Evaluation of ornamental grasses submitted to water stress

The work was carried out at the College of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences of the State University of São Paulo (UNESP/FCAV), Campus of Jaboticabal, Brazil, aiming to study the tolerance response to water stress and capacity of regeneration after mowing three different ornamental grasses used in Brazilian landscaping: Imperial zoysia grass (Zoysia japonica 'Imperial'), zoysia grass (Zoysia japonica) and St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum). The experimental design was entirely randomized in a factorial scheme 33 (three grass species: Zoysia japonica 'Imperial', Zoysia japonica and Stenotaphrum secundatum; in three water stress conditions: under full sun, with and without irrigation, and under greenhouse conditions without irrigation) with four replications per plot. The irrigation was performed using microsprinklers with a flow of 0.28 L s-1, and the grasses of all plots were mowed monthly. The evaluations were executed monthly, before mowing the grass, in the beginning of each season, that means, in October (for Spring evaluation), January (for Summer), April (for Autumn) and July (for Winter), considering the Brazilian climate conditions. The evaluated parameters were shoot height and total dry mass. The data were submitted to the variance analysis and the means were compared by the Tukey test at 5% confidence level. The grasses grown under greenhouse conditions, without irrigation, showed higher height and lower dry mass weight averages, what possibly indicates that the plants etiolated. The grasses grown under full sun, either with or without irrigation, showed a similar plant development. The S. secundatum species showed greater tolerance to water stress in October, month that followed the longest dry period. The total dry mass was gradually reduced during the experiment for all grasses grown under greenhouse conditions without irrigation; however, a great general tolerance to water stress was observed for all grasses because all of them survived along nine months without irrigation.

Report of the planning meeting of partners of the Caribbean Information Societies Measurement Initiative

The Planning Meeting of Partners was organized jointly by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean, the Observatory for the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean (OSILAC - an ECLAC project supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the University of West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine Campus and the Telecommunications Policy and Management Programme, Mona School of Business at UWI, Jamaica. The Caribbean Information Societies Measurement Initiative (CISMI) is a component of the research proposal entitled “Networks for Development: The Caribbean ICT Research Programme”, recently submitted to IDRC for funding approval. The main objective of this programme is to “promote multi-stakeholder knowledge exchange and dialogue about the potential contribution of Information and Communications Technology for economic development and poverty alleviation in the Caribbean” The proposed budget for the CISMI component within the aforementioned proposal is US$ 150,000. The main objectives of the CISMI component are twofold: (a) to conduct a comprehensive Information and Communications Technology (ICT) survey in the Caribbean subregion to cover baseline information needs for studies and analysis from different partners involved in the construction of the Caribbean Information Societies; and (b) to analyze the household-level data, including the status of broadband and mobile usage in selected Caribbean countries in order to promote evidence-based policy planning and implementation with respect to ICT development and its impact on social and economic development in the subregion. The Planning Meeting of Partners was convened to: (a) discuss the CISMI component partnership arrangements, (b) discuss the design and implementation mechanisms of the survey instrument (questionnaire); (c) inform and engage potential key stakeholders; and (d) obtain information from potential service providers (survey companies). The Planning Meeting of Partners took place on 28 and 29 September 2009 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Report of the AD HOC Expert Group meeting on social exclusion, poverty, inequality, crime and violence: Towardsa research agenda for informed public policy for Caribbean SIDS

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean convened an expert group meeting on Social Exclusion, Poverty, Inequality – Crime and Violence: Towards a Research Agenda for informed Public Policy for Caribbean SIDS on Friday 4 April 2008, at its conference room in Port of Spain. The meeting was attended by 14 experts drawn from, the University of the West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago; and Mona Campus, Jamaica; the St. Georges University, Grenada; the Trinidad and Tobago Crime Commission and the Ministry of Social Development, Government of Trinidad and Tobago and representative of Civil Society from Guyana. Experts from the United Nations System included representatives from the United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Barbados; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Port of Spain and UNDP Barbados/SRO and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). The list of participants appears as an annex to this report. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum in which differing theories and methodologies useful to addressing the issues of social exclusion, poverty, inequality, crime and violence could be explored. It was expected that at the end of the meeting there would be consensus on areas of research which could be pursued over a two to four-year period by the ECLAC Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean and its partners, which would lead to informed public policy in support of the reduction of the growing violence in Caribbean society.

A inquietude do homem segundo Agostinho: um estudo do tema nas Confissões, Livros I, VIII e X

Pós-graduação em Filosofia - FFC

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.