| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Geist, Juergen, et al.
(author)
-
Captive breeding of European freshwater mussels as a conservation tool : A review
- 2023
-
In: Aquatic conservation. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1052-7613 .- 1099-0755. ; 33:11, s. 1321-1359
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Freshwater mussels are declining throughout their range. Their important ecological functions along with insufficient levels of natural recruitment have prompted captive breeding for population augmentation and questions about the usefulness and applicability of such measures. This article reviews the current state of captive breeding and rearing programmes for freshwater mussels in Europe. It considers the various species, strategies, and techniques of propagation, as well as the different levels of effort required according to rearing method, highlighting the key factors of success. Within the last 30 years, 46 breeding activities in 16 European countries have been reported, mainly of Margaritifera margaritifera and Unio crassus. Some facilities propagate species that are in a very critical situation, such as Pseudunio auricularius, Unio mancus, and Unio ravoisieri, or multiple species concurrently. In some streams, the number of released captive-bred mussels already exceeds the size of the remaining natural population. Rearing efforts range from highly intensive laboratory incubation to lower intensity methods using in-river mussel cages or silos. Most breeding efforts are funded by national and EU LIFE(+) grants, are well documented, and consider the genetic integrity of the propagated mussels. Limited long-term funding perspectives, the availability of experienced staff, water quality, and feeding/survival during early life stages are seen as the most important challenges. Successful captive breeding programmes need to be combined with restoration of the habitats into which the mussels are released. This work will benefit from an evidence-based approach, knowledge exchange among facilities, and an overall breeding strategy comprising multiple countries and conservation units.
|
|
| 4. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
