Search

Aristotle is often named as the first zoologist or biologist because of his writings on animals. Although Aristotle's major intention in these books was to illustrate his ideas of how knowledge and understanding might advance, at least one modern biologist (C. Darwin) has recognized Aristotle's depth and breadth as being of surviving merit. Of greater surprise is the ongoing attention that his works continue to receive, including publications in contemporary scientific journals. This review identifies 38 peer-reviewed papers on various topics from Aristotle's biological writings that have been published during the last 50 years. These papers are described according to content (genetics, population biology, anatomy, brain, movement), specific creatures (fish, scorpions, elephants, insects, birds), publication outlet, distribution over the fifty year period surveyed, and visible trends in the topics studied. It is concluded that, in the highly-competitive field of peer-reviewed scientific publication and citation, Aristotle's biology continues to excite the interest of scientists and remains salient to modern science itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the trends in submissions and publications for the Annals of Applied Biology journal. While there was a steady increase in submissions until 2021, there was a reduction in submissions in 2022 and 2023. However, the number of published papers remained consistent. The journal encourages researchers to consider submitting their work to Annals of Applied Biology and highlights the various types of publications they accept. The article also acknowledges the support of the Association of Applied Biologists and Wiley in promoting and publishing the journal. Special issues linked to AAB-organized events are also announced, and new editors are welcomed to the board. The article concludes by inviting readers to follow the journal on social media and providing links to the journal's website and the AAB website. [Extracted from the article]

Effective bioinspiration requires dialogue between designers and biologists, and this dialogue must be rooted in a shared scientific understanding of living systems. To support learning from "nature's overarching design lessons" the Biomimicry Institute has produced ten "Unifying Patterns of Nature". These patterns have been developed to engage with those interested in finding biologically inspired solutions to human challenges. Yet, although well-intentioned and appealing, they are likely to dishearten biologists. The aim of this paper is to identify why and propose alternative principles based on evolutionary theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the explanatory term "scaffold" has been gaining prominence in evolutionary biology. This notion has a long history in other areas, in particular, developmental psychology. In this paper, we connect these two traditions and identify a specific type of explanatory strategy shared between them, namely scaffolding explanations. We offer a new definition of "scaffold" anchored in the explanatory practices of evolutionary biologists and developmental psychologists that has yet to be clearly articulated. We conclude by offering a systematic overview of the various dimensions of scaffolding explanations that further suggests both their usefulness and range of application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1990s, ecologists and evolutionary biologists have aggregated primary research using meta‐analytic methods to understand ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Meta‐analyses can resolve long‐standing disputes, dispel spurious claims, and generate new research questions. At their worst, however, meta‐analysis publications are wolves in sheep's clothing: subjective with biased conclusions, hidden under coats of objective authority. Conclusions can be rendered unreliable by inappropriate statistical methods, problems with the methods used to select primary research, or problems within the primary research itself. Because of these risks, meta‐analyses are increasingly conducted as part of systematic reviews, which use structured, transparent, and reproducible methods to collate and summarise evidence. For readers to determine whether the conclusions from a systematic review or meta‐analysis should be trusted – and to be able to build upon the review – authors need to report what they did, why they did it, and what they found. Complete, transparent, and reproducible reporting is measured by 'reporting quality'. To assess perceptions and standards of reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology, we surveyed 208 researchers with relevant experience (as authors, reviewers, or editors), and conducted detailed evaluations of 102 systematic review and meta‐analysis papers published between 2010 and 2019. Reporting quality was far below optimal and approximately normally distributed. Measured reporting quality was lower than what the community perceived, particularly for the systematic review methods required to measure trustworthiness. The minority of assessed papers that referenced a guideline (~16%) showed substantially higher reporting quality than average, and surveyed researchers showed interest in using a reporting guideline to improve reporting quality. The leading guideline for improving reporting quality of systematic reviews is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Here we unveil an extension of PRISMA to serve the meta‐analysis community in ecology and evolutionary biology: PRISMA‐EcoEvo (version 1.0). PRISMA‐EcoEvo is a checklist of 27 main items that, when applicable, should be reported in systematic review and meta‐analysis publications summarising primary research in ecology and evolutionary biology. In this explanation and elaboration document, we provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors, with explanations for each item on the checklist, including supplementary examples from published papers. Authors can consult this PRISMA‐EcoEvo guideline both in the planning and writing stages of a systematic review and meta‐analysis, to increase reporting quality of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers and editors can use the checklist to assess reporting quality in the manuscripts they review. Overall, PRISMA‐EcoEvo is a resource for the ecology and evolutionary biology community to facilitate transparent and comprehensively reported systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neovascularization, the formation of new blood vessels, has received much research attention due to its implications for physiological processes and diseases. Most studies using traditional in vitro and in vivo platforms find challenges in recapitulating key cellular and mechanical cues of the neovascularization processes. Microfluidic in vitro models have been presented as an alternative to these limitations due to their capacity to leverage microscale physics to control cell organization and integrate biochemical and mechanical cues, such as shear stress, cell–cell interactions, or nutrient gradients, making them an ideal option for recapitulating organ physiology. Much has been written about the use of microfluidics in vascular biology models from an engineering perspective. However, a review introducing the different models, components and progress for new potential adopters of these technologies was absent in the literature. Therefore, this paper aims to approach the use of microfluidic technologies in vascular biology from a perspective of biological hallmarks to be studied and written for a wide audience ranging from clinicians to engineers. Here we review applications of microfluidics in vascular biology research, starting with design considerations and fabrication techniques. After that, we review the state of the art in recapitulating angiogenesis and vasculogenesis, according to the hallmarks recapitulated and complexity of the models. Finally, we discuss emerging research areas in neovascularization, such as drug discovery, and potential future directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selection of the appropriate species and strain of laboratory animals are among the scientist's major concerns. Tarabul's gerbil (Gerbillus tarabuli) is a small, seasonally breeding, desert rodent native to Africa. Despite its unique biological features, which make it an ideal model candidate for biomedical research, only a few reports have used it in research. Hence, the present review aims to provide more data about this species, covering all aspects of its biology, such as taxonomy, morphology, anatomy, ecology, wildlife biology, molecular biology, physiology, neurobiology, genetics, reproduction, development, evolutionary biology, and conservation biology, and covers current progress in exploration of G. tarabuli, discussing its valuable characteristics, which are widely useful for research in various fields. This review paper is destined for biologists, scientists, mammologists, zoologists, academics, and students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ervin Bauer (1890–1938) was the first to build a general molecular-based biological theory. He defined the basic principles of theoretical biology from a thermodynamic perspective, focusing on the capacity of biological systems to produce and support the state of sustainable non-equilibrium. His central work "Theoretical Biology" (1935) was written long before modern advances in molecular biology, genetics, and information theory. Ervin Bauer and his wife Stefánia were executed in Stalin's Great Terror. This paper presents a brief introduction to Ervin Bauer's life and includes his short biography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ervin Bauer was the only biologist who recognized that the best way to develop theoretical biology on an equal footing with theoretical physics was to follow the method that has ensured the great successes of modern theoretical physics: the general method of science. Following this method, he succeeded to find the universal principle of biology. From this principle he managed to derive all the basic equations of biology, that of metabolism, reproduction, growth, responsiveness and successfully explained all the fundamental phenomena of life. In this paper, I introduce Bauer's theoretical biology and discuss whether he understood it within the framework of the modern physical worldview, or in a broader framework. I point out that the theoretical biology of Ervin Bauer is the first to go beyond the physical worldview, to establish a deeper, biological worldview, and thus to represent a major advance in our understanding of the nature of life, with a significance even greater than that of the Copernican turn. Clarifying the difference between the living and the non-living, it is important to consider the difference between machines and living organisms. It is well known that machines are the manifestations of a dual control; globally, their behavior is controlled by their given structure, while locally, their behavior is governed by the physical laws. Based on Bauer's theoretical biology, it is pointed out that living organisms manifest a three-level causality; the 'additional', biological level corresponds to the autonomous, time-dependent control of their structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The organization of the living world covers a vast range of spatiotemporal scales, from molecules to the biosphere, seconds to centuries. Biologists working within specialized subdisciplines tend to focus on different ranges of scales. Therefore, developing frameworks that enable testing questions and predictions of scaling requires sufficient understanding of complex processes across biological subdisciplines and spatiotemporal scales. Frameworks that enable scaling across subdisciplines would ideally allow us to test hypotheses about the degree to which explicit integration across spatiotemporal scales is needed for predicting the outcome of biological processes. For instance, how does genomic variation within populations allow us to explain community structure? How do the dynamics of cellular metabolism translate to our understanding of whole-ecosystem metabolism? Do patterns and processes operate seamlessly across biological scales, or are there fundamental laws of biological scaling that limit our ability to make predictions from one scale to another? Similarly, can sub-organismal structures and processes be sufficiently understood in isolation of potential feedbacks from the population, community, or ecosystem levels? And can we infer the sub-organismal processes from data on the population, community, or ecosystem scale? Concerted efforts to develop more cross-disciplinary frameworks will open doors to a more fully integrated field of biology. In this paper, we discuss how we might integrate across scales, specifically by (1) identifying scales and boundaries, (2) determining analogous units and processes across scales, (3) developing frameworks to unite multiple scales, and (4) extending frameworks to new empirical systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]