•Settler colonial water governmentalities infringe on Indigenous sovereignty.•Modern Indigenous-State agreements in Canada acknowledge Indigenous water rights.•Implementing these agreements requires ...increasingly “state-like” governance forms.•Indigenous legislation is one tool to fulfill their sacred responsibility to water.•U.S. Tribal water codes can teach us about the risks and benefits of legislation.
Yukon First Nations and the waters within their traditional territories face a variety of socio-political and environmental pressures including the effects of historical and ongoing settler colonialism, global environmental change and mining activity. These communities are in the process of implementing Self-Government and Modern land claim agreements, which contain powerful acknowledgements of Indigenous rights and authorities, including the right to unaltered “water quality, quantity and rate of flow” on Settlement lands (∼10 percent of their traditional territories). Self-governing Yukon First Nations have real, although limited, legal authorities on Settlement Lands including the ability to enact laws that supersede territorial legislation. Through research conducted in partnership with four Yukon First Nations (Carcross/Tagish, Kluane, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and White River First Nations), I examine how these Indigenous governments are engaging the authorities acknowledged in Modern Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements to assert their rights and responsibilities to water as a more-than-human relation. In particular, I analyze the potential for the creation of legislation pertaining to water on Settlement Land. I engage with critical Indigenous scholarship to examine the challenges facing these communities and to reveal emerging approaches to Indigenous water governance. More specifically, I analyze the “state-like” bureaucracies that First Nations must develop to assert their sovereignty in this context. While these forms of governance are critiqued for bearing little resemblance to traditional forms of governance, I demonstrate how First Nations exercise self-determination as they strategically navigate these opportunities in order to protect water in a manner, they deem consistent with the values, principles and relationships of Indigenous water governance.
Function and regulation of SUMO proteases Hickey, Christopher M; Wilson, Nicole R; Hochstrasser, Mark
Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology,
12/2012, Letnik:
13, Številka:
12
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Covalent attachment of small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) to proteins is highly dynamic, and both SUMO-protein conjugation and cleavage can be regulated. Protein desumoylation is carried out by ...SUMO proteases, which control cellular mechanisms ranging from transcription and cell division to ribosome biogenesis. Recent advances include the discovery of two novel classes of SUMO proteases, insights regarding SUMO protease specificity, and revelations of previously unappreciated SUMO protease functions in several key cellular pathways. These developments, together with new connections between SUMO proteases and the recently discovered SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligases (STUbLs), make this an exciting period to study these enzymes.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Upon reaching their intermediate target, the floorplate, commissural axons acquire responsiveness to repulsive guidance cues, allowing the axons to exit the midline and adopt a contralateral, ...longitudinal trajectory. The molecular mechanisms that regulate this switch from attraction to repulsion remain poorly defined. Here, we show that the heparan sulfate proteoglycan Glypican1 (GPC1) is required as a coreceptor for the Shh-dependent induction of Hedgehog-interacting protein (Hhip) in commissural neurons. In turn, Hhip is required for postcrossing axons to respond to a repulsive anteroposterior Shh gradient. Thus, Shh is a cue with dual function. In precrossing axons it acts as an attractive guidance molecule in a transcription-independent manner. At the same time, Shh binds to GPC1 to induce the expression of its own receptor, Hhip, which mediates the repulsive response of postcrossing axons to Shh. Our study characterizes a molecular mechanism by which navigating axons switch their responsiveness at intermediate targets.
•Knockdown of GPC1 in commissural neurons perturbs axon guidance at the midline•GPC1 genetically interacts with Shh in postcrossing commissural axon guidance•GPC1 regulates expression of Hhip, the receptor mediating repulsion to Shh•Switching axonal responsiveness at the midline involves Hhip induction by Shh
During midline crossing, commissural axons need to switch their responsiveness to axon guidance cues from attraction to repulsion. Wilson and Stoeckli show that Sonic Hedgehog binds to Glypican1 on precrossing axons to induce expression of Hhip—its receptor for postcrossing axon guidance.
Indigenous peoples often view water as a living entity or a relative, to which they have a sacred responsibility. Such a perspective frequently conflicts with settler societies’ view of water as a ...“resource” that can be owned, managed, and exploited. Although rarely articulated explicitly, water conflicts are rooted in ontological differences between Indigenous and settler views of water. Furthermore, the unequal water governance landscape created by settler colonialism has perpetuated the suppression of Indigenous ways of conceptualizing water. This paper thus examines the “political ontology” of water by drawing on insights from the fields of critical Indigenous studies, post-humanism, and water governance. Additionally, we engage a case study of four Yukon First Nations (Carcross/Tagish, Kluane, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, and White River First Nations) in the Canadian North to examine their water ontologies through the lens of a politics of kinship including ideas about “respecting water.” We also examine the assumptions of settler-colonial water governance in the territory, shaped by modern land claims and self-government agreements. We close by discussing the implications of Indigenous water ontologies for alternate modes of governing water.
•Sociocultural relations to water are critical to water governance.•Study of hydrosocial relations reveal the existence of multiple normative orders.•Hydrosocial relations include Indigenous ...knowledge, values and uses of water.•Indigenous water governance is developed through multiple strategies.
Water is fundamental to Indigenous ways of life. Specific Indigenous peoples maintain distinct and multifaceted sociocultural relations to water, yet the legacy of colonialism globally means that communities around the world face similar challenges to protecting these relations. The role of Indigenous peoples and their sociocultural relations to water is currently under acknowledged in the water governance literature. Through a case study of the Koyukon Athabascan people of Ruby, Alaska, this article examines how the explicit analysis of hydrosocial relations facilitates conceptualization of Indigenous water governance. Participatory research methods involving semistructured interviews and traditional use mapping were employed to document the hydrosocial relations of the people of Ruby, which water law and policy in Alaska does not adequately recognize. This study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, an engagement with the hydrosocial literature makes explicit the distinct sociocultural relations to water maintained by all human communities and the existence of these multiple normative orders within the same political space, where the hydrosocial relations of some populations are privileged over others. Second, it contributes to the conceptualization of Indigenous water governance by exploring the extent to which Indigenous peoples in the Yukon River Basin, including the people of Ruby, are engaging in multiple strategies to assert their sovereignty. These strategies include recognition-based approaches such as litigation to gain legal recognition of Indigenous water rights and Indigenous alternatives without reference to state recognition such as the development of community-based water monitoring programs.
PDF
