Autologous human serum for cell culture avoids the implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in cellular cardiomyoplasty

Background: Current clinical experience with cellular cardiomyoplasty (using serum bovine-cultivated myoblasts) has demonstrated significant malignant ventricular arrhythmias and sudden deaths in patients. In some ongoing clinical trials the implantation of cardioverterdefibrillator is mandatory. We have hypothesized that contact of human cells with fetal bovine serum results after 3-week fixation of animal proteins on the cell surface, representing an antigenic substrate for immunological and inflammatory adverse events. Methods and Results: Autologous myoblasts were transplanted into infarcted LV in 20 patients (90% males, mean age 62±8 years). Cells were cultivated in a complete human medium during 3 weeks, using the patients' own serum obtained from a blood sample or from plasmapheresis. Injections were performed during CABG (2.1 grafts/pt). All patients had an uneventful recovery. At a mean follow-up of 14±5 months without mortality, no malignant cardiac arrhythmias are reported. LV ejection fraction improved from 28±3% to 52:k4.7% (p = 0.03), and regional wall motion score index (WMSI) from 3.1 to 1.4 (p = 0.04) in the cell-treated segments. Myocardial viability tests showed areas of regeneration. Patients moved from mean NYHA class 2.5 to class 1.2. Conclusions: A total autologous cell culture procedure was used in cellular cardiomyoplasty reducing the risk of arrhythmia. Human-autologous-serum cell expansion avoids the risk of prion, viral or zoonoses contamination. Since patients treated with noncultivated bone marrow cells are free of arrhythmia, the bovine-culture medium seems to be responsible for this complication. Cellular cardiomyoplasty may be efficient to avoid progression of ventricular remodeling and subsequent heart failure in ischemic heart disease

Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by stan-dards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge productsfor biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decisionmakers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largelyundocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintain-ing four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the WorldDatabase of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary datacollected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested inthese four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financingwas provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnelcosts. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowl-edge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were notpossible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We esti-mated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines ofdata coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual mainte-nance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those tomaintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodi-versity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensiveand accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation andsustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustain-able long-term financing for them is critical

Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity

Peer reviewe

Human population and socioeconomic modulators of conservation performance in 788 Amazonian and Atlantic Forest reserves

Protected areas form a quintessential component of the global strategy to perpetuate tropical biodiversity within relatively undisturbed wildlands, but they are becoming increasingly isolated by rapid agricultural encroachment. Here we consider a network of 788 forest protected areas (PAs) in the world’s largest tropical country to examine the degree to which they remain intact, and their responses to multiple biophysical and socioeconomic variables potentially affecting natural habitat loss under varying contexts of rural development. PAs within the complex Brazilian National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) are broken down into two main classes—strictly protected and sustainable use. Collectively, these account for 22.6% of the forest biomes within Brazil’s national territory, primarily within the Amazon and the Atlantic Forest, but are widely variable in size, ecoregional representation, management strategy, and the degree to which they are threatened by human activities both within and outside reserve boundaries. In particular, we examine the variation in habitat conversion rates in both strictly protected and sustainable use reserves as a function of the internal and external human population density, and levels of land-use revenue in adjacent human-dominated landscapes. Our results show that PAs surrounded by heavily settled agro-pastoral landscapes face much greater challenges in retaining their natural vegetation, and that strictly protected areas are considerably less degraded than sustainable use reserves, which can rival levels of habitat degradation within adjacent 10-km buffer areas outside

Protected Planet Report 2018

In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including its 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in order to address biodiversity loss, ensure the sustainable use of natural resources, and equitable sharing of benefits. The Protected Planet Report 2018 provides an update of progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 at the global scale. Each chapter of the report examines a specific element of Target 11. The findings in the report are based on data held in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) as of July 2018. For the first time, the printed Protected Planet Report is complemented by an online version, regularly updated with all the latest data, which can be explored at the following address: www.livereport.protectedplanet.net. Since the Strategic Plan was adopted, there has been significant progress towards achieving elements of Aichi Target 11, particularly in terms of land and sea coverage. However, significant efforts are needed to achieve other elements of the target

Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013 ) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical

Plant conservation in the Anthropocene - challenges and future prospects

Despite the massive efforts that have been made to conserve plant diversity across the world during the past few decades, it is becoming increasingly evident that our current strategies are not sufficiently effective to prevent the continuing decline in biodiversity. As a recent report by the CBD indicates, current progress and commitments are insufficient to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. Threatened species lists continue to grow while the world's governments fail to meet biodiversity conservation goals. Clearly, we are failing in our attempts to conserve biodiversity on a sufficient scale. The reasons for this situation are complex, including scientific, technical, sociological, economic and political factors. The conservation community is divided about how to respond. Some believe that saving all existing biodiversity is still an achievable goal. On the other hand, there are those who believe that we need to accept that biodiversity will inevitably continue to be lost, despite all our conservation actions and that we must focus on what to save, why and where. It has also been suggested that we need a new approach to conservation in the face of the challenges posed by the Anthropocene biosphere which we now inhabit. Whatever view one holds on the above issues, it is clear that we need to review the effectiveness of our current conservation strategies, identify the limiting factors that are preventing the Aichi goals being met and at the same time take whatever steps are necessary to make our conservation protocols more explicit, operational and efficient so as to achieve the maximum conservation effect. This paper addresses the key issues that underlie our failure to meet agreed targets and discusses the necessary changes to our conservation approaches. While we can justifiably be proud of our many achievements and successes in plant conservation in the past 30 years, which have helped slow the rate of loss, unless we devise a more coherent, consistent and integrated global strategy in which both the effectiveness and limitations of our current policies, action plans and procedures are recognized, and reflect this in national strategies, and then embark on a much bolder and ambitious set of actions, progress will be limited and plant diversity will continue to decline

Conserving plants within and beyond protected areas - still problematic and future uncertain

Against a background of continuing loss of biodiversity, it is argued that for the successful conservation of threatened plant species we need to ensure the more effective integration of the various conservation actions employed, clarify the wording of the CBD targets and provide clearer operational guidance as to how they are to be implemented and their implementation monitored. The role and effectiveness of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and in particular plant species are discussed as are recent proposals for a massive increase of their extent. The need for much greater effort and investment in the conservation or protection of threatened species outside protected areas where most plant diversity occurs is highlighted. The difficulties involved in implementing effective conservation of plant diversity both at an area- and species/population-based level are discussed. The widespread neglect of species recovery for plants is noted and the desirability of making a clearer distinction between species recovery and reintroduction is emphasized. Key messages from a global overview of species recovery are outlined and recommendations made, including the desirability of each country preparing a national species recovery strategy. The projected impacts of global change on protected areas and on species conservation and recovery, and ways of addressing them are discussed

Delivering Systematic and Repeatable Area-Based Conservation Assessments: From Global to Local Scales

Protected and conserved areas are a key area-based strategy to address the biodiversity and climate change crises. Indicators are fundamental to understanding performance over time. The Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) was born in 2013 as a set of open-access web services and applications to be used to assess, monitor, and report on protected and conserved areas. For over a decade, it has delivered over 50 indicators to support policy processes, national and regional governments, and practitioners. DOPA has also developed a versatile and efficient back-end approach that is widely applicable in other area-based conservation contexts. Here, we describe the methods and workflows behind DOPA’s back end and provide examples of policy relevant questions it can answer. We discuss the key advantages and limitations of this systematic and replicable approach and explore the use of this back-end architecture to inform progress in area-based conservation targets for the following decades. This approach, embedded in multiple services provided by the Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity of the European Commission (KCBD), can also support the implementation and monitoring of area-based targets of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at international, regional, and national levels

Mitigating the Impacts of Development Corridors on Biodiversity: A Global Review

Development corridors are extensive, often transnational and linear, geographical areas targeted for investment to help achieve sustainable development. They often comprise the creation of hard infrastructure (i.e., physical structures) and soft infrastructure (i.e., policies, plans, and programmes) involving a variety of actors. They are globally widespread, and likely to be a significant driver of habitat loss. Here, we describe the development corridors phenomenon from a biodiversity perspective and identify the elements of best practice in biodiversity impact mitigation. We use these to carry out a review of the peer reviewed literature on corridors to respond to three questions: (i) how impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services are assessed; (ii) what mitigation measures are discussed to manage these impacts; and (iii) to what extent do these measures approximate to best practice. We found that of 271 publications on development corridors across all continents (except for Antarctica) mentioning biodiversity or ecosystem services, only 100 (37%) assessed impacts on biodiversity and 7 (3%) on ecosystem services. Importantly, only half of these (52, 19% of the total 271 articles) discussed mitigation measures to manage these impacts. These measures focused on avoidance and minimisation and there was scant mention of restoration or ecological compensation illustrating a deficient application of the mitigation hierarchy. We conclude that the academic literature on corridors does not give sufficient consideration to comprehensive mitigation of biodiversity impacts. To change this, impact assessment research needs to acknowledge the complexity of such multi-project and multi-stakeholder initiatives, quantify biodiversity losses due to the full suite of their potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and follow all the steps of the mitigation hierarchy impact framework. We suggest a series of research avenues and policy recommendations to improve impact assessments of corridors towards achieving better biodiversity outcomes