Notes

Distilling Expertise through Resembling Functions.
Slack channels are sodium-activated potassium channels that are encoded by the KCNT1 gene. Several KCNT1 gain of function mutations have been linked to malignant migrating partial seizures of infancy. Quinidine is an anti-arrhythmic drug that functions as a moderately potent inhibitor of Slack channels; however, quinidine use is limited by its poor selectivity, safety and pharmacokinetic profile. Slack channels represent an interesting target for developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of malignant migrating partial seizures of infancy and other childhood epilepsies; thus, ongoing efforts are directed toward the discovery of small-molecules that inhibit Slack currents. This review summarizes patent applications published in 2020-2021 that describe the discovery of novel small-molecule Slack inhibitors.Humans often favour ingroup members over others, a bias that drives discrimination and intergroup conflicts. Hostile relations between groups and homogeneity within groups may affect such ingroup bias. In an experiment with members of three natural groups in Ethiopia, we vary intergroup relations (neutral versus enmity) and exploit the natural variation in the homogeneity of groups (homogeneous versus heterogeneous) to identify their effect on in- and outgroup concerns. We find that ingroup bias largely manifests as positive concern for ingroup members combined with no concern for outgroup members. Enmity has no effect on ingroup bias, whereas ingroup concern is amplified in homogeneous groups. Group homogeneity, thus, is the primary driver of concerns for others in our study's context. Our results are relevant to understanding the consequences of exclusionary group identities. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.Intergroup violence is challenging to understand why do individuals cooperate to harm members of other groups when they themselves may be killed or injured? Despite progress in understanding the evolutionary and proximate mechanisms that underlie violence, we still have little insight into the processes that lead to the emergence of coalitionary aggression. We argue that an overlooked component is the presence of individuals who have a crucial role in initiating violence. In instigating intergroup violence, these key individuals may expect to face lower costs, receive greater benefits, or garner benefits that have a greater value to them than others. Alternatively, key individuals may be motivated by individual traits such as increased boldness, propensity for aggression or exploratory behaviour. Key individuals catalyse the emergence of coalitionary violence through one of several processes including altering the costs and benefits that accrue to others, paying a greater share of the startup costs, signalling privileged knowledge, or providing coordination, among other factors. Here we integrate diverse lines of empirical research from humans and non-human animals demonstrating that inter-individual variation is an important factor in the emergence of intergroup violence. Focusing on the role of key individuals provides new insights into how and why violence emerges. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.The energetic costs and benefits of intergroup conflicts over feeding sites are widely hypothesized to be significant, but rarely quantified. In this study, we use short-term measures of energy gain and expenditure to test whether winning an intergroup encounter is associated with greater benefits, and losing with greater costs. We also test an alternative perspective, where groups fight for access to large food sources that are neither depletable nor consistently monopolizable in this case, a group that has already fed on the resource and is willing to leave first (the loser) is supplanted by a newly arrived group (the winner). We evaluate energy balance and travel distance during and after encounters for six groups of red-tailed monkeys in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We find that winning groups experience substantial energetic benefits, but do so to recoup from earlier deficits. Losing groups, contrary to predictions, experience minimal energetic costs. Winners and losers are predictable based upon their use of the contested resource immediately before the encounter. The short-term payoffs associated with these stressful conflicts compensate for any associated costs and support the perception that between-group contests are an important feature of social life for species that engage in non-lethal conflicts. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.Intergroup conflict is a major evolutionary force shaping animal and human societies. Males and females should, on average, experience different costs and benefits for participating in collective action. Specifically, among mammals, male fitness is generally limited by access to mates whereas females are limited by access to food and safety. Here we analyse sex biases among 72 species of group-living mammals in two contexts intergroup conflict and collective movements. Our comparative phylogenetic analyses show that the modal mammalian pattern is male-biased participation in intergroup conflict and female-biased leadership in collective movements. However, the probability of male-biased participation in intergroup conflicts decreased and female-biased participation increased with female-biased leadership in movements. Thus, female-biased participation in intergroup conflict only emerged in species with female-biased leadership in collective movements, such as in spotted hyenas and some lemurs. Sex differences are probably attributable to costs and benefits of participating in collective movements (e.g. towards food, water, safety) and intergroup conflict (e.g. access to mates or resources, risk of injury). Our comparative review offers new insights into the factors shaping sex bias in leadership across social mammals and is consistent with the 'male warrior hypothesis' which posits evolved sex differences in human intergroup psychology. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.Both inter- and intragroup interactions can be important influences on behaviour, yet to date most research focuses on intragroup interactions. Here, we describe a hitherto relatively unknown behaviour that results from intergroup interaction in the cooperative breeding pied babbler kidnapping. Kidnapping can result in the permanent removal of young from their natal group. Since raising young requires energetic investment and abductees are usually unrelated to their kidnappers, there appears no apparent evolutionary advantage to kidnapping. However, kidnapping may be beneficial in species where group size is a critically limiting factor (e.g. for reproductive success or territory defence). We found kidnapping was a highly predictable event in pied babblers primarily groups that fail to raise their own young kidnap the young of others, and we show this to be the theoretical expectation in a model that predicts kidnapping to be facultative, only occurring in those cases where an additional group member has sufficient positive impact on group survival to compensate for the increase in reproductive competition. In babblers, groups that failed to raise young were also more likely to accept extragroup adults (hereafter rovers). Groups that fail to breed may either (i) kidnap intergroup young or (ii) accept rovers as an alternative strategy to maintain or increase group size. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.In many group-living mammals, philopatric females form the stable core of the group and defend food or shelter against other groups of females. Where males are larger, their participation could give their female group the edge. How can females secure the contribution of males that are neither the father of current infants, nor the dominant male expecting to sire the next generation of infants? It has been proposed that females recruit these males as 'hired guns', receiving social support and copulations in exchange for fighting, against the interests of the dominant male. We first develop the logic of this hypothesis in unprecedented detail by considering the potential pay-off consequences for females and males. We then provide empirical evidence for the existence of hired guns in this context in several primate species. The game-theoretical aspects of the phenomenon remain to be studied, as is the distribution across contexts (e.g. predation avoidance) and species of the hired gun phenomenon. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.Group territory defence poses a collective action problem individuals can free-ride, benefiting without paying the costs. selleck Individual heterogeneity has been proposed to solve such problems, as individuals high in reproductive success, rank, fighting ability or motivation may benefit from defending territories even if others free-ride. To test this hypothesis, we analysed 30 years of data from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the Kasekela community, Gombe National Park, Tanzania (1978-2007). We examined the extent to which individual participation in patrols varied according to correlates of reproductive success (mating rate, rank, age), fighting ability (hunting), motivation (scores from personality ratings), costs of defecting (the number of adult males in the community) and gregariousness (sighting frequency). By contrast to expectations from collective action theory, males participated in patrols at consistently high rates (mean ± s.d. = 74.5 ± 11.1% of patrols, n = 23 males). The best predictors of patrol participation were sighting frequency, age and hunting participation. Current and former alpha males did not participate at a higher rate than males that never achieved alpha status. These findings suggest that the temptation to free-ride is low, and that a mutualistic mechanism such as group augmentation may better explain individual participation in group territorial behaviour. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.War, in human and animal societies, can be extremely costly but can also offer significant benefits to the victorious group. We might expect groups to go into battle when the potential benefits of victory (V) outweigh the costs of escalated conflict (C); however, V and C are unlikely to be distributed evenly in heterogeneous groups. For example, some leaders who make the decision to go to war may monopolize the benefits at little cost to themselves ('exploitative' leaders). By contrast, other leaders may willingly pay increased costs, above and beyond their share of V ('heroic' leaders). We investigated conflict initiation and conflict participation in an ecological model where single-leader-multiple-follower groups came into conflict over natural resources. We found that small group size, low migration rate and frequent interaction between groups increased intergroup competition and the evolution of 'exploitative' leadership, while converse patterns favoured increased intragroup competition and the emergence of 'heroic' leaders. We also found evidence of an alternative leader/follower 'shared effort' outcome. Parameters that favoured high contributing 'heroic' leaders, and low contributing followers, facilitated transitions to more peaceful outcomes. We outline and discuss the key testable predictions of our model for empiricists studying intergroup conflict in humans and animals. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.
Homepage: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/sbp-7455.html