Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Lectins: production and practical applications

Lectins are proteins found in a diversity of organisms. They possess the ability to agglutinate erythrocytes with known carbohydrate specificity since they have at least one non-catalytic domain that binds reversibly to specific monosaccharides or oligosaccharides. This articles aims to review the production and practical applications of lectins. Lectins are isolated from their natural sources by chromatographic procedures or produced by recombinant DNA technology. The yields of animal lectins are usually low compared with the yields of plant lectins such as legume lectins. Lectins manifest a diversity of activities including antitumor, immunomodulatory, antifungal, HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitory, and anti-insect activities, which may find practical applications. A small number of lectins demonstrate antibacterial and anti-nematode activities

Use of statins and the risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether the use of statins could be associated with the risk of all-caused dementia, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Major electronic databases were searched until December 27th, 2017 for studies investigating use of statins and incident cognitive decline in adults. Random-effects meta-analyses calculating relative risks (RRs) were conducted to synthesize effect sizes of individual studies. Twenty-five studies met eligibility criteria. Use of statins was significantly associated with a reduced risk of all-caused dementia (k = 16 studies, adjusted RR (aRR) = 0.849, 95% CI = 0.787–0.916, p = 0.000), AD (k = 14, aRR = 0.719, 95% CI = 0.576–0.899, p = 0.004), and MCI (k = 6, aRR = 0.737, 95% CI = 0.556–0.976, p = 0.033), but no meaningful effects on incident VaD (k = 3, aRR = 1.012, 95% CI = 0.620–1.652, p = 0.961). Subgroup analysis suggested that hydrophilic statins were associated with reduced risk of all-caused dementia (aRR = 0.877; CI = 0.818–0.940; p = 0.000) and possibly lower AD risk (aRR = 0.619; CI = 0.383–1.000; p = 0.050). Lipophilic statins were associated with reduced risk of AD (aRR = 0.639; CI = 0.449–0.908; p = 0.013) but not all-caused dementia (aRR = 0.738; CI = 0.475–1.146; p = 0.176). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that the use of statins may reduce the risk of all-type dementia, AD, and MCI, but not of incident VaD