Suchergebnisse

[Abstract] The four new briarane diterpenoids 2-butyryloxybriarane B-3 (2), 9-acetylbriarenolide S (3), briarenolide W (4), and 12-isobriarenolide P (5), along with briarane B-3 (1) and the five known diterpenes 6–10 were isolated from the gorgonian coral Briareum asbestinum collected from the Mexican Caribbean Sea. The structures were elucidated by 1D and 2D NMR and MS measurements. Since the structure of briarane B-3 (1) was only suggested and published without any spectroscopic support, it was herein confirmed, and the supporting data are now provided. In addition, 1 provided the opportunity to explore the sensitivity of vibrational circular dichroism (VCD) to determine the configuration of a single stereogenic center in the presence of eight other stereogenic centers in a molecule possessing a highly flexible ten-member ring. A single-crystal X-ray diffraction study, in which the Flack and Hooft parameters of 1 were determined, further confirmed that briarane B-3 is (1S,2S,6S,7R,8R,9S,10S,11R,17R)-1. This paper reports for first time the use of VCD in briarane diterpenes and with the presence of chlorine atoms. Biological evaluation of seven isolated compounds evidenced a moderate anti-inflammatory activity for compounds 6 and 9 but it did not show any cytotoxic, antiviral, antibacterial, and topoisomerase inhibitory activity. ; This work was supported by Grants RTI2018-093634-B-C22 (AEI/FEDER, EU) from the State Agency for Research (AEI) of Spain, co-funded by the FEDER Programme from the European Union. We thank to Xunta de Galicia for the support of Grants GRC2018/039 and ED431E 2018/03 for CICA-INIBIC strategic group and BLUEBIOLAB (o474_BLUEBIOLAB_1_E, Programme INTERREG V A of Spain-Portugal (POCTEP). JR, CJ, and D.P.-P. acknowledge CESGA for the use of the computational facilities. PJ-N acknowledges partial financial support from CONACYT-Mexico Grant No. 284194. D.P.-P. received a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) of Mexico. The work was also supported by UIDB/50006/2020 with funding from FCT/MCTES through national funds ; Xunta de Galicia; GRC2018/039 ; Xunta de Galicia; ED431E 2018/03 ; México. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología; 284194 ; Portugal. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia; UIDB/50006/2020

In recent years, Brazil has seen an increase in formal employment, the raising of the minimum wage, a recovery in the purchasing power of the average wage, a drop in open unemployment and curbs on unprotected subcontracting. Average household incomes have risen and poverty has declined. How was this achieved? This paper argues that a minimum wage revaluation policy, broader social security coverage, income transfers and improved wage bargaining have all contributed to a reduction in inequality. The shift in labour market indicators is, they believe, conditioned by Brazil's economic dynamics, public policy on the raising of incomes, and a legal and institutional framework in which the public institutions and the trade unions play a prominent role. The authors advocate the creation of a development model that distributes income and dignifies citizens.

In recent years, Brazil has seen an increase in formal employment, the raising of the minimum wage, a recovery in the purchasing power of the average wage, a drop in open unemployment and curbs on unprotected subcontracting. Average household incomes have risen and poverty has declined. How was this achieved? This paper argues that a minimum wage revaluation policy, broader social security coverage, income transfers and improved wage bargaining have all contributed to a reduction in inequality. The shift in labour market indicators is, they believe, conditioned by Brazil's economic dynamics, public policy on the raising of incomes, and a legal and institutional framework in which the public institutions and the trade unions play a prominent role. The authors advocate the creation of a development model that distributes income and dignifies citizens.

[Abstract] Three new diterpene alkaloids, (+)-8-epiagelasine T (1), (+)-10-epiagelasine B (2), and (+)-12-hydroxyagelasidine C (3), along with three known compounds, (+)-ent-agelasine F (4), (+)-agelasine B (5), and (+)-agelasidine C (6), were isolated from the sponge Agelas citrina, collected on the coasts of the Yucatán Peninsula (Mexico). Their chemical structures were elucidated by 1D and 2D NMR spectroscopy, HRESIMS techniques, and a comparison with literature data. Although the synthesis of (+)-ent-agelasine F (4) has been previously reported, this is the first time that it was isolated as a natural product. The evaluation of the antimicrobial activity against the Gram-positive pathogens Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis showed that all of them were active, with (+)-10-epiagelasine B (2) being the most active compound with an MIC in the range of 1–8 µg/mL. On the other hand, the Gram-negative pathogenes Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were also evaluated, and only (+)-agelasine B (5) showed a moderate antibacterial activity with a MIC value of 16 μg/mL. ; This work was supported by grants RTI2018-093634-B-C22 from the State Agency for Research (AEI) of Spain, cofunded by the FEDER Programme from the European Union (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER) and BLUEBIOLAB (0474_BLUEBIOLAB_1_E), Programme INTERREG V A of Spain-Portugal (POCTEP). This work was supported by Projects PI17/01482 and PI20/01212 awarded to AB, all within in the National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation 2017–2020 and funded by the ISCIII—General Subdirection of Assessment and Promotion of the Research-European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) "A way of making Europe". The work was also supported by CIBERINFEC (CIBER de Enfermedades Infecciosas). The study was also funded by project IN607D 2021/12 (GAIN-Agencia Gallega de Innovación—Consellería de Economía, Emprego e Industria) awarded to AB. The study was also funded ...

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.