| 1. |
- Jax, Elinor, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative Genomics of the Waterfowl Innate Immune System
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Molecular biology and evolution. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0737-4038 .- 1537-1719. ; 39:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Animal species differ considerably in their ability to fight off infections. Finding the genetic basis of these differences is not easy, as the immune response is comprised of a complex network of proteins that interact with one another to defend the body against infection. Here, we used population- and comparative genomics to study the evolutionary forces acting on the innate immune system in natural hosts of the avian influenza virus (AIV). For this purpose, we used a combination of hybrid capture, next- generation sequencing and published genomes to examine genetic diversity, divergence, and signatures of selection in 127 innate immune genes at a micro- and macroevolutionary time scale in 26 species of waterfowl. We show across multiple immune pathways (AIV-, toll-like-, and RIG-I -like receptors signalling pathways) that genes involved genes in pathogen detection (i.e., toll-like receptors) and direct pathogen inhibition (i.e., antimicrobial peptides and interferon-stimulated genes), as well as host proteins targeted by viral antagonist proteins (i.e., mitochondrial antiviral-signaling protein, [MAVS]) are more likely to be polymorphic, genetically divergent, and under positive selection than other innate immune genes. Our results demonstrate that selective forces vary across innate immune signaling signalling pathways in waterfowl, and we present candidate genes that may contribute to differences in susceptibility and resistance to infectious diseases in wild birds, and that may be manipulated by viruses. Our findings improve our understanding of the interplay between host genetics and pathogens, and offer the opportunity for new insights into pathogenesis and potential drug targets.
|
|
| 2. |
- Passer, Alexander, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries
- 2015
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1614-7502 .- 0948-3349. ; 20:9, s. 1199-1212
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Growing awareness of the environmental performanceof construction products and buildings brings aboutthe need for a suitable method to assess their environmentalperformance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become awidely recognised and accepted method to assess the burdensand impacts throughout the life cycle. This LCA-based information may be in the form of environmental product declarations (EPD) or product environmental footprints (PEF), based on reliable and verifiable information. All of these use LCA to quantify and report several environmental impact categorie and may also provide additional information. To better understand on the one hand existing EPD programmes (EN 15804) for each country and on the other the recent developments in terms of EU reference document (e.g. PEF), the authors decided to write this review paper based on the outcomes of the EPD workshop that was held prior to SB13 Graz conference.Methods This paper presents the state of the art in LCA and an overview of the EPD programmes in five European countries(Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland) based on the workshop in the first part and a comprehensive description and comparison of the PEF method and EN 15804 in the second part. In the last part, a general conclusion will wrap up the findings and results will provide a further outlook on future activities.Results and discussion The high number of EPD programmesunderlines the fact that there is obviously a demand for assessments of the environmental performance of construction materials.In the comparison between and experiences of thedifferent countries, it can be seen that more similarities than differences exist. A comparison between PEF and EPD shows differences, e.g. LCIA impact categories and recyclingmethodology. Conclusions Independent of raising awareness of the construction material environmental performance, the existence of somany environmental claims calls for clarification andharmonisation. Additionally, construction materials beingassessed in the voluntary approaches have to follow theharmonised approach following the principles of the EuropeanConstruction Products Regulation (regulated) not to foster barriers of trade. The authors therefore highly appreciate the most recent activities of the sustainability of construction works (CEN/TC 350 committee http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_espacenormalisation/CENTC350/index.html) currently workingon these issues at the EU level. Finally, the LCA community is further encouraged to increase the background life cycleinventory data and life cycle inventory modelling as well as the meaningfulness of certain environmental impact categories, such as toxicity, land use, biodiversity and resource usage.
|
|
