Amygdalar function reflects common individual differences in emotion and pain regulation success

Although the co-occurrence of negative affect and pain is well recognized, the mechanism underlying their association is unclear. To examine whether a common self-regulatory ability impacts the experience of both emotion and pain, we integrated neuroimaging, behavioral, and physiological measures obtained from three assessments separated by substantial temporal intervals. Out results demonstrated that individual differences in emotion regulation ability, as indexed by an objective measure of emotional state, corrugator electromyography, predicted self-reported success while regulating pain. In both emotion and pain paradigms, the amygdala reflected regulatory success. Notably, we found that greater emotion regulation success was associated with greater change of amygdalar activity following pain regulation. Furthermore, individual differences in degree of amygdalar change following emotion regulation were a strong predictor of pain regulation success, as well as of the degree of amygdalar engagement following pain regulation. These findings suggest that common individual differences in emotion and pain regulatory success are reflected in a neural structure known to contribute to appraisal processes.

Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making – a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multifunctionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottomup, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems do often not fully (i) take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture, (ii) include multidimensionality, (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade-offs. This chapter reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator-based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis and (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies: first, top-down farm assessments, which focus on field or farm assessment; second, top-down regional assessments, which assess the on-farm and the regional effects; and third, bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches, which focus on a regional scale. Our analysis shows that the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

4-Hydroxynonenal, an endogenous aldehyde, causes pain and neurogenic inflammation through activation of the irritant receptor TRPA1

TRPA1 is an excitatory ion channel expressed by a subpopulation of primary afferent somatosensory neurons that contain substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide. Environmental irritants such as mustard oil, allicin, and acrolein activate TRPA1, causing acute pain, neuropeptide release, and neurogenic inflammation. Genetic studies indicate that TRPA1 is also activated downstream of one or more proalgesic agents that stimulate phospholipase C signaling pathways, thereby implicating this channel in peripheral mechanisms controlling pain hypersensitivity. However, it is not known whether tissue injury also produces endogenous proalgesic factors that activate TRPA1 directly to augment inflammatory pain. Here, we report that recombinant or native TRPA1 channels are activated by 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal (HNE), an endogenous alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehyde that is produced when reactive oxygen species peroxidate membrane phospholipids in response to tissue injury, inflammation, and oxidative stress. HNE provokes release of substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide from central (spinal cord) and peripheral (esophagus) nerve endings, resulting in neurogenic plasma protein extravasation in peripheral tissues. Moreover, injection of HNE into the rodent hind paw elicits pain-related behaviors that are inhibited by TRPA1 antagonists and absent in animals lacking functional TRPA1 channels. These findings demonstrate that HNE activates TRPA1 on nociceptive neurons to promote acute pain, neuropeptide release, and neurogenic inflammation. Our results also provide a mechanism-based rationale for developing novel analgesic or anti-inflammatory agents that target HNE production or TRPA1 activation.

Role for protease activity in visceral pain in irritable bowel syndrome

Mediators involved in the generation of symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are poorly understood. Here we show that colonic biopsy samples from IBS patients release increased levels of proteolytic activity (arginine cleavage) compared to asymptomatic controls. This was dependent on the activation of NF-kappaB. In addition, increased proteolytic activity was measured in vivo, in colonic washes from IBS compared with control patients. Trypsin and tryptase expression and release were increased in colonic biopsies from IBS patients compared with control subjects. Biopsies from IBS patients (but not controls) released mediators that sensitized murine sensory neurons in culture. Sensitization was prevented by a serine protease inhibitor and was absent in neurons lacking functional protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR2). Supernatants from colonic biopsies of IBS patients, but not controls, also caused somatic and visceral hyperalgesia and allodynia in mice, when administered into the colon. These pronociceptive effects were inhibited by serine protease inhibitors and a PAR2 antagonist and were absent in PAR2-deficient mice. Our study establishes that proteases are released in IBS and that they can directly stimulate sensory neurons and generate hypersensitivity symptoms through the activation of PAR2.