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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Open droplet microfluidic systems manipulate droplets on the picolitre-to-microlitre scale in an open environment. They combine the compartmentalization and control offered by traditional droplet-based microfluidics with the accessibility and ease-of-use of open microfluidics, bringing unique advantages to applications such as combinatorial reactions, droplet analysis and cell culture. Open systems provide direct access to droplets and allow on-demand droplet manipulation within the system without needing pumps or tubes, which makes the systems accessible to biologists without sophisticated setups. Furthermore, these systems can be produced with simple manufacturing and assembly steps that allow for manufacturing at scale and the translation of the method into clinical research. This Review introduces the different types of open droplet microfluidic system, presents the physical concepts leveraged by these systems and highlights key applications., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882) are honored as the founders of modern evolutionary biology. Accordingly, much attention has focused on their relationship, from their independent development of the principle of natural selection to the receipt by Darwin of Wallace's essay from Ternate in the spring of 1858, and the subsequent reading of the Wallace and Darwin papers at the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858. In the events of 1858 Wallace and Darwin are typically seen as central players, with Darwin's friends Charles Lyell (1797-1875) and Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911) playing supporting roles. This narrative has resulted in an under-appreciation of a more central role for Charles Lyell as both Wallace's inspiration and foil. The extensive anti-transmutation arguments in Lyell's landmark Principles of Geology were taken as the definitive statement on the subject. Wallace, in his quest to solve the mystery of species origins, engaged with Lyell's arguments in his private field notebooks in a way that is concordant with his engagement with Lyell in the 1855 and 1858 papers. I show that Lyell was the object of Wallace's Sarawak Law and Ternate papers through a consideration of the circumstances that led Wallace to send his Ternate paper to Darwin, together with an analysis of the material that Wallace drew upon from the Principles. In this view Darwin was, ironically, intended for a supporting role in mediating Wallace's attempted dialog with Lyell.

Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer-reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non-OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors' citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author-archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.

We present a list of the most frequent errors in biological manuscripts written in Spanish, and we explain which are the recommended options. Our article is based on the International Codes of Nomenclature, and the guidelines of the Real Academia de la Lengua and the Council of Science Editors. We group the indications in four categories: lexical errors (e.g., English cognates); spelling (graphic accents, punctuation, font), morphology (use of prepositions) and style (linguistic economy).

The arguments by Pavlinov against my critical analysis of the concept of the "phylogenetic presumptions" proposed by Rasnitsyn are briefly discussed. It is proved that these arguments are invalid because they are based on the substitution of terms. Instead of the term "phylogenetic presumption" introduced by Rasnitsyn just as an analogue of the presumption of innocence in jurisprudence, Pavlinov considers the presumption in the wider understanding, i.e. as a "preliminary statement".

Under brief consideration is the uses of presumptions, as a kind of a priori judgments, in phylogenetics in light of their critics by Pesenko (2005). It is shown that the concept of presumption is fully compatible with the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme allowing to realize the parsimony principle in its epistemic interpretation. System of phylogenetic presumptions deserves future development in the framework of construing phylogenetics as a kind of the informal axiomatics.

Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) consider social, political, and economic factors that contribute to health disparities in patients and populations. The most common health-related SDOH exposures are food and housing insecurity, financial instability, transportation needs, low levels of education, and psychosocial stress. These domains describe risks that can impact health outcomes more than health care. Epidemiologic and translational research demonstrates that SDOH factors represent exposures that predict harm and impact the health of individuals. International and national guidelines urge health professionals to address SDOH in clinical practice and public health. The further implementation of these recommendations into basic and translational research, however, is lagging. Herein, we consider a precision health framework to describe how SDOH contributes to the exposome and exacerbates physiologic pathways that lead to chronic disease. SDOH factors are associated with various forms of stressors that impact physiological processes through epigenetic, inflammatory, and redox regulation. Many SDOH exposures may add to or potentiate the pathologic effects of additional environmental exposures. This overview aims to inform basic life science and translational researchers about SDOH exposures that can confound associations between classic biomedical determinants of disease and health outcomes. To advance the study of toxicology through either qualitative or quantitative assessment of exposures to chemical and biological substances, a more complete environmental evaluation should include SDOH exposures. We discuss common approaches to measure SDOH factors at individual and population levels and review the associations between SDOH risk factors and physiologic mechanisms that influence chronic disease. We provide clinical and policy-based motivation to encourage researchers to consider the impact of SDOH exposures on study results and data interpretation. With valid measures of SDOH factors incorporated into study design and analyses, future toxicological research may contribute to an evidence base that can better inform prevention and treatment options, to improve equitable clinical care and population health. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Motivation: Converting the vast quantity of free-format text found in journals into a concise, structured format makes the researcher's quest for information easier. Recently, several information extraction systems have been developed that attempt to simplify the retrieval and analysis of biological and medical data. Most of this work has used the abstract alone, owing to the convenience of access and the quality of data. Abstracts are generally available through central collections with easy direct access (e.g. PubMed). The full-text papers contain more information, but are distributed across many locations (e.g. publishers' web sites, journal web sites and local repositories), making access more difficult. In this paper, we present BioRAT, a new information extraction (IE) tool, specifically designed to perform biomedical IE, and which is able to locate and analyse both abstracts and full-length papers. BioRAT is a Biological Research Assistant for Text mining, and incorporates a document search ability with domain-specific IE., Results: We show first, that BioRAT performs as well as existing systems, when applied to abstracts; and second, that significantly more information is available to BioRAT through the full-length papers than via the abstracts alone. Typically, less than half of the available information is extracted from the abstract, with the majority coming from the body of each paper. Overall, BioRAT recalled 20.31% of the target facts from the abstracts with 55.07% precision, and achieved 43.6% recall with 51.25% precision on full-length papers.

Under brief consideration is the problem of primary or secondary status of the judgments about taxa relative to the judgments about characters in the biological classifications. The following formal definition of taxonomic system (classification) TS is provided: TS = BT[T, C(t), R(t), R(c), R(tc)], where BT is a biological theory constituting content-wise background of the system, T is a set of taxa, C(t) is a set of taxonomic characters, R(t) is a set of relationships among taxa (similarity, kinship, etc.), R(c) is a set of relationships among characters (homology, etc.), and R(tc) is a set of correspondences among taxa and characters. The latter correspondences may be complete or incomplete. At ontological level, there two basical traditions exist in biological systematics regarding R(tc) according to which the biological diversity is patterned either as a set of groups of organisms (taxa) or as a set of their properties (characters). In the first case, taxon is "primary" relative to character (in cladistics); in its opposite, character is "primary" relative to taxon (in scholasticism, classical typology, classical phylogenetics). At epistemological level, incompleteness of the taxon-character correspondence makes classificatory procedure iterative and taxonomic diagnoses context-dependent. The interative nature of classificatory procedure makes the "primary" or "secondary" status of both taxa and characters relative and alternating. This makes it necessary to introduces a kind of uncertainty relation in biological systematics which means impossibility of simultaneous definition of both extensional and intentional parameters of the taxonomic system at each step of classificatory iterations.

In this paper, we propose and study several inverse problems of identifying/determining unknown coefficients for a class of coupled PDE systems by measuring the average flux data on part of the underlying boundary. In these coupled systems, we mainly consider the non-negative solutions of the coupled equations, which are consistent with realistic settings in biology and ecology. There are several salient features of our inverse problem study: the drastic reduction of the measurement/observation data due to averaging effects, the nonlinear coupling of multiple equations, and the non-negative constraints on the solutions, which pose significant challenges to the inverse problems. We develop a new and effective scheme to tackle the inverse problems and achieve unique identifiability results by properly controlling the injection of different source terms to obtain multiple sets of mean flux data. The approach relies on certain monotonicity properties which are related to the intrinsic structures of the coupled PDE system. We also connect our study to biological applications of practical interest., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

We designed a system that acquires domain specific knowledge from human written biological papers, and we call this system IFBP (Information Finding from Biological Papers). IFBP is divided into three phases, Information Retrieval (IR), Information Extraction (IE) and Dictionary Construction (DC). We propose a query modification method using automatically constructed thesaurus for IR and a statistical keyword prediction method for IE. A dictionary of domain specific terms, which is one of the central knowledge sources for the task of knowledge acquisition, is also constructed automatically in the DC phase. IFBP is currently used for constructing the Transcription Factor DataBase (TFDB) and shows good performance. Since the model of knowledge base construction that is adopted into IFBP is carried out entirely automatically, this system can be easily ported across domains.

The biogeographic contributions of Léon Croizat (1894-1982) and the conflictive relationships with his intellectual descendants and critics are analysed. Croizat's panbiogeography assumed that vicariance is the most important biogeographic process and that dispersal does not contribute to biogeographic patterns. Dispersalist biogeographers criticized or avoided mentioning panbiogeography, especially in the context of the "hardening" of the Modern Synthesis. Researchers at the American Museum of Natural History associated panbiogeography with Hennig's phylogenetic systematics, creating cladistic biogeography. On the other hand, a group of New Zealand biologists formalized Croizat's original concepts and soon began arguing with cladistic biogeographers over the relative merits of their approaches. In Latin America, panbiogeography and cladistic biogeography were incorporated as parts of an integrative approach. A recent development, molecular panbiogeography, is based on the use of molecular phylogenetic data. The current practice shows that some authors insist on considering panbiogeography as the only appropriate approach and vicariance as the only relevant process, whereas others accept Croizat's dictum "Earth and life evolve together" as a useful guide to understanding broad, general patterns, but recognize that dispersal also contributes substantially to biotic assembly. The framework of integrative pluralism allows to explain the complexities of the biogeographic processes involved in biotic assembly without the need of unification on a large scale. This historical analysis intersects with the existing historiography of the Modern Synthesis and may provide some insights on the dynamics of integrative pluralism, which may be especially relevant in the current development of the Extended Synthesis.

Across populations, human morbidity and mortality risks generally follow clear gradients, with socially-disadvantaged individuals and groups tending to have higher morbidity and mortality at all life stages relative to those more socially advantaged. Anthropologists specialize in understanding the proximate and ultimate factors that shape variation in human biological functioning and health and are therefore well-situated to explore the relationships between social position and health in diverse ecological and cultural contexts. While human biologists have developed sophisticated methods for assessing health using minimally-invasive methods, at a disciplinary level, we have room for conceptual and methodological improvement in how we frame, measure, and analyze the social inequities that might shape health inequities. This toolkit paper elaborates on some steps human biologists should take to enhance the quality of our research on health inequities. Specifically, we address: (1) how to frame unequal health outcomes (i.e., inequalities vs. disparities vs. inequities) and the importance of identifying our conceptual models of how these inequities emerge; (2) how to measure various axes of social inequities across diverse cultural contexts, and (3) approaches to community collaboration and dissemination. We end by discussing (4) future directions in human biology research of health inequities, including understanding the ultimate causes of sensitivity to social inequities and transitioning from research to action., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Historians and biologists identify the debate between mechanists and vitalists over the nature of life itself with the arguments of Driesch, Loeb, and other prominent voices. But what if the conversation was broader and the consequences deeper for the field? Following the suspicions of Joseph Needham in the 1930s and Francis Crick in the 1960s, we deployed tools of the digital humanities to an old problem in the history of biology. We analyzed over 31,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and learned that bioexceptionalism participated in a robust discursive landscape throughout subfields of the life sciences, occupied even by otherwise unknown biologists., (© 2020. Springer Nature B.V.)