Liver oxidative stress of the grey mullet Mugil cephalus presents seasonal variations in Ennore estuary

The objective of this study was to determine the liver oxidative stress status of grey mullets living in heavy-metal-rich polluted Ennore estuary compared with unpolluted Kovalam estuary. Fish were collected from both estuaries during the monsoon and summer seasons from October 2004 to September 2006. Fish liver homogenate (N = 20 per group) was prepared for evaluating oxidative stress parameters. Fish living in the polluted estuary had significantly higher lipid oxidation products, conjugated dienes (0.346 ± 0.017 vs 0.141 ± 0.012 DA233/mg protein), lipid hydroperoxides (0.752 ± 0.032 vs 0.443 ± 0.03 nmol/mg protein), and lipid peroxides (3.447 ± 0.14vs 1.456 ± 0.096 nmol MDA/mg protein) than those of the unpolluted estuary during the summer. In contrast, significantly lower levels of superoxide dismutase (20.39 ± 1.14 vs 53.63 ± 1.48 units/mg protein) and catalase (116 ± 6.87vs 153 ± 8.92 units/mg protein) were detected in the liver of fish from the polluted estuary (Ennore) compared to fish from the unpolluted estuary (Kovalam) during the summer. Variations in most of the oxidative stress parameters were observed between the summer and monsoon seasons, indicating the importance of seasonal variation for estuaries and their inhabitants.

Addressing conflicts of interest in the research paper: a societal demand in contemporary science?

In the last decade, dialogue between science and society has found a forum in an increasing number of publications on topics such as public engagement with science and public trust in science. Concerning the latter, issues that include cases of research misconduct, accountability in research, and conflicts of interest (COIs) have shaped global discussions on the communication of science. In the publication setting, the perception that hiding COIs and/or not managing them well may affect public trust in the research record has grown among editors. We conducted a search for editorials addressing COIs between 1989 and 2011, using four major databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. We explored the content of these editorials and the relationship they established between COIs and the public trust in science. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between disclosure of COIs and public trust in science has become a major concern among editors. We, thus, argue that COIs should be discussed more openly and frequently in graduate courses in the sciences, around the globe, not only in biomedical but also in non-biomedical areas. This is a critical issue in contemporary science, as graduate students are the future voices and decision-makers of the research community. Therefore, COIs, especially in the broader context of science and society, merit closer attention from policymakers, researchers, and educators. At times of great expectations for public engagement with science, mishandling of COIs may have undesirable consequences for public engagement with science and confidence in the scientific endeavor.