences, and (e) setting a standard for replication studies in general. In doing so, we hope to address previous limitations in individual lab studies and previous big team science frameworks to deepen our understanding of canine behavior and cognition

The case for the continued use of the genus name Mimulus for all monkeyflowers

The genus Mimulus is a well-studied group of plant species, which has for decades allowed researchers to address a wide array of fundamental questions in biology (Wu & al. 2008; Twyford & al. 2015). Linnaeus named the type species of Mimulus (ringens L.), while Darwin (1876) used Mimulus (luteus L.) to answer key research questions. The incredible phenotypic diversity of this group has made it the focus of ecological and evolutionary study since the mid-20th century, initiated by the influential work of Clausen, Keck, and Hiesey as well as their students and collaborators (Clausen & Hiesey 1958; Hiesey & al. 1971, Vickery 1952, 1978). Research has continued on this group of diverse taxa throughout the 20th and into the 21st century (Bradshaw & al. 1995; Schemske & Bradshaw 1999; Wu & al. 2008; Twyford & al. 2015; Yuan 2019), and Mimulus guttatus was one of the first non-model plants to be selected for full genome sequencing (Hellsten & al. 2013). Mimulus has played a key role in advancing our general understanding of the evolution of pollinator shifts (Bradshaw & Schemske 2003; Cooley & al. 2011; Byers & al. 2014), adaptation (Lowry & Willis 2010; Kooyers & al. 2015; Peterson & al. 2016; Ferris & Willis 2018; Troth & al. 2018), speciation (Ramsey & al. 2003; Wright & al. 2013; Sobel & Streisfeld 2015; Zuellig & Sweigart 2018), meiotic drive (Fishman & Saunders 2008), polyploidy (Vallejo-Marín 2012; Vallejo-Marín & al. 2015), range limits (Angert 2009; Sexton et al. 2011; Grossenbacher & al. 2014; Sheth & Angert 2014), circadian rhythms (Greenham & al. 2017), genetic recombination (Hellsten & al. 2013), mating systems (Fenster & Ritland 1994; Dudash & Carr 1998; Brandvain & al. 2014) and developmental biology (Moody & al. 1999; Baker & al. 2011, 2012; Yuan 2019). This combination of a rich history of study coupled with sustained modern research activity is unparalleled among angiosperms. Across many interested parties, the name Mimulus therefore takes on tremendous biological significance and is recognizable not only by botanists, but also by zoologists, horticulturalists, naturalists, and members of the biomedical community. Names associated with a taxonomic group of this prominence should have substantial inertia, and disruptive name changes should be avoided. As members of the Mimulus community, we advocate retaining the genus name Mimulus to describe all monkeyflowers. This is despite recent nomenclature changes that have led to a renaming of most monkeyflower species to other genera.Additional co-authors: Jannice Friedman, Dena L Grossenbacher, Liza M Holeski, Christopher T Ivey, Kathleen M Kay, Vanessa A Koelling, Nicholas J Kooyers, Courtney J Murren, Christopher D Muir, Thomas C Nelson, Megan L Peterson, Joshua R Puzey, Michael C Rotter, Jeffrey R Seemann, Jason P Sexton, Seema N Sheth, Matthew A Streisfeld, Andrea L Sweigart, Alex D Twyford, John H Willis, Kevin M Wright, Carrie A Wu, Yao-Wu Yua

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival