Species recovery in the united states: Increasing the effectiveness of the endangered species act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has succeeded in shielding hundreds of species from extinction and improving species recovery over time. However, recovery for most species officially protected by the ESA - i.e., listed species-has been harder to achieve than initially envisioned. Threats to species are persistent and pervasive, funding has been insufficient, the distribution of money among listed species is highly uneven, and at least 10 times more species than are actually listed probably qualify for listing. Moreover, many listed species will require ongoing management for the foreseeable future to protect them from persistent threats. Climate change will exacerbate this problem and increase both species risk and management uncertainty, requiring more intensive and controversial management strategies to prevent species from going extinct

Protecting Endangered Species: Do the Main Legislative Tools Work?

It is critical to assess the effectiveness of the tools used to protect endangered species. The main tools enabled under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) to promote species recovery are funding, recovery plan development and critical habitat designation. Earlier studies sometimes found that statistically significant effects of these tools could be detected, but they have not answered the question of whether the effects were large enough to be biologically meaningful. Here, we ask: how much does the recovery status of ESA-listed species improve with the application of these tools? We used species' staus reports to Congress from 1988 to 2006 to quantify two measures of recovery for 1179 species. We related these to the amount of federal funding, years with a recovery plan, years with critical habitat designation, the amount of peer-reviewed scientific information, and time listed. We found that change in recovery status of listed species was, at best, only very weakly related to any of these tools. Recovery was positively related to the number of years listed, years with a recovery plan, and funding, however, these tools combined explain <13% of the variation in recovery status among species. Earlier studies that reported significant effects of these tools did not focus on effect sizes; however, they are in fact similarly small. One must conclude either that these tools are not very effective in promoting species' recovery, or (as we suspect) that species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. It is critically important to assess the effectiveness of tools used to promote species recovery; it is therefore also critically important to obtain population status data that are adequate to that task

Recovery of a US Endangered Fish

BACKGROUND: More fish have been afforded US Endangered Species Act protection than any other vertebrate taxonomic group, and none has been designated as recovered. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) occupy large rivers and estuaries along the Atlantic coast of North America, and the species has been protected by the US Endangered Species Act since its enactment. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Data on the shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River (New York to Albany, NY, USA) were obtained from a 1970s population study, a population and fish distribution study we conducted in the late 1990s, and a fish monitoring program during the 1980s and 1990s. Population estimates indicate a late 1990s abundance of about 60,000 fish, dominated by adults. The Hudson River population has increased by more than 400% since the 1970s, appears healthy, and has attributes typical for a long-lived species. Our population estimates exceed the government and scientific population recovery criteria by more than 500%, we found a positive trend in population abundance, and key habitats have remained intact despite heavy human river use. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Scientists and legislators have called for changes in the US Endangered Species Act, the Act is being debated in the US Congress, and the Act has been characterized as failing to recover species. Recovery of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon suggests the combination of species and habitat protection with patience can yield successful species recovery, even near one of the world's largest human population centers

Immune Modulation by Adjuvants Combined with Diphtheria Toxoid Administered Topically in BALB/c Mice After Microneedle Array Pretreatment

Purpose. In this study, modulation of the immune response against diphtheria toxoid (DT) by various adjuvants in transcutaneous immunization (TCI) with microneedle array pretreatment was investigated. Methods. TCI was performed on BALB/c mice with or without microneedle array pretreatment using DT as a model antigen co-administrated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Quil A, CpG oligo deoxynucleotide (CpG) or cholera toxin (CT) as adjuvant. The immunogenicity was evaluated by measuring serum IgG subtype titers and neutralizing antibody titers. Results. TCI with microneedle array pretreatment resulted in a 1,000-fold increase of DT-specific serum IgG levels as compared to TCI. The immune response was further improved by co-administration of adjuvants, showing a progressive increase in serum IgG titers when adjuvanted with LPS, Quil A, CpG and CT. IgG titers of the CT-adjuvanted group reached levels comparable to those obtained after DTalum subcutaneous injection. The IgG1/IgG2a ratio of DT-specific antibodies decreased in the following sequence: plain DT, Quil A, CT and CpG, suggesting that the immune response was skewed towards the Th1 direction. Conclusions. The potency and the quality of the immune response against DT administered by microneedle array mediated TCI can be modulated by co-administration of adjuvants. KEY WORDS: cholera toxin; CpG; diphtheria toxoid; microneedle array; transcutaneous immunization

Preclinical evaluation of a TEX101 protein ELISA test for the differential diagnosis of male infertility

BACKGROUND: TEX101 is a cell membrane protein exclusively expressed by testicular germ cells and shed into seminal plasma. We previously verified human TEX101 as a biomarker for the differential diagnosis of azoospermia, and developed a first-of-its-kind TEX101 ELISA. To demonstrate the clinical utility of TEX101, in this work we aimed at evaluating ELISA performance in a large population of fertile, subfertile, and infertile men. METHODS: Mass spectrometry, size-exclusion chromatography, ultracentrifugation, and immunohistochemistry were used to characterize TEX101 protein as an analyte in seminal plasma. Using the optimized protocol for seminal plasma pretreatment, TEX101 was measured by ELISA in 805 seminal plasma samples. RESULTS: We demonstrated that TEX101 was present in seminal plasma mostly in a free soluble form and that its small fraction was associated with seminal microvesicles. TEX101 median values were estimated in healthy, fertile pre-vasectomy men (5436 ng/mL, N = 64) and in patients with unexplained infertility (4967 ng/mL, N = 277), oligospermia (450 ng/mL, N = 270), and azoospermia (0.5 ng/mL, N = 137). Fertile post-vasectomy men (N = 57) and patients with Sertoli cell-only syndrome (N = 13) and obstructive azoospermia (N = 36) had undetectable levels of TEX101 (≤0.5 ng/mL). A cut-off value of 0.9 ng/mL provided 100% sensitivity at 100% specificity for distinguishing pre- and post-vasectomy men. The combination of a concentration of TEX101 > 0.9 ng/mL and epididymis-specific protein ECM1 > 2.3 μg/mL provided 81% sensitivity at 100% specificity for differentiating between non-obstructive and obstructive azoospermia, thus eliminating the majority of diagnostic testicular biopsies. In addition, a cut-off value of ≥0.6 ng/mL provided 73% sensitivity at 64% specificity for predicting sperm or spermatid retrieval in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the clinical utility of TEX101 ELISA as a test to evaluate vasectomy success, to stratify azoospermia forms, and to better select patients for sperm retrieval. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0817-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Species recovery in the united states: Increasing the effectiveness of the endangered species act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has succeeded in shielding hundreds of species from extinction and improving species recovery over time. However, recovery for most species officially protected by the ESA - i.e., listed species-has been harder to achieve than initially envisioned. Threats to species are persistent and pervasive, funding has been insufficient, the distribution of money among listed species is highly uneven, and at least 10 times more species than are actually listed probably qualify for listing. Moreover, many listed species will require ongoing management for the foreseeable future to protect them from persistent threats. Climate change will exacerbate this problem and increase both species risk and management uncertainty, requiring more intensive and controversial management strategies to prevent species from going extinct