RESUMEN

Parrots have enormous vocal imitation capacities and produce individually unique vocal signatures. Like songbirds, parrots have a nucleated neural song system with distinct anterior (AFP) and posterior forebrain pathways (PFP). To test if song systems of parrots and songbirds, which diverged over 50 million years ago, have a similar functional organization, we first established a neuroscience-compatible call-and-response behavioral paradigm to elicit learned contact calls in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Using variational autoencoder-based machine learning methods, we show that contact calls within affiliated groups converge but that individuals maintain unique acoustic features, or vocal signatures, even after call convergence. Next, we transiently inactivated the outputs of AFP to test if learned vocalizations can be produced by the PFP alone. As in songbirds, AFP inactivation had an immediate effect on vocalizations, consistent with a premotor role. But in contrast to songbirds, where the isolated PFP is sufficient to produce stereotyped and acoustically normal vocalizations, isolation of the budgerigar PFP caused a degradation of call acoustic structure, stereotypy, and individual uniqueness. Thus, the contribution of AFP and the capacity of isolated PFP to produce learned vocalizations have diverged substantially between songbirds and parrots, likely driven by their distinct behavioral ecology and neural connectivity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is a need for better alignment between research on sport and physical activity and the needs of those who are in a position to implement the findings. To facilitate advancement and alignment, we identified the top research priorities of sport and physical activity knowledge users from various sectors. METHODS: For this priority-setting study, we used an iterative process of data collection and analysis. Sport and physical activity knowledge users from multiple sectors participated in a workshop (September 2019), which included small working group exercises followed by large-group syntheses leading to the identification of issues that required better understanding. We then sent an online questionnaire to participants for content validation and interim prioritization, to reduce the number of priorities (December 2019 to January 2020). A new questionnaire containing a shortened list of research priorities was sent to an expanded group of respondents to further streamline the list of priorities (January-March 2020). RESULTS: The 24 workshop participants identified 68 issues, of which 21 were retained by the 18 participants in the interim priority-setting questionnaire. The final prioritization questionnaire was completed by 33 stakeholder groups; this step produced a final list of 8 top research priorities. The final priorities identified for sport and physical activity research related to financial support, suboptimal promotion, dropout, best interventions, participation among Indigenous populations, volunteer engagement, safe and inclusive experiences, and knowledge exchange. INTERPRETATION: The 8 priorities identified in this study provide guidance to Canadian sport and physical activity researchers. Research efforts on these priorities will reflect pressing issues as identified by representatives of all sport and physical activity sectors.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To develop an immunofluorescence assay for identification of the 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus, we generated a number of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) by using inactivated H1N1 2009 virus (A/California/07/2009) as the immunogen. Two MAbs that target two different epitopes of the 2009 H1N1 hemagglutinin (HA) were selected to make the D(3) Ultra 2009 H1N1 Influenza A ID kit (2009 H1N1 ID kit; Diagnostic Hybrids, Inc., Athens, OH), which is intended for the identification of the 2009 H1N1 virus by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The kit does not detect any of 14 seasonal H1N1 or H3N2 prototype influenza virus strains and is also not reactive with seven other major respiratory viruses. Clinical respiratory specimens were evaluated using both the 2009 H1N1 ID kit and the CDC human influenza virus real-time reverse transcription-PCR swine flu panel (CDC rRT-PCR) and showed 100% agreement between the two assays. Four of these clinical specimens, however, were positive by the 2009 H1N1 ID kit but were identified as presumptively positive by the CDC rRT-PCR by virtue of showing threshold cycle (C(T)) values only with universal InfA and swInfA primers, not with swH1 primers. Sequence analysis of the HA genes of these four specimens revealed point mutations in both the primer and probe regions. In addition, unlike the CDC rRT-PCR, the 2009 H1N1 ID kit can differentiate the 2009 H1N1 virus from a swine-derived H1 influenza A virus (A/New Jersey/8/76). The 2009 H1N1 ID kit offers clinical laboratories an alternative to RT-PCR for the identification of the 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)