Regional and geographical differences may explain variability in menopausal symptom occurrence due to development of climate-specific thermoneutral zones leading to population-specific hot flash frequencies. Limited information available regarding menopausal symptoms in underserved women living in extreme heat.
Understanding the perception of menopausal symptoms in underserved women living in extreme heat regions to identify if heat impacts perception of menopausal symptoms was the objective of this study. Women in free, low-income, and homeless clinics in Phoenix were surveyed during summer and winter months using a self-administered, written questionnaire including demographic, climate and menopause related questions, including the Green Climacteric Scale (GCS).
A total of 139 predominantly Hispanic (56 %), uninsured (53 %), menopausal (56 %), mid-aged (mean 49.9, SD 10.3) women were surveyed— 36% were homeless or in shelters. Most women were not on menopausal hormone therapy (98 %). Twenty-two percent reported hot flashes and 26% night sweats. Twenty-five percent of women reported previously becoming ill from heat. More women thought season influenced menopausal symptoms during summer than winter (41 % vs. 14 %, p = 0.0009). However, majority of women did not think temperature outside influenced their menopausal symptoms and that did not differ by season (73 % in winter vs. 60% in summer, p=0.1094). No statistically significant differences seen for vasomotor symptoms between winter and summer months.
Regional and geographical differences may be key in understanding the variability in menopausal symptoms. Regardless of season, the menopausal, underserved and homeless women living in Arizona reported few vasomotor symptoms. In the summer, they were more likely to report that the season influenced their menopausal symptoms rather than temperature suggesting an influence of the season on symptom perception.
The City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department partnered with the Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service at Arizona State University (ASU) and researchers from various ASU schools to evaluate the effectiveness, performance, and community perception of the new pavement coating. The data collection and analysis occurred across multiple neighborhoods and at varying times across days and/or months over the course of one year (July 15, 2020–July 14, 2021), allowing the team to study the impacts of the surface treatment under various weather conditions.
Understanding learning in fruit flies (D. melanogaster) can lead to many important discoveries about learning in humans due to the large overlap of shared DNA and the appearance of the same diseases in both species. Fruit flies have already been test subjects for many influential research experiments, some of which earned Nobel Prizes. This study seeks to investigate inhibitory conditioning in a way that differs from the traditional forward pairing inhibitory conditioning. Specifically, this experiment aims to establish inhibitory learning in fruit flies using backward association. The results show that when fruit flies are trained using backward conditioning as opposed to forward conditioning, there is a pattern of preference that differs substantially from the results showing an aversion to the associated odor in forward conditioning. When comparing the data using Two-Factor ANOVA of forward versus backward conditioning, it clearly indicates that the results are significant. Simply by altering the temporal placement of an unconditioned stimulus and a conditioned stimulus, the fruit flies learn significantly differently, switching from an aversion to the paired odor to a preference. Based on these results, fruit flies can be considered capable of inhibitory learning via backward pairing. Further research will consider whether responses become stronger after more repetitions of the training, and summation and retardation tests can be done in order to confirm that the response is, in fact, due to inhibitory conditioning and not just habituation.
In the face of widespread pollinator decline, research has increasingly focused on ways that pesticides could be harming bees. Fungicides are pesticides that are used in greater volumes than insecticides, yet significantly fewer studies have investigated the effects of these agrochemicals. The fungicide Pristine® is commonly used on bee-pollinated crops and has been shown to be detrimental to physiological processes that are key to honey bee foraging, such as digestion and learning. This study seeks to investigate how Pristine® exposure affects the amount of water, nectar, and pollen that honey bees collect. Colonies were fed either plain pollen patties or pollen patties containing 23 ppm Pristine®. Exposure to fungicide had no significant effect on corbicular pollen mass, the crop volumes of nectar or water foragers, or the proportions of foragers collecting different substances. There was a significantly higher sugar concentration in the crop of Pristine®-exposed nectar foragers (43.6%, 95% CI [38.8, 48.4]) compared to control nectar foragers (36.3%, 95% CI [31.9, 40.6]). The higher sugar concentration in the nectar of Pristine®-treated bees could indicate that the agrochemical decreases sucrose responsiveness or nutritional status in bees. Alternatively, fungicide exposure may increase the amount of sugar that bees need to make it back to the hive. Based on these results, it would appear that fungicides like Pristine® do not strongly affect the amounts of substances that honey bees collect, but it is still highly plausible that treated bees forage more slowly or with lower return rates.
