Molekulární genetika vstoupila na antropologické kolbiště koncem 60. let, ale teprve přímá analýza archaické DNA (aDNA) z fosilních pozůstatků od 80. let umožnila přesnější vhled do evoluce našeho druhu ve středním a mladém pleistocénu. Navzdory různým „Jurským parkům“ totiž DNA po smrti organismu rychle degraduje a časové okno její možné analýzy je poměrně omezené. Navíc jsou vzorky kontaminovány DNA okolních organismů. Nicméně velice záhy se pozornost paleogenetiků soustředila na naše příbuzné - neandertálce. Analýza jejich genomu ukázala, že ~2 % jejich DNA se vyskytuje v genomu anatomicky moderního člověka s výjimkou subsaharské Afriky a celkový rozsah tohoto přenosu může dosahovat až 20 %. Křížení s neandertálci lidem zřejmě umožnilo snadnější adaptaci na chladnější podmínky eurasijského kontinentu, současně však přineslo i výskyt některých chorob. Překvapení přinesla sekvence aDNA izolovaná z článku prstu nalezeného v Denisově jeskyni na Altaji. Ukázalo se, že tento jedinec patřil k neznámému druhu odlišnému jak od moderních lidí, tak i od neandertálců. I tito hominini přispěli až 6 % svojí DNA do genomu některých současných populací člověka (JV Asie, Oceánie). Podle nejnovějších poznatků byl tok genů mezi homininy středního a mladého paleolitu poměrně složitý, byla např. detekována příměs neandertálské DNA v genomu denisovců, kteří navíc získali další sekvence od dalšího, blíže neurčeného druhu hominina. Posledním příspěvkem paleogenetiky do obrazu naší evoluce je sekvence mitochondriální DNA získaná ze zhruba 400 tisíc let starých fosilních pozůstatků heidelberského člověka (Homo heidelbergensis) ze Sima de los Huesos (Šachty kostí) z krasové oblasti Atapuerca ve Španělsku, která ukazuje na příbuznost tohoto druhu., Molecular genetics entered the arena of anthropology at the end of the 1960s, but only direct analysis of ancient DNA (aDNA) from fossils since the 80s has permitted a better insight into the evolution of our own species. Despite the rapid decomposition of DNA starting immediately after death, molecular geneticists are now able to retrieve and sequence aDNA tens or even hundreds of thousands years old. Paleogenetic studies of ancient humans and their relatives have revealed a rather complex picture of Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominins (Neanderthals, Denisovans, ante-Neanderthals etc.) and gene flow among them. New and exciting findings changing our views of the evolution of our own species are appearing with an accelerating pace., Miloš Macholán., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Entomofilní hlístice, tedy hlístice žijící v asociaci s nějakým druhem hmyzu, můžeme jednoduše rozdělit na foretické, entomopatogenní a entomoparazitické. Tzv. foretické druhy využívají hmyz jako vektor, který je přenáší do nového prostředí, a pro své nositele jsou v drtivé většině případů neškodné. Opakem jsou entomopatogenní hlístice, tj. hlístovky, které žijí v symbióze s bakteriemi zodpovědnými za usmrcení hmyzího hostitele (odtud entomopatogenní) a zároveň pak slouží hlísticím jako potrava. Za entomoparazitické druhy považujeme ostatní entomofilní hlístice, které parazitují v těle hmyzu, ale nejsou obligátně vybaveny bakterií patogenní pro hmyz. Nejrůznější zástupce entomoparazitických hlístic můžeme najít v celkem asi 24 čeledích. Obligátně parazitické druhy se vyskytují v čeledích Mermithidae, Tetradonematidae, Syrphonematidae, Carabonematidae, Oxyuridae, Thelastomatidae, Sphaerulariidae, Allantonematidae a Fergusobiidae. Právě těmto poněkud opomíjeným hlísticím se článek věnuje. Zaměřuje se především na ty druhy, které se vyskytují na území České republiky. Kromě základních údajů o jednotlivých skupinách a obecných informací o ekologii hlístic si všímá i jejich praktického významu, tedy skutečnosti, jak ovlivňují populace různého člověku škodlivého hmyzu a jak jich můžeme využít., This group of parasitic nematodes consists of approximately 24 families, although obligate parasites can be found in eight of them. Some of these enigmatic nematodes adopted amazing life strategies and serve as bioagents to control populations of mosquitoes or woodwasps. In this article we review the biology, ecology and distribution of these organisms and depict their current use in biological control., and Jiří Nermuť, Vladimír Půža.
The partial consumption of prey refers to when a predator does not consume all the digestible biomass of an animal it has killed. The frequency of partial consumption of prey by the polyphagous predator Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) was recorded for different species of prey and prey population structures, in single and mixed prey species patches. All the instars of the aphid, Aphis gossypii, were provided as prey alone or together with Myzus persicae or Macrosiphum euphorbiae. Numbers killed were determined when equal (10 nymphs of each instar, 40 in total) or unequal numbers (higher numbers of young nymphs but again 40 in total) of nymphs were placed on an eggplant leaf in a plastic Petri dish. In each dish a single 5th instar nymph of the predator was introduced and the numbers killed and numbers of partially consumed aphids were recorded after 24h, at 25 ± 1°C. The numbers of A. gossypii killed were higher than those of the other species of prey used. The frequency of partially consumed prey was highest when A. gossypii was offered alone in equal numbers of each instar, followed by when A. gossypii was provided together with M. persicae in unequal numbers of instars (23.6% and 11.2%, of the total mortality, respectively). Killed but not consumed prey was also recorded, at frequencies that reached 10.7% of the total mortality when A. gossypii was provided alone in equal numbers of each instar. For M. persicae and M. euphorbiae, these percentages were significantly lower. The higher frequency of this behaviour when A. gossypii was the prey may be related to its lower nutritional quality for the predator. The effect of prey instar was not significant. These results indicate that in determining the numbers killed by a predator, partially consumed prey may make up a significant part of the total kill and thus should be taken into consideration., Dionyssios Lykouressis, Dionyssios Perdikis, Ioannis Mandarakas., and Obsahuje bibliografii
The effect of Na+-K+-ATPase inhibitor ouabain on the resting membrane potential (Vm) was studied by glass microelectrodes in isolated somatic longitudinal muscles of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris and compared with frog sartorius muscle. In earthworm muscle, Vm was -49 mV (inside negative) in a reference external solution with 4 mmol/l K+. The electrogenic participation of Na+-K+-ATPase was absent in solutions with very low concentrations of 0.01 mmol/l K+, higher in 4 and 8 mmol/l K+ (4-5 mV) and maximal (13 mV) in solutions containing 12 mmol/l K+ where Vm was -46 mV in the absence and -33 mV in the presence of 1x10-4 M ouabain. The electrogenic participation of Na+-K+-ATPase was much smaller in m. sartorius of the frog Rana temporaria bathed in 8 and 12 mmol/l K+. The results indicate that the Na+-K+-ATPase is an important electrogenic factor in earthworm longitudinal muscle fibres and that its contribution to Vm depends directly on the concentration of K+ in the bathing solution., E. M. Volkov, L. F. Nurullin, I. Švandová, E. E. Nikolsky, F. Vyskočil., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Pásemnička sladkovodní (Prostoma graecence) je málo známý, ale běžný vodní živočich. Žije na kamenech a vodních rostlinách v tekoucích i stojatých vodách, především v nižších polohách. Živí se drobnými planktonními a bentickými organismy. Na hlavě má 6 očních skvrn (mladší jedinci 4). Loví pomocí chobotku (proboscis), který obsahuje centrální trn s jedovou žlázou a po stranách 2 - 5 přídatných trnů. Tento orgán je typický pro pásnice (Nemertea)., The ribbon worm Prostoma graecense (Nemertea) is a little known but common water animal. It occurs on stones and plants in running and standing waters, mostly in the lowlands. It is a carnivore feeding on tiny planktonic and benthic animals. P. graecense has 6 black eyespots (young specimens have four) on the top of its head. The eversible proboscis is armed with one central stylet with a poison gland and paired pouches each containing two to five accessory stylets. The proboscis is a typical apparatus of ribbon worms, used for hunting., Jan Špaček., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Solid organ transplantation is an established treatment modality in patients with end-stage organ damage in cases where other therapeutic options fail. The long-term outcomes of solid organ transplant recipients have improved considerably since the introduction of the first calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) - cyclosporine. In 1984, the potent immunosuppressive properties of another CNI, tacrolimus, were discovered. The immunosuppressive effects of CNIs result from the inhibition of interleukin-2 synthesis and reduced proliferation of T cells due to calcineurin blockade. The considerable side effects that are associated with CNIs therapy include arterial hypertension and nephrotoxicity. The focus of this article was to review the available literature on the pathophysiological mechanisms of CNIs that induce chronic nephrotoxicity and arterial hypertension. CNIs lead to activation of the major vasoconstriction systems, such as the reninangiotensin and endothelin systems, and increase sympathetic nerve activity. On the other hand, CNIs are known to inhibit NO synthesis and NO-mediated vasodilation and to increase free radical formation. Altogether, these processes cause endothelial dysfunction and contribute to the impairment of organ function. A better insight into the mechanisms underlying CNI nephrotoxicity could assist in developing more targeted therapies of arterial hypertension or preventing CNI nephrotoxicity in organ transplant recipients, including heart transplantation., L. Hošková, I. Málek, L. Kopkan, J. Kautzner., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is one of the methods of choices for treatment of autoimmune diseases (ADs). In addition, adrenal androgens are known as immunoprotective GC-antagonists. Adrenal steroids preferentially influence the Th1-components over the Th2 ones. We investigated steroid metabolome (using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) in healthy controls (H), GC-untreated patients with ADs different from IgA nephropathy (U), GC-treated patients with ADs different from IgA nephropathy (T) and in patients with IgA nephropathy (IgAN), which were monitored on the beginning (N0), after one week (N1) and after one month (N2) of prednisolone therapy (60 mg of prednisolone/day/m2 of body surface). Between-group differences were assessed by one-way ANOVA, while the changes during the therapy were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA. The ANOVA testing was followed by Duncan’s multiple comparisons. IgAN patients and patients with other ADs exhibited lack of adrenal androgens due to attenuated activity of adrenal zona reticularis (ZR). Androgen levels including their 7α-, 7β-, and 16α-hydroxy-metabolites were further restrained by GC-therapy. Based on these results and data from the literature, we addressed the question, whether a combination of GCs with Δ5-steroids or their more stable synthetic derivatives may be optimal for the treatment of antibodies-mediated ADs., I. Šterzl, M. Hill, L. Stárka, M. Velíková, R. Kančeva, J. Jemelková, L. Czerneková, P. Kosztyu, J. Zadražil, K. Matoušovic, K. Vondrák, M. Raška., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Resistance to steroid hormones presents a serious problem with respect to their mass use in therapy. It may be caused genetically by mutation of genes involved in hormonal signaling, not only steroid receptors, but also other players in the signaling cascade as co-regulators and other nuclear factors, mediating the hormone-born signal. Another possibility is acquired resistance which may develop under long-term steroid treatment, of which a particular case is down regulation of the receptors. In the review recent knowledge is summarized on the mechanism of main steroid hormone action, pointing to already proven or potential sites causing steroid resistance. We have attempted to address following questions: 1) What does stay behind differences among patients as to their response to the (anti)steroid treatment? 2) Why do various tissues/cells respond differently to the same steroid hormone though they contain the same receptors? 3) Are such differences genetically dependent? The main attention was devoted to glucocorticoids as the most frequently used steroid therapeutics. Further, androgen insensitivity is discussed with a particular attention to acquired resistance to androgen deprivation therapy of prostate cancer. Finally the potential causes are outlined of breast and related cancer(s) resistance to antiestrogen therapy., R. Hampl, K. Vondra., and Obsahuje bibliografii