Journal: Frontiers in Immunology

Article Title: Interrogation of glioma immune microenvironment identifies a non-canonical role for microglial Galectin-9 in tumor cell adhesion and phagocytosis

doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1733688

Figure Lengend Snippet: L-R–based cellular interactions between glioma-associated MG, DCs, and lymphoid cell types. (A, C) Venn diagrams show the number of overlapping and unique L-R–based interactions in IDH-wt and IDH-mut gliomas. Corresponding, heatmaps show the number of interactions between MG in (A) and DCs in (C) with indicated leukocytic subpopulations as inferred by CellphoneDB between IDH-wt versus IDH-mut gliomas. Scale depicts the number of gained interactions in IDH-wt gliomas relative to the IDH-mut subtype. (B, D) Bubble plots showing the mean expression (color key) and significance (size key) of L-R pairs between indicated lymphoid cell types and MG in (B) and DC in (D) . Only interactions that showed differences between IDH-wt and IDH-mut are shown along with differential MG-associated (colored blue) and DC-associated (colored orange) interactions. Highlighted L-R interactions (dashed red) in (B) shows pertinent LGALS9 interacting receptors, of which LGALS9-HAVCR2 were characterized for their protein expression with spectral cytometry in relevant cell types.

Article Snippet: Next, we performed differential gene enrichment analyses on Galectin-9 + versus Galectin-9 − subpopulations.

Techniques: Expressing, Cytometry

Journal: Frontiers in Immunology

Article Title: Interrogation of glioma immune microenvironment identifies a non-canonical role for microglial Galectin-9 in tumor cell adhesion and phagocytosis

doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1733688

Figure Lengend Snippet: Gene enrichment analysis of Galectin-9 + and Galectin-9 - subpopulations of GAMs. (A) UMAP visualization of MG (left), MAC/MDM = MACs (right) based on differential expression of Galectin-9 gene in IDH-wt glioma patients ( n = 8). Cells are color coded for Galectin-9 expression. (B) Enhanced volcano plot of the variable genes in ( n = 9,372) (top) and Galectin-9 + MACs (bottom) compared to Galectin-9 - counterparts. Gray dots represent genes qualifying average log2FC cutoff of 0.5 and adjusted p -value cutoff of 0.05. The top significant genes for Galectin-9 + GAMs indicated in red. (C) Bubble plot representing the union set of phagocytic markers differentially enriched in Galectin-9 + and Galectin-9 - subpopulations of MG and MACs as indicated. The genes are annotated for their molecular function. The scaled gene expression is shown by the color-bar and the percentage expression by cells is represented by dot size.

Article Snippet: Next, we performed differential gene enrichment analyses on Galectin-9 + versus Galectin-9 − subpopulations.

Techniques: Quantitative Proteomics, Expressing, Gene Expression

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) Distribution of Greenland white‐fronted goose wintering subpopulations in Great Britain and Ireland, including three focal subpopulations used in analyses (Wexford: Green, Islay: Dark blue, Loch Ken: Light blue) and 65 subpopulations grouped into an ‘Elsewhere’ category (yellow). (b) Illustration of all annual movements among wintering subpopulations estimated in the integrated metapopulation model. Points represent focal subpopulations and Elsewhere collectively represents non‐focal subpopulations. (c) Life cycle diagram of a single Greenland white‐fronted goose subpopulation (Wexford [ W ], but similarly applicable to all subpopulations) with two adult stages: One‐year olds ( N 1 ; i.e. juveniles [ J ] from the previous year that survived and returned/moved to Wexford) and 2+‐year olds ( Nad ; i.e., N 1 and Nad from the previous year that survived and returned/moved to Wexford). We estimated all demographic parameters, including stage‐specific survival ( φ J , φ A ), per‐capita production of young ( γ ), and movement among each pair of subpopulations ( ψ J , ψ A ) as time dependent. For simplicity, movement is here depicted between Wexford (green) and one other subpopulation ( i ; black), but we similarly estimated movement among all four subpopulation groups (see (b) for all possible movements).

Article Snippet: GDD on wintering areas positively affected fecundity of the Wexford subpopulation.

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual number of Greenland white‐fronted goose females in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. Open circles represent number of observed females (i.e. count data) and filled circles represent estimated number of females from the integrated metapopulation model (posterior medians with 90% credible intervals).

Article Snippet: GDD on wintering areas positively affected fecundity of the Wexford subpopulation.

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual stage‐specific survival estimates (i.e. survival from winter t − 1 to winter t ; posterior medians with 90% credible intervals) for marked Greenland white‐fronted geese (of both sexes) in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. We considered juvenile survival as the period from first to second winter (represented by triangles) and adult survival as the period from the second or a later winter to subsequent winters (circles).

Article Snippet: GDD on wintering areas positively affected fecundity of the Wexford subpopulation.

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual per‐capita production of young estimates (posterior medians with 90% credible intervals) for Greenland white‐fronted geese in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. Open circles represent occasions when per‐capita production of young was latent (i.e. no fecundity data existed).

Article Snippet: GDD on wintering areas positively affected fecundity of the Wexford subpopulation.

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Net immigration (i.e. immigration > emigration) or emigration (i.e. emigration > immigration) rates among Greenland white‐fronted goose wintering subpopulations (90% credible intervals shown in parentheses). Points represent focal subpopulations and ‘Elsewhere’ collectively represents non‐focal subpopulations. Arrows illustrate the average net number (arrow size) and direction of geese that moved annually among subpopulations. Dashed lines represent no net movement (i.e. immigration rates typically balanced by similar emigration rates). Note that net immigration rates were calculated for adults only to allow comparison among focal subpopulation groups and Elsewhere.

Article Snippet: GDD on wintering areas positively affected fecundity of the Wexford subpopulation.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) Distribution of Greenland white‐fronted goose wintering subpopulations in Great Britain and Ireland, including three focal subpopulations used in analyses (Wexford: Green, Islay: Dark blue, Loch Ken: Light blue) and 65 subpopulations grouped into an ‘Elsewhere’ category (yellow). (b) Illustration of all annual movements among wintering subpopulations estimated in the integrated metapopulation model. Points represent focal subpopulations and Elsewhere collectively represents non‐focal subpopulations. (c) Life cycle diagram of a single Greenland white‐fronted goose subpopulation (Wexford [ W ], but similarly applicable to all subpopulations) with two adult stages: One‐year olds ( N 1 ; i.e. juveniles [ J ] from the previous year that survived and returned/moved to Wexford) and 2+‐year olds ( Nad ; i.e., N 1 and Nad from the previous year that survived and returned/moved to Wexford). We estimated all demographic parameters, including stage‐specific survival ( φ J , φ A ), per‐capita production of young ( γ ), and movement among each pair of subpopulations ( ψ J , ψ A ) as time dependent. For simplicity, movement is here depicted between Wexford (green) and one other subpopulation ( i ; black), but we similarly estimated movement among all four subpopulation groups (see (b) for all possible movements).

Article Snippet: Projected among‐year Wexford subpopulation growth rates were similar when including immigration and emigration (0.99, 90% CRI = 0.99–1.00) or only immigration (1.01, 90% CRI = 1.01–1.02) in projection matrices, but were lower when no movement (0.88, 90% CRI = 0.87–0.89) or only emigration was included (0.77, 90% CRI = 0.76–0.78; Figure ).

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual number of Greenland white‐fronted goose females in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. Open circles represent number of observed females (i.e. count data) and filled circles represent estimated number of females from the integrated metapopulation model (posterior medians with 90% credible intervals).

Article Snippet: Projected among‐year Wexford subpopulation growth rates were similar when including immigration and emigration (0.99, 90% CRI = 0.99–1.00) or only immigration (1.01, 90% CRI = 1.01–1.02) in projection matrices, but were lower when no movement (0.88, 90% CRI = 0.87–0.89) or only emigration was included (0.77, 90% CRI = 0.76–0.78; Figure ).

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual stage‐specific survival estimates (i.e. survival from winter t − 1 to winter t ; posterior medians with 90% credible intervals) for marked Greenland white‐fronted geese (of both sexes) in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. We considered juvenile survival as the period from first to second winter (represented by triangles) and adult survival as the period from the second or a later winter to subsequent winters (circles).

Article Snippet: Projected among‐year Wexford subpopulation growth rates were similar when including immigration and emigration (0.99, 90% CRI = 0.99–1.00) or only immigration (1.01, 90% CRI = 1.01–1.02) in projection matrices, but were lower when no movement (0.88, 90% CRI = 0.87–0.89) or only emigration was included (0.77, 90% CRI = 0.76–0.78; Figure ).

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Annual per‐capita production of young estimates (posterior medians with 90% credible intervals) for Greenland white‐fronted geese in the (a) Wexford, (b) Islay, (c) Loch Ken and (d) ‘Elsewhere’ subpopulation groups. Open circles represent occasions when per‐capita production of young was latent (i.e. no fecundity data existed).

Article Snippet: Projected among‐year Wexford subpopulation growth rates were similar when including immigration and emigration (0.99, 90% CRI = 0.99–1.00) or only immigration (1.01, 90% CRI = 1.01–1.02) in projection matrices, but were lower when no movement (0.88, 90% CRI = 0.87–0.89) or only emigration was included (0.77, 90% CRI = 0.76–0.78; Figure ).

Techniques:

Journal: The Journal of Animal Ecology

Article Title: Environmental drivers of metapopulation dynamics throughout the full annual cycle in a declining Arctic‐nesting migratory herbivore

doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.70236

Figure Lengend Snippet: Net immigration (i.e. immigration > emigration) or emigration (i.e. emigration > immigration) rates among Greenland white‐fronted goose wintering subpopulations (90% credible intervals shown in parentheses). Points represent focal subpopulations and ‘Elsewhere’ collectively represents non‐focal subpopulations. Arrows illustrate the average net number (arrow size) and direction of geese that moved annually among subpopulations. Dashed lines represent no net movement (i.e. immigration rates typically balanced by similar emigration rates). Note that net immigration rates were calculated for adults only to allow comparison among focal subpopulation groups and Elsewhere.

Article Snippet: Projected among‐year Wexford subpopulation growth rates were similar when including immigration and emigration (0.99, 90% CRI = 0.99–1.00) or only immigration (1.01, 90% CRI = 1.01–1.02) in projection matrices, but were lower when no movement (0.88, 90% CRI = 0.87–0.89) or only emigration was included (0.77, 90% CRI = 0.76–0.78; Figure ).

Techniques: Comparison