Phosphorylation of mammalian cytosolic and mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase: insights into regulation.

Malate dehydrogenase (MDH) is a key enzyme in mammalian metabolic pathways in cytosolic and mitochondrial compartments. Regulation of MDH through phosphorylation remains an underexplored area. In this review we consolidate evidence supporting the potential role of phosphorylation in modulating the function of mammalian MDH. Parallels are drawn with the phosphorylation of lactate dehydrogenase, a homologous enzyme, to reveal its regulatory significance and to suggest a similar regulatory strategy for MDH. Comprehensive mining of phosphorylation databases, provides substantial experimental (primarily mass spectrometry) evidence of MDH phosphorylation in mammalian cells. Experimentally identified phosphorylation sites are overlaid with MDH's functional domains, offering perspective on how these modifications could influence enzyme activity. Preliminary results are presented from phosphomimetic mutations (serine/threonine residues changed to aspartate) generated in recombinant MDH proteins serving as a proof of concept for the regulatory impact of phosphorylation. We also examine and highlight several approaches to probe the structural and cellular impact of phosphorylation. This review highlights the need to explore the dynamic nature of MDH phosphorylation and calls for identifying the responsible kinases and the physiological conditions underpinning this modification. The synthesis of current evidence and experimental data aims to provide insights for future research on understanding MDH regulation, offering new avenues for therapeutic interventions in metabolic disorders and cancer.

Coping With Human-Cat Interactions Beyond the Limits of Domesticity: Moral Pluralism in the Management of Cats and Wildlife.

Although human interactions with cats are often even typically analyzed in the context of domesticity, with a focus on what sorts of interactions might make both people and cats "happy at home," a large number of cats in the world live, for one reason or another, beyond the bounds of domesticity. Human interactions with these more or less free-living cats raise deeply controversial questions about how both the cats and the people they interact with should be sensibly managed, and about the moral imperatives that ought to guide the management of their interactions through the laws and public policies regulating both human interactions with pets and with wildlife. We review the geography of human interactions with cats living beyond the bounds of domesticity. We acknowledge the contributions made to ideas about how to manage cats by the animal protection movement. We review the tensions that have emerged over time between advocates for the eradication of free-living cats, because of the impacts they have on native wildlife species, and those who have imagined alternatives to eradication, most notably one or another variant of trap-neuter-return (TNR). The conflict over how best to deal with cats living beyond the bounds of domesticity and their wildlife impacts raises the prospect of stalemate, and we canvass and critique possibilities for moving beyond that stalemate.

Brighton v Will: The Legal Chasm between Animal Welfare and Animal Suffering.

Through the mechanism of statutory interpretation, courts can narrow or widen the legal concept of animal cruelty. This was starkly brought to light in the case of Brighton v Will, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that stabbing a dog six times with a pitchfork and then killing him with a mallet, did not amount to serious animal cruelty. This finding was the result of the Court's applying a textual interpretation to the NSW Crimes Act, concluding that the appellant was simply exterminating a pest. Yet, animal law in NSW comprises more than legislation, extending to a raft of plans and strategies which provide background and context for regulation. This article argues that a contextual interpretation would have been more appropriate, leading to enquiries whether the dog was rightfully classified as a pest, as well as whether the law should have considered the manner in which the dog was killed. An equally relevant issue stems from the relationship between animal suffering and animal welfare, a connection which hinges on the ambit of anti-cruelty legislation. The latter permits a range of exceptions and defences that permit justification of cruelty, magnifying the chasm between animal suffering and animal welfare. This chasm is also not diminished by legal interpretations of cruelty that focus on whether killing is justified, while ignoring the method of killing.

Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation.

Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.

Reconocimiento de la Calidad de Persona en los Animales dentro de la Conservación Compasiva Resumen La conservación compasiva está basada en la posición ética que parte de que las acciones tomadas para proteger a la biodiversidad deberían estar dirigidas por la compasión por todos los seres sintientes. Los críticos de esta postura argumentan que hay tres razones nucleares por las que el daño a los animales es aceptable dentro de los programas de conservación: el principal motivo de la conservación es la protección de la biodiversidad; la conservación ya es compasiva con los animales; y la conservación debería priorizar la compasión hacia los humanos. Usamos un análisis de argumentos para aclarar los valores y la lógica subyacentes al debate en torno a la conservación compasiva. Encontramos que el rechazo a la conservación compasiva es una expresión de la excepcionalidad humana, la visión de que los humanos están en un nivel categóricamente separado y de mayor moral que todas las demás especies. Por el contrario, los conservacionistas compasivos creen que la conservación debería expandir su comunidad moral al reconocer a todos los seres sintientes como personas. La calidad de persona, en un sentido ético, implica que el individuo merece respeto y no debería ser tratado solamente como un medio para otros fines. Si hablamos desde fundamentos científicos y éticos, existen muy buenas razones para extender la calidad de persona a todos los animales sintientes, particularmente en la conservación. La exclusión moral o la subordinación de los miembros de otras especies justifica la continua manipulación y explotación de los seres vivos, la justa razón por la que necesitamos de la conservación desde el principio. La aceptación de la compasión nos puede ayudar a desmantelar la excepcionalidad humana, a reconocer la calidad de persona no humana y a navegar un espacio moral más expansivo.

The Changing Legal Status of Cats in Australia: From Friend of the Settlers, to Enemy of the Rabbit, and Now a Threat to Biodiversity and Biosecurity Risk.

In NSW, free-roaming cats are regarded as one the biggest threats to biodiversity. Yet, at one stage they were classified as "the enemy of the rabbit" and were protected and released in their thousands. The purpose of this article is to examine the changing status of cats in Australia, demonstrating that regulation frequently depends on a narrow set of values based on the usefulness of cats at a given point in time. By the late twentieth century, the status of free-roaming cats had changed from enemy of the rabbit, to threat to biodiversity and then in the twenty-first century, to a risk to biosecurity. Once the status of cats changed from enemy of the rabbit, management practices followed historically-driven pathways that rely on lethal methods, which do not necessarily prioritize efficacy, animal wellbeing, or changing community outlooks. This is reflected in current practice, which gives scant regard to non-lethal processes, such as Trap-Neuter-Release, and in some cases makes the feeding and release of free-roaming cats, illegal. This article argues that regulatory preferences for employing lethal methods, now occur in a society which increasingly questions the efficacy of these measures, as well as the very need to kill. While TNR is unlikely to provide a complete solution to the problem of free-roaming cats in Australia, given the success of TNR among community groups, accompanied by changing societal perspectives, the time has come for regulators to engage with alternative control methods and include them in their suite of official measures.

New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk.

Agricultural intensification is critical to meet global food demand, but intensification threatens native species and degrades ecosystems. Sustainable intensification (SI) is heralded as a new approach for enabling growth in agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts. However, the SI literature has overlooked a major environmental risk. Using data from eight countries on six continents, we show that few governments regulate conventionally bred pasture taxa to limit threats to natural areas, even though most agribusinesses promote taxa with substantial weed risk. New pasture taxa (including species, subspecies, varieties, cultivars, and plant-endophyte combinations) are bred with characteristics typical of invasive species and environmental weeds. By introducing novel genetic and endophyte variation, pasture taxa are imbued with additional capacity for invasion and environmental impact. New strategies to prevent future problems are urgently needed. We highlight opportunities for researchers, agribusiness, and consumers to reduce environmental risks associated with new pasture taxa. We also emphasize four main approaches that governments could consider as they build new policies to limit weed risks, including (i) national lists of taxa that are prohibited based on environmental risk; (ii) a weed risk assessment for all new taxa; (iii) a program to rapidly detect and control new taxa that invade natural areas; and (iv) the polluter-pays principle, so that if a taxon becomes an environmental weed, industry pays for its management. There is mounting pressure to increase livestock production. With foresight and planning, growth in agriculture can be achieved sustainably provided that the scope of SI expands to encompass environmental weed risks.