Climate change imposes great challenges on the built heritage sector by increasing the risks of energy inefficiency, indoor overheating, and moisture-related damage to the envelope. Therefore, it is urgent to assess these risks and plan adaptation strategies for historic buildings. These activities must be based on a strong knowledge of the main building categories. Moreover, before adapting a historic building to future climate, it is necessary to understand how the past climate influenced its design, construction, and eventual categories. This knowledge will help when estimating the implication of climate change on historic buildings. This study aims at identifying building categories, which will be the basis for further risk assessment and adaptation plans, while at the same time analyzing the historical interaction between climate and human dwelling. The results show some correlations between building categories and climate. Therefore, it is necessary to use different archetypes to represent the typical buildings in different climate zones. Moreover, these correlations imply a need to investigate the capability of the climate-responsive features in future climate scenarios and to explore possible further risks and adaptation strategies.

Purpose Improving the energy performance of historic buildings has the potential to reduce carbon emissions while protecting built heritage through its continued use. However, implementing energy retrofits in these buildings faces social, economic, and technical barriers. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to present the approach of IEA-SHC Task 59 to address some of these barriers. Design/methodology/approach Task 59 aims to achieve the lowest possible energy demand for historic buildings. This paper proposes a definition for this concept and identifies three key socio-technical barriers to achieving this goal: the decision-makers’ lack of engagement in the renovation of historic buildings, a lack of support during the design process and limited access to proven retrofit solutions. Two methods – dissemination of best-practice and guidelines – are discussed in this paper as critical approaches for addressing the first two barriers. Findings An assessment of existing databases indicates a lack of best-practice examples focused specifically on historic buildings and the need for tailored information describing these case studies. Similarly, an initial evaluation of guidelines highlighted the need for process-oriented guidance and its evaluation in practice. Originality/value This paper provides a novel definition of lowest possible energy demand for historic buildings that is broadly applicable in both practice and research. Both best-practices and guidelines are intended to be widely disseminated throughout the field.

The guided entry of tail-anchored proteins (GET) pathway facilitates targeting and insertion of tail-anchored proteins into membranes. In plants, such a protein insertion machinery for the endoplasmic reticulum as well as constituents within mitochondrial and chloroplasts were discovered. Previous phylogenetic analysis revealed that Get3 sequences of Embryophyta form two clades representing cytosolic ("a") and organellar ("bc") GET3 homologs, respectively. Cellular fractionation of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings and usage of the self-assembly GFP system in protoplasts verified the cytosolic (ATGet3a), plastidic (ATGet3b) and mitochondrial (ATGet3c) localization of the different homologs. The identified plant homologs of Get1 and Get4 in A. thaliana are localized in ER and cytosol, respectively, implicating a degree of conservation of the GET pathway in A. thaliana. Transient expression of Get3 homologs of Solanum lycopersicum, Medicago × varia or Physcomitrella patens with the self-assembly GFP technique in homologous and heterologous systems verified that multiple Get3 homologs with differing subcellular localizations are common in plants. Chloroplast localized Get3 homologs were detected in all tested plant systems. In contrast, mitochondrial localized Get3 homologs were not identified in S. lycopersicum, or P. patens, while we confirmed on the example of A. thaliana proteins that mitochondrial localized Get3 proteins are properly targeted in S. lycopersicum as well.

In all eukaryotes, the response to heat stress (HS) is dependent on the activity of HS transcription factors (Hsfs). Plants contain a large number of Hsfs, however, only members of the HsfA1 subfamily are considered as master regulators of stress response and thermotolerance. In Solanum lycopersicum, among the four HsfA1 members, only HsfA1a has been proposed to possess a master regulator function. We performed a comparative analysis of HsfA1a, HsfA1b, HsfA1c and HsfA1e at different levels of regulation and function. HsfA1a is constitutively expressed under control and stress conditions, while the other members are induced in specific tissues and stages of HS response. Despite that all members are localized in the nucleus when expressed in protoplasts, only HsfA1a shows a wide range of basal activity on several HS-induced genes. In contrast, HsfA1b, HsfA1c, and HsfA1e show only high activity for specific subsets of genes. Domain swapping mutants between HsfA1a and HsfA1c revealed that the variation in that transcriptional transactivation activity is due to differences in the DNA binding domain (DBD). Specifically, we identified a conserved arginine (R107) residue in the turn of β3 and β4 sheet in the C-terminus of the DBD of HsfA1a that is highly conserved in plant HsfA1 proteins, but is replaced by leucine and cysteine in tomato HsfA1c and HsfA1e, respectively. Although not directly involved in DNA interaction, R107 contributes to DNA binding and consequently the activity of HsfA1a. Thus, we demonstrate that this variation in DBD in part explains the functional diversification of tomato HsfA1 members.

Different genes coding for one ribosome biogenesis factor are differentially expressed and are likely under the control of distinct transcription factors, which contributes to the regulatory space for ribosome maturation. Maturation of ribosomes including rRNA processing and modification, rRNA folding and ribosome protein association requires the function of many ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs). Recent studies document plant-specific variations of the generally conserved process of ribosome biogenesis. For instance, distinct rRNA maturation pathways and intermediates have been identified, the existence of plant specific RBFs has been proposed and several RBFs are encoded by multiple genes. The latter in combination with the discussed ribosome heterogeneity points to a possible function of the different proteins representing one RBF in diversification of ribosomal compositions. Such factor-based regulation would require a differential regulation of their expression, may be even controlled by different transcription factors. We analyzed the expression profiles of genes coding for putative RBFs and transcription factors. Most of the genes coding for RBFs are expressed in a comparable manner, while different genes coding for a single RBF are often differentially expressed. Based on a selected set of genes we document a function of the transcription factors AtMYC1, AtMYC2, AtbHLH105 and AtMYB26 on the regulation of different RBFs. Moreover, on the example of the RBFs LSG1 and BRX1, both encoded by two genes, we give a first hint on a differential transcription factor dependence of expression. Consistent with this observation, the phenotypic analysis of RBF mutants suggests a relation between LSG1-1 and BRX1-1 expression and the transcription factor MYC1. In summary, we propose that the multiple genes coding for one RBF are required to enlarge the regulatory space for ribosome biogenesis.