The underdevelopment of the higher education system in Guatemala and the fragility of its science and technology (S&T) contexts have compelled a significant number of talented Guatemalan scientists to be trained, educated, and employed abroad. The relocation of such skilled human power to different countries and regions has resulted in a growing Guatemalan Scientific Diaspora (GSD). Until recently, the emigration of scientists from the Global South to scientifically advanced countries in the North was studied as it negatively impacted the countries of origin. However, technological upgrades and globalization have progressively shifted the paradigm in which such scientific diasporas interact and connect, thus enabling them to influence their home countries positively. Due to the lack of knowledge-based evidence and functioning connecting platforms, the value and potential of the GSD in their involvement in proposing solutions to complex socio-economic, environmental, and other challenges faced by Guatemalan society remain unknown. Moreover, the lack of interaction of relevant stakeholders  represents a pervasive obstacle to the untapped impact of the GSD in the country. This study outlines the Guatemalan scientific diasporas' networking as a mechanism for building research excellence and intellectual capital. This force could respond to the need to strengthen the national science capacities and meet the demands for knowledge production and access to broader sectors of society. This research applied qualitative methodology that, through the conduction of focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with members of the Guatemalan scientific community and relevant key stakeholders, delved into the existence and articulation of the GSD and potential stages for their engagement with their country of origin. Findings highlight the importance of digital and technological pathways that might leverage the GSD's knowledge and experience, channeling skills, and international connections for better interaction with the Guatemalan society. Furthermore, the discussion addresses how technology might turn brain drain into brain circulation, enabling the articulation of the GSD as a viable opportunity to generate collaboration between scientists abroad and local actors, ultimately impacting the building and development of Guatemalan science and national research capacities. IOM empIn the case of Latin America, some countries have been adapting their policies regarding their diaspora to maximize the potential contribution to local development. In 2007, 94.0% of governments held policies and programs for their diaspora residing abroad, mainly in the United States of America OIM, . In the Notwithstanding, research on how the needs and perceptions of the scientific community  dialogue with stakeholders back in their home countries is lacking. To plan for any future policy engagement, this research aimed to outline the potential of the GSD network as a mechanism for building research excellence and intellectual capital while also delving into the existence and accumulation of the GSD and stages for their engagement with their country of origin. Furthermore, it aimed to address how technology might turn “brain drain” into “brain circulation” and enable the articulation of the GSD as a viable opportunity to generate collaboration between scientists abroad and local actors, ultimately impacting the building and development of the Guatemalan scientific capacities. This research sheds light on the current state of the mapping, characterization, and identification of the GSD for their engagement and interactions with their peers, relevant stakeholders, and broader sectors of the society back in their country of origin.The research was conducted using a qualitative methodology. Data was collected from two groups of participants: (i) The Scientific Community with emphasis on members of the GSD, and (ii) the perspective of a comprehensive group of Stakeholders with relevance to the GSD. To select the first group, a strict set of criteria was designed to guarantee a diversity of views and perspectives .In the case of the second group, a categorization of six perspectives was followed to include an integral approach . The preAs for the methods for data collection, participants were offered two alternatives (considering their time availability): (i) Semi-structured interviews and (ii) Participation in Focus Group Discussions. To fulfill the general objective of this study, literature review and desk research was carried out in complement to the collection of primary data. All interviews and focus group discussions recorded used different digital platforms and software . Semi-structured interviews averaged 45 min, whereas focus group discussions averaged 60 min. A total of 30 h of audio-visual material were recorded. All materials were transcribed into text files (by listening and directly transcribing), codified, and analyzed to determine patterns, trends, shared content, and contrasting views. The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of Technology of El Salvador (UTEC). All participants were asked to sign an electronic informed consent form before participating in the study. Identities of participants are not identifiable nor traceable; all transcripts were encoded, and recorded material was shared only among members of the research team.n = 491) are female. Seventy percent (n = 441) reported as country of residence Guatemala  living in 33 countries, including Guatemala. In relation to their country of residency and work of the GSD, both North America  and Europe  followed by Asia 1.1% (n = 7), Oceania 0.5%  and no reports from countries in the African continent . Demographic information gathered from these databases included: (a) gender , (b) last completed academic degree, (c) field of knowledge/expertise , and (d) geographical location of their place of residence. Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine percentages, means, and standard deviations from the gathered data. The information available from the two databases summed up 631 scientists, out of which 78.0%  by signing a Constitutive Act during the event's closing ceremony. The RedCTI Network has been in operation since its creation (over 15 years) with the support of the National Secretariat of Science and Technology (SENACYT). The SENACYT is the coordinating public institution. It is responsible for supporting and implementing the decisions that emanate from the CONCYT (for its acronym in Spanish)In 2005, the National Council of Science and Technology (CONCYT) brought together a group of Guatemalan scientists who worked on research activities and had their place of residence outside of the Guatemalan territory. This action aimed at “strengthening the science and technology capacities in Guatemala to ultimately propose solutions to the problems in the Guatemalan society”RedCTI was created to contribute to the preparation and implementation of scientific-technological development plans through science, technology, and innovation and propose viable alternative solutions to improve the population's quality of life. Moreover, one of its main goals is to link Guatemalan scientists working outside with those inside the country. As of February 2022, this network registered a total of 196 members, according to the database provided by SENACYT. The directory allows mapping the GSD according to their gender, field of knowledge, and country of residence. Applying a binary gender filter  in this network, 71.4% (n = 140) are male and 28.6% female (n = 56). According to their field of knowledge professionals reported in this network includes 23.5 (n = 46) in the Medical Sciences 31.6% (n = 62) in the Natural Sciences, 27.6% (n = 54) in Engineering and Technology, 11.2% (n = 22) in Social Sciences, and 6.1 % (n = 12) in Agricultural Sciences. In terms of the level of education among its members, 5.1% (n = 10) reported having completed a bachelor's degree (licentiate), 29.1% (n = 57) master's degree, while 65.8% (n = 129) hold doctoral degrees (Ph.D.). Interesting data refers to the reported country of residence 53.6% (n = 105) reported their country of residence as Guatemala, while 46.2% (n = 91) reside abroad. In this aspect, a more comprehensive concentration of GSD is found in the United States of America with 17.9% (n = 35), followed by Mexico at 5.6% (n = 11) and 4.6% in France (n = 9). Other destinations with less presence include Argentina, Puerto Rico, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, and Taiwan (The d Taiwan .n = 336) of its members indicated they have a residence in Guatemala. Of those reporting living abroad, 11.3% (n = 49) indicated living in European countries, while 7.4% (n = 32) in countries of North America. 2.1% (n = 9) reports living in South America, 0.7% (n = 3) in Asia and just 0.9% (n = 4) in Oceania . With regards to their area of knowledge, the proportion of self-reported disciplines were: 27.0% (n = 118) in Agricultural, Biology, Earth Sciences (incl. Space Sciences and Astronomy) as well as for Interdisciplinary, Humanities, Social and Economic Sciences, respectively; 19.3% (n = 84) in Astrophysics, Physics, Math, Engineering, Computer Sciences, and Communication, 14.0% (n = 61) in Veterinary, Livestock and Health Sciences and 12.0% (n = 54) in Chemistry and Food Sciences. In terms of the level of education, 34.8% (n = 148) hold academic degrees at the undergraduate level, while 66.0% (n = 287) hold academic degrees at the graduate level  . This international organization was co-founded by UNESCO and the World Academy of Sciences TWAS in 1989 OWSD, . OWSD opoctoral) .Interactions between the GSD and different stakeholders seem to be erratic, episodic, and promoted with fragmented initiatives that ultimately obtain partial and inconsistent results. Moreover, as the engagement of the GSD with their country of origin is still unexplored to a significant extent, the roles and responsibilities among key stakeholders in their interaction with GSD is still a pending issue.At the policy level, CONCYT is the governing structure in scientific and technological development in the country. It is responsible for the promotion and coordination of activities carried out by the National System of Science and Technology members. The Law for the Promotion of National Scientific and Technological Development , the National Chapter for Guatemala of the Organization of Women in Science for the Developing World , and the National Directory of Researchers -DNI- created by the Guatemala Nacional Secretariat of Science and Technology (SENACYT). The DNI is the most extensive database of researchers in the country; however, the GSD indicated they have heard about it in general terms, yet it does not include specific targets for Guatemalan scientists residing abroad. The DNI platform has filters, statistics, and promotion limitations to include more scientists living abroad. According to sustained communications with the technical personnel from SENACYT during the study, this platform will be improved through 2022. Changes include improving a more pleasant user experience, updating profiles, and promoting the site to increase the number of registered scientists.Participants see an opportunity to build a robust platform using the technology and the data available in the existing platforms , similarly to experiences of other countries from the region and through the application of technological tools. For example, Costa Rica has a scientific diaspora mapping tool on the web with information about current location, plans of return to the government, reasons to leave the country, and collaborations opportunitiesSome participants considered that through AI and machine learning, the process of developing algorithms and statistical models could be adapted to identify and analyze patterns in the GSD. Mainly as more researchers are familiar with social networks, informing systems with information about their country of origin, institutional affiliation, and fields of research. Conversely, various participants consider that AI or machine learning might not be applicable to identifying, mapping, and characterizing the GSD as this is not large enough to require such complex technology. In any case, participants agree that the current state of the GSD shows inefficient articulation, management, and identification of the potential of the GSD.Most stakeholders understand the concept of scientific diaspora. They frequently refer to it as a loss for the emigrating country caused by poor conditions in the emigrating country regarding resources, technology, education, and political and economic stability. For example, civil society stakeholders reflected on the loss of connection between the diaspora and their home country. However, stakeholders in the industry expressed their understanding of the diaspora with a positive sentiment, highlighting how it represents new opportunities for migrating scientists and new opportunities for collaborations between the industry and the GSD. While still understanding the concept of diaspora as a loss in human capital, stakeholders representing international partners also expressed it as a possibility to strengthen Guatemalan systems, as one of them shared: “I thought of seeds that sprout for science or the beginning of strengthening a system.” Stakeholders representing the Science and Technology (S&T) policy sector pointed out that the definition of diaspora implies elements of organization and similar objectives, which does not characterize the GSD now. Notably, stakeholders representing Foreign Policy institutions were not entirely familiar with the concept of scientific diasporas.In general, stakeholders indicated a lack of structured actions focused on mapping the GSD. Still, most could identify entities with the potential . Stakeholders representing international partners expressed a keen interest in mapping the GSD and understanding the landscape regarding scientific development in Guatemala. An initial report about scientific development in Guatemala was published by UNESCO titled “Survey of research and innovation in the Republic of Guatemala”  The lack of doctorate programs in the country, which prevents more robust platforms from linking with local researchers. Moreover, social and economic scientists consider it essential to highlight the financial contributions of science to connect with government stakeholders and the population. (b) Lack of time was a barrier linking side projects in Guatemala or participating in existing networks. One of the participants mentioned, “Carrying out research takes a long time in collaboration, 5–6 years”. (c) The lack of funds incentivizes locals to connect with the GSD and academic institutions, where teaching has more weight than research.The members of the GSD suggested the use of existing technology platforms to connect with different projects and locals in Guatemala. Most mentioned platforms were WhatsApp®, email, video conferencing platforms such as Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Blue Jeans; social networking platforms such as private groups and public αMeta (Facebook) pages. They mentioned that using the existing ones could prevent social media exhaustion. Some others proposed the creation of new platforms that could allow for “posting” projects/interests, so the GSD can easily connect and identify opportunities for collaboration with other Guatemalan scientists, professionals, and other national authorities. Using AI algorithms, data can be mined, joined, and categorized to identify matching interests and demand of skills.Stakeholders are aware of numerous initiatives in the academic and scientific communities that promote and enable collaboration with scientists of the GSD. They acknowledged that it is mostly by individual researchers' motivation and through their personal and professional network that a large part of the existing collaborations is created. The strengthening of existing institutional networks was strongly recommended to promote working relationships between scientific communities and the GSD. Likewise, some specific scholarship programs, such as the German and UK Academic Exchange Service , were named influential in providing scholarships for higher education and maintaining strong ties and ongoing communications with its recipients.Technology was mentioned as a valuable tool to facilitate communication and exchange between both parties. For example, using Zoom, Google Meets, or YouTube to host conferences and talks where researchers can present their work and highlight opportunities for collaboration. ResearchGate, Academia, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook groups were also recommended as a tool that allows researchers to meet one another and share their profiles and expertise. However, some stakeholders expressed concern over the excess of existing social and professional platforms and proposed that a new platform would require powerful incentives for scientists to join.Additionally, many thought it was critical to involve institutions such as CONCYT, SENACYT, and professional associations to make it easier to establish such connections and offer opportunities such as scholarships, research funding, and workshops for specialized training. Representatives of higher education identified some opportunities for improvement in CONCYT. They concluded that CONCYT needs to “keep a record, be active, have more budget, be more linked to GSD and include social sciences in its agenda.”Interestingly, there are already some organized efforts between stakeholders and the GSD. Stakeholders in Civil Society indicated they already hold strong ties with the GSD, particularly involving scientific collaboration and support to students aspiring to receive specific scholarships or study in a foreign country. International partners also mentioned collaborating with the GSD, specifically on topics regarding education. They also expressed the desire to further support women in the GSD, noting a disparity in their available opportunities.Representatives from different groups in society also identified some barriers to connecting the GSD with local scientific communities. Stakeholders in S&T policy mentioned that one of the significant challenges is the lack of interest of the GSD in working in the country. A participant noted, “Many of those scientists who live, and work abroad consider their condition of skilled emigrants as an achievement, [they] do not look back, they see escaping from their country as an opportunity in their career development. They are no longer interested in what happens back in their country; they may be working on a fascinating topic. Still, suppose they are asked to take part in collaborations. In that case, they disregard the invitations”. This sentiment was echoed by stakeholders in Civil Society, who mentioned that, once students' goal of moving abroad was achieved, they showed little interest in keeping in contact and little commitment to being involved in supporting projects in Guatemala.Moreover, one of the higher education representatives said that “the main barrier that I see is mistrust and the few spaces for advocacy with the public sector”; there are many difficulties connecting with decision-makers and promoting initiatives. It is generally complicated for scientists to be heard in political spheres. One of them mentioned that connecting the GSD to the political sphere is very “ambitious,” yet believes that something more feasible is strengthening the GSD's connection with academic institutions to achieve better doctoral programs and research projects.The stage of Engagement refers to a systematic, constant, and sustained participation of the GSD in different schemes, mechanisms, actions, and policies through which they exert influence in their country of origin.Development must be driven by both the public [sector] and the private [sector]. A national policy to engage the GSD is necessary. Member of the GSDThe biggest problem is that at the national level, there is no policy to include scientists in the development process of our home country. Member of the GSDRegarding the actions developed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the GSD has not identified any program that links diaspora scientists with the country, and even when the scientists have suggested collaboration options, they have not received any formal response. The GSD stated that some embassies are helpful for students who study abroad. The embassy of the United States of America in Guatemala and the embassy of the United Kingdom in Guatemala were identified as some of the most dynamic connections with their alumni. These connections might be more systematic as they offer prestigious and globally recognized scholarships such as the Fulbright and Chevening programs. The GSD also pointed out that another limitation is the lack of diplomatic missions in certain countries such as Hungary and Switzerland. Whereas, having a Guatemalan embassy near them, such as the case of the Guatemalan embassy in Korea, might provide more support and resources. Many other members of the scientific diaspora point out that the inefficiency in general bureaucratic processes translates into the inefficiency of the embassies in connecting with the GSD.Regarding the interactions with the government, the GSD generally showed dissatisfaction with the work of government institutions for linking them with projects in Guatemala. They indicated that the government should be more intentional and proactive in contacting Guatemalan scientists abroad since the GSD “.... has the knowledge and desire to contribute to the country, but there are no clear ways to do it”. The GSD indicated that the meetings held by these institutions are fruitless because no concrete conclusions have been reached. It was also mentioned that the Red CTI is not agile. The research of institutions such as the Institute for Nutrition of Central America and Panama (INCAP) is not transferred to decision-makers. The GSD proposes that scientists get involved in the science and technology committees of the Guatemalan Congress. The GSD identified the importance of linking with the Ministry of Economy with structured conferences developed in Guatemala to involve more scientists. One of the actions suggested to get more involvement from the public sector is to measure indicators of the current situation in the country to assess the importance of making science-based decisions. Suggestions are used to strengthen the link between the Ministry of Economy and CONCYT, showing the economic relevance of science in the country to gain more confidence in the industrial sector with academia. The diaspora thinks that SENACYT has developed good outreach work, especially promoting STEM careers for girls. Among the limitations observed in the existing programs is the bureaucracy of the administrative system, i.e., for obtaining and managing funds, within the Red CTI meetings and decision-making without interaction with members, and lack of financial support for both research grants and follow-up of research activities.Converciencia. This event in the past has provided opportunities for the GSD to connect with peers (period 2005–2020). The initiatives of the OWSD Guatemala chapter (period 2020–2021) have also been mentioned as crucial examples of how to link the diaspora and generate results and actions. Universities and industries have approached the diaspora collaborations by having them in conferences that have allowed them to connect and outreach to the Guatemalan audience.They also mentioned the importance of Regarding the barriers to linking actions, scientists consider the lack of trust to give preference to their interests by the different sectors, the weak link between the academic and public sectors, the lack of public investment in research, development, and innovation, and the low value of science reflected in the workload and working conditions of most scientists residing in the country. A few scientists consider that top-down changes are complex and must be motivated from the bottom up, starting with transforming students' lives by researching and producing results that allow them to demonstrate the importance of science to the daily lives of the general population. One of the solutions AI could generate to support the actions for the GSD connections is to create a Guatemalan platform for the community of scientists. They proposed a tool that visualizes scientists' profiles and connects them directly with private institutions, government, or civil sector organizations interested in their academic contribution and professional skills.Converciencia, which members of the GSD identified as a valuable opportunity for connection. According to stakeholders in Higher Education, Converciencia was identified as a relevant mechanism for developing collaborations with the GSD. However, it shows at least two limitations (1) bringing scientists (including members of the GSD) who want to implement projects that do not correspond to the national context and (2) bringing scientists (including members of the GSD) who have prejudices about the knowledge of local scientists.Stakeholders described current ties with the GSD as insufficient and weak. For example, stakeholders in the industry mentioned having some relations with the GSD but acknowledged these ties are weak and limited. Higher Education critiqued the approach of When identifying the reason for the current lack of collaborations, stakeholders underlined a lack of structure as one crucial obstacle to engaging the GSD in Guatemala's sustainable development. Stakeholders expressed that there is a lack of institutional systems and policies that enable the engagement of the GSD in the country's development. Only a few stakeholders had any knowledge about actions by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and diplomatic corps in supporting such collaboration, which was described as insufficient and sporadic, even though both were considered relevant agents. Namely, the Department of State and the UK embassy were explicitly identified as entities that offer or have offered support to establish collaboration networks with the GSD. Likewise, stakeholders considered that there had been little action involving the GSD in topics of development and policymaking and a lack of interest and investment in science overall. SENACYT was mentioned as one of the most active government institutions because it finances the salaries of former members of the GSD who return to the country, involves GSD members in their activities, and has its Red CTI network. CONCYT was also mentioned as a relevant actor, although the result of its actions was deemed unsatisfactory. Finally, stakeholders representing Foreign Policy institutions considered that the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN) has the potential to generate regional impact in establishing such connections. However, its only action in this area is the creation of a regional fund for science and technology, which is currently being developed. The involvement of scientific experts in the development of industry was acknowledged as necessary. Still, none of the participating stakeholders had any knowledge of specific mechanisms that enabled the involvement of the GSD. It was generally agreed that universities and individual researchers are the main drivers of scientific collaboration with the GSD, using their personal and professional contacts to establish networks and develop projects.A second significant obstacle to engaging the GSD in Guatemala's sustainable development was a lack of sufficient resources and incentives. For example, representatives of Higher Education identified two main barriers to connecting the GSD with local scientists: lack of time and lack of funding. It was mainly acknowledged that the scientific community deals with various limitations  that hinder the support they can potentially provide. Furthermore, stakeholders in Civil Society observe a lack of institutional support for research and scientific development in Guatemala, which has resulted in a lack of opportunities and incentives for the GSD to be involved in actions for development in Guatemala, either by returning to the country or collaborating from abroad. This effect was perceived by industry stakeholders as a lack of interest from the GSD to be involved in projects in Guatemala and a tendency to “forget” about their home country. As one member said, “We have [a relationship with the GSD], but it isn't stronger because some of them have forgotten about Guatemala.” However, they acknowledged giving more support and incentivizing scientific development.Stakeholders broadly commented on how the development of solutions should involve conjunct work between the public sector, private sector, and academia. However, some expressed concern over the lack of interest of government agencies in science and indicated that academia has the most substantial potential to lead the way in developing opportunities to involve the GSD in development projects. Still, all stakeholders could identify opportunities in which collaboration with the GSD would be fruitful. Particularly, stakeholders in S&T highlighted the importance of linking the GSD with the academic sector and the private and public sectors to develop such opportunities. In this way, the transfer of knowledge and technology could specifically target problems in Guatemalan society. Further, industry stakeholders reiterated their willingness to explore possibilities for collaboration with members of the GSD.Regarding possible actions to overcome current obstacles, the need for more communication was highlighted. Industry stakeholders suggested having more open communication of industry needs to help identify opportunities for collaboration. Likewise, they underscored the importance of scientists showcasing their work and communicating their findings in a understandably and attractively way to the industry sector. One S&T stakeholder pointed out that multiple cultural barriers must be surpassed within the Guatemalan context, which requires contextualization and translation of scientific information.attaché in [Guatemalan] embassies and consulates, [and also] to train MINEX [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] staff and other public officials in science diplomacy guidelines.” Some of them also recommended having at least a minimum plan of things that scientists could contribute; in this way, they would guide them on how to apply their knowledge in the country. Stakeholders also considered that governmental institutions need to be active in involving the GSD and that science policy needs to be developed—especially by linking it to economic policy and development to add incentives. Stakeholders in the S&T policy indicated that better inter-institutional organizations could create the connection of the GSD with projects in Guatemala. For example, they mention the communication between SEGEPLAN and SENACYT, where SEGEPLAN  should systematically communicate the names and detailed information scholarship/fellowships awardees, especially at the graduate level . Then SENACYT can approach and connect them. Participants also mentioned the relevance of science diplomacy (as the interface between science and foreign policy) by suggesting that “the “SENACYT's policy and actions combined with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [should engage] the GSD [by] having a scientific To our knowledge, this study is the first to provide supportive evidence of the growing and existing community of scientists outside of Guatemala, namely the Guatemalan Scientific Diaspora (GSD). Members of such GSD shared their past experiences, attempts, and results of their efforts for engagement with Guatemala and their current interest in contributing to the country's development through specific actions that need to be coordinated between the distinct sectors: government, academia, and industry. The importance of mapping, characterizing, and understanding the GSD to have a strong capacity-building mechanism and networking between GSD and local actors also became apparent. Until today, the existence of a GSD has not been systematically identified, registered, or studied and remains an untapped resource for development in the country. Moreover, the GSD has made positive initiatives and efforts, although they lack a legal or operational framework. As an initial step, systematized baseline information is required to develop further the actions toward structuring the GSD, develop future policies aimed to engage them, and highlight their impact at multiple levels of the country of origin.This study highlighted the lack of knowledge of the existence of a GSD, their interaction with their national counterparts and local stakeholders, and the need to recognize it and develop a structure or plan for them to interact efficiently with Guatemala. Due to the lack of articulation, independent and few successful experiences were shared by the participants of this study, though they recognized the potential to develop more substantial collaborations.Numerous members of the scientific diaspora have also acknowledged their responsibility to seek opportunities to remain relevant and positively influence Guatemala. Although the ideal scenario would involve an organized and systematized collective action, individual initiatives are also valuable. A sense of responsibility was also repeatedly mentioned, as many GSDs have benefited from scholarships, fellowships, grants, and funding based on their nationality or country of origin.In turn, our participants sensed a more positive view of the GSD and the perception of the host country. Based on our results, the continuation of collaboration with and employment of Guatemalan researchers was perceived as positive and possible. As stated by the subjects interviewed, skilled Guatemalan scientists contribute to furthering research on relevant topics, advance technological developments, allow deeper labor market specialization, and have a robust understanding of evidence-based knowledge and its application to real-world problems. Moreover, it was identified that the GSD allows the representation of an additional aspect of Guatemala: that of highly skilled, hard-working professionals who are passionate about science, technology, and development and make valuable contributions in their field.Converciencia, which is not a program nor a policy, but an event or recurrent activity (over 15 years of implementation with changes over time).Scientific diasporas are fundamental for science and research capacity development. They are also recognized as a solid force to encourage novel and fruitful collaborations abroad; therefore, governments, civil societies, other organizations, corporations, and academic groups are needed. In the case of Guatemala, no public policies or legislative actions, nor existing collaborative structures focused on creating possibilities of engagement with GSD were identified. In terms of Foreign Policy, attention is mainly centered on irregular and vulnerable forced emigration, particularly toward the United States of America. As for public policies in science and research, the single initiative identified as a consistent activity to connect GSD with their country was Converciencia or the International Guatemalan Scientists Network. Nevertheless, they complain about the lack of policies, bureaucracy, or non-existence of engagement programs. This is the best scenario. The other governmental institutions hadn't created any program or platform in most cases. The GSD has not found support in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Embassies, among other government institutions.Evidence suggests that the GSD cooperates with governmental institutions such as the National Secretary of Science in established programs such as Guatemalan universities and research centers have a fundamental role in developing new strategies to increase inclusiveness and actively engage the GSD by responding to contemporary science's global demands and needs as part of their programs. They need to expand local scientists' participation by informing them about existing programs and promoting and sharing authority in engaging them in all the research decision-making processes. The inclusion of GSD is an opportunity for creating models of governance of science centers based on the participation of local and abroad scientists' experiences as integral components alongside the ones who traditionally place the role of these centers as a provider of trained persons and basic knowledge.The GSD suggested strategies using artificial intelligence and machine learning to data-mine all the Guatemalan scientists' online professional information and publications. Members of the GSD also suggested creating a platform to enable better communication between the diaspora and the different key actors within the Guatemalan science, research, and innovation system. They indicated it is relevant to include actors and decision-makers from the government, higher education, research institutions, and the industry, relevant stakeholders representing international partners, non-governmental organizations, and civil organized social groups.International partners play a relevant role in the engagement of the GSD, mainly through alumni associations, such as the Fulbright and Chevening alumni networks, having an active connection amongst alumni. International partners also provide research grants, scholarships for postgraduate studies, and short courses in their countries of origin. Other international  are also relevant to the GSD. They are sources of grants, awards, and spaces for researchers and scientists to connect and engage with their peers not only from their countries of origin but also from other regions with similar needs and challenges i.e., the International Network for Advancing Science and Policy -INASP-, the Organization of Women in Science for the Developing World-OWSD-, the World Academy of Science TWAS, the InterAcademy Partnership IAP, to cite some.https://owsd.net/network/guatemala, https://redcti.senacyt.gob.gt/portal/index.php/investigadores/directoriocti.Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee from the University of Technology of El Salvador (UTEC). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. All participants were asked to sign an electronic informed consent form prior to their participation.KB: conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), project administration (lead), methodology (lead), resources (lead), validation (lead), and writing—original draft . CR-O and SA: conceptualization , data curation , supervision (lead), project administration , writing original draft , and visualization . NYOO, MA, AD, and GO-C: investigation (supporting), visualization (supporting), writing original draft , and writing—review and editing . SM: formal analysis , investigation (supporting), data curation , and resources . GM-B: critically analyzed the manuscript and suggested edits. NYOO: investigation , data curation , writing original draft , and visualization (supporting). All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.This research received funding from the International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP) through the grant INASP0652021.SA was employed by New Sun Road. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Transmission efficiency is a key trait for every pathogen as it ultimately determines fitness. Plant viruses are not exceptions and evolved various ways to achieve transmission. The best characterized is plant-to-plant horizontal transmission by direct contact, mechanical means  or by vectors . While very important for the epidemiology of most plant viruses, horizontal transmission is far from being the only way for virus dispersal. Parent-to-offspring vertical transmission through seeds has been known for a century , and forFig 1). This is particularly important as many vectors, particularly aphids, transmit viruses in a nonpersistent manner (virus acquisition and further inoculation in susceptible plants occur within a few seconds/minutes), which means that insecticides are not effective at suppressing virus spread [Seed infection provides the virus with means to persist for long periods of time when hosts and/or vectors are not available, as many seed-transmitted viruses can survive within the seed as long as it remains viable . Seed trs spread . In the s spread . Indeed,s spread ,11. Thuss spread .Due to its central role in determining virus fitness, a considerable body of theory is aimed at predicting the conditions in which pathogen transmission will be optimized. Applied to plant viruses, most of these works agree in that maximum seed transmission rates require optimal plant reproduction and, therefore, lower virulence  . The scaLettuce mosaic virus was 0.1%, until it was demonstrated that a percentage of infected seeds as low as 0.003% was enough to start an epidemic [Current strategies to minimize the impact of seed-transmitted viruses mostly involve routine seed health testing and, to a lesser extent, heat treatment of infected seeds . Howeverepidemic . A similepidemic . In addiepidemic . Strategepidemic . The depepidemic . Perhapsepidemic , could cFig 1). To understand these routes of transmission, it should be noted that, unlike animal viruses where receptor-mediated mechanisms facilitate exploiting the extracellular environment for within-host dissemination, plant viruses are restricted to the intracellular compartment (symplast). Their cell-to-cell movement occurs through symplastic channels (plasmodesmata), a process mediated by viral movement proteins [Seed-transmitted viruses have 2 nonmutually exclusive mechanisms to reach the seed. First, direct invasion of the embryonic tissue, and second, infection of the ovules and/or the pollen  virus multiplication and movement; (ii) virus ability to invade gametic tissues; and (iii) gamete and embryo survival in the presence of the virus .Soybean mosaic virus seed transmission is controlled by host genes homolog of Arabidopsis DCL3 and RDR6, which are involved in the RNA silencing plant defense response [Barley stripe mosaic virus (BSMV) and Pea seed-borne mosaic virus (PSbMV), respectively, is controlled by a few unidentified loci of quantitative effect [Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) seed transmission [There is remarkably little information on the function of plant genes involved in virus seed transmission. In soybean, response . Also, ie effect . In Arabsmission . These iPea early browning virus and CMV genomes are in RNAs 1 and 2, which encode proteins involved in virus replication, and in the 12-kDa gene, which is an RNA silencing suppressor [Virus genetic determinants involved in seed transmission have been analyzed in a handful of species and are also associated with virus multiplication, movement, and invasion of plant reproductive organs . Determippressor ,27. Simippressor –30.In sum, plant viruses are not restricted to host vegetative organs and vectors, but also invade reproductive organs and seeds. Exploring this largely unknown aspect of the life of plant viruses will yield key information to understand their epidemiology and evolution.


Vespa, Vespula and Polistes genera belonging to the Vespidae family. This taxon contains several of the most widespread invasive Vespid species worldwide. Many of these species are predators of honey bees and cause great impacts, as is the case with the yellow-legged hornet Vespa velutina. The presence of viruses in species of Vespids that interact with honey bees could represent an emerging risk in the transmission of pathogens, weakening the defense strategies of native species. Gathering this information is necessary to promote the research on the spread of bee viruses associated with invasive species as well as in the development of bee virus control strategies.Currently, bee viruses are one of the threats to honey bee populations. The increase in invasive Vespid species causes a negative impact on honey bee colonies, weakening them and making them more vulnerable to the presence of pathogens. This bibliographic review shows the main research on bee viruses in the Vespa, Vespula and Polistes. Bee viruses have been extensively studied as an important cause of honey bee population losses. However, knowledge about the transmission of honey bee viruses in Vespids is a relevant and under-researched aspect. The role of some mites such as Varroa in the transmission of honey bee viruses is clearer than in the case of Vespidae. This type of transmission by vectors has not yet been clarified in Vespidae, with interspecific relationships being the main hypotheses accepted for the transmission of bee viruses. A majority of studies describe the presence of viruses or their replicability, but aspects such as the symptomatology in Vespids or the ability to infect other hosts from Vespids are scarcely discussed. Highlighting the case of Vespa velutina as an invader, which is causing huge losses in European beekeeping, is of special interest. The pressure caused by V. velutina leads to weakened hives that become susceptible to pathogens. Gathering this information is necessary to promote further research on the spread of bee viruses in ecosystems invaded by invasive species of Vespids, as well as to prevent the decline of bee populations due to bee viruses.The increase in invasive alien species is a concern for the environment. The establishment of some of these species may be changing the balance between pathogenicity and host factors, which could alter the defense strategies of native host species. Vespid species are among the most successful invasive animals, such as the genera  Globalization is causing decisive changes in human habitats and ecosystems. The introduction of invasive species and the appearance of infectious diseases in certain populations are well known processes in this field. It was estimated that the economic cost of invasive species has been $1.288 trillion over the past 50 years [The success of invasive species depends on several factors, but the most recent findings suggest that the success of the invasion may depend on their ability to respond to natural selection, highlighting the importance of their genetic architecture, leading to adaptations to new environments . FurtherVespula, Vespa, and Dolichovespula are pests in temperate and tropical regions of the world [Vespula vulgaris (V. vulgaris) and Vespula germanica (V. germanica). These two species show a very plastic generalist foraging behavior, which favors the appearance of a great variety of impacts on biodiversity and changes in the function of the ecosystems invaded [Vespa is relevant since some species such as Vespa velutina (V. velutina) or Vespa orientalis  are species of concern for ecosystems and human health, when introduced as invasive species [V. velutina nigrithorax is the only one included in the List of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern (Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species) and today it is a widespread pest in Europe. The Vespidae family is vastly widespread and comprises almost all species of eusocial wasps, as well as many solitary species ,7. Althohe world . Two of  invaded ,11. The V. velutina or Asian yellow-legged hornet is common in central to eastern Asia [V. velutina are kept in balance with the species they prey on (Asian honey bee Apis cerana (A. cerana)) and with the pathogens that are involved in their biological cycle [ern Asia ,13,14,15al cycle . The speal cycle ,14,16. OV. velutina hornet, as it is a species that is expanding rapidly in all European ecosystems, thus causing a notable environmental and socioeconomic impact, especially in the beekeeping sector [Knowledge about pathogens could be crucial to better understand the ecology of pest species and thus develop an integrated control strategy. Henceforth, this study aims to deepen the knowledge about the most common bee viruses found in different Vespid species. Additionally, this review makes a special mention of the g sector ,16. The Most invasive Vespid species interact extensively with other species, when preying on other insects such as honey bees, and during foraging and the search for resources to build nests. The interaction between these species allows the transmission of many pathogens, including bee viruses . Thus, vV. velutina in Europe, more research on viruses such as pathogens has been conducted, searching for the best control method to reduce hornet populations [Varroa [In recent years, with the entry of the invasive species ulations ,21,22,23 [Varroa . Moreove [Varroa ,21,25,26Vespa or Vespula, to new areas could imply a reduction of its native pathogens, its rapid adaptability to new ecological niches gives rise to new interactions with existing pathogens in the new invaded areas. Other successful invasive insects are several Polistes species (Polistes dominula (P. dominula) or Polistes chinensis (P. chinensis)) that can also be considered as a pest in several countries [Polistes do not prey on bees, the spillover effect of the different bee viruses in ecosystems makes it a carrier and host for these viruses.In this sense, invasive polyphagous species are more successful in the establishment than monophagous or oligophagous species . The traountries ,27. AlthThese species affect invaded local biodiversity either through direct predation or competition for food, nest settlements or space. Many invasive social wasp species are also increasingly recognized for their predation on honey bees ,14,15,16transovum transmission) or inside the egg (transovarian transmission) [Knowing how viruses spread and cause infections is essential. There are various ways of transmitting a virus. These are summarized in horizontal and vertical transmission, or both. In the horizontal transmission, the virus is usually transmitted between members of the same species that do not have a progenitors–descendants relationship, that is, between individuals of the same generation . In turnmission) ,30. Pteromalus puparum negative-strand RNA virus 1 (PpNSRV-1), which is an RNA virus from a parasitoid wasp . This virus is transmitted vertically by infected wasps, biparentally , but at the same time the virus reduces the number of female offspring by modifying the secondary sex ratio of the parasitoid host [Virulence tends to increase in horizontal transmission, unlike in vertical transmission . The higoid host . Althougoid host .Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), one of the most widely studied bee viruses, may be an example of both the vertical and horizontal transmission in the honey bee. Numerous studies describe the presence of DWV in honey bee queen ovaries and therefore a venereal–vertical infection ,33,34,35Ascovirus DpAV4 and wasps of the genus Diadromus [Diadromus that harbors reovirus (family Reoviridae). It has been demonstrated that some of these reoviruses can suppress host defense, facilitating the development of parasitoid eggs [V. vulgaris [Vespula pensylvanica (V. pensylvanica) wasp, whose longevity may be affected by the viral load of the Moku virus [The type of viral transmission depends largely on the type of relationship that exists between the interacting species. The relationships between pathogen and wasps can vary from pathogens to mutualists. An example is a relationship between iadromus . This reiadromus ,39. Thisoid eggs . In addivulgaris . The lonku virus .Varroa genus, mainly the Varroa jacobsoni (V. jacobsoni) and Varroa destructor (V. destructor), Acarapis woodi, and Tropilaelaps mercedesae. Among them, the Varroa is the causative agent of varroosis one of the most serious diseases in honey bees [Varroa, it has been proven that its presence increases the frequency and quantity of this infection in honey bees [Apis mellifera (A mellifera), which suggests the possibility that the virus can be transmitted by ingesting infected bees [V. destructor) is the Acute bee Paralysis Virus-(ABPV). As in the previous case, it is a virus that affects the honey bee and that can also be transmitted using the varroa mite as a transmission vector to predatory species such as V. velutina [Varroa attached to the lateral–ventral part of the abdomen of V. velutina specimens. In this study, a prevalence rate of the Varroa parasite in the V. velutina of 1.75% has been described. Despite this suggestion, there is no study in which the presence of Varroa has been detected in the life cycle of V. velutina. Such detection would confirm the relationship between the two species. However, this could still suggest a risk in the dispersion of mites that can transmit bee viruses. On the contrary, Varroa individuals  were detected in V. vulgaris larvae from Poland [Varroa in the dynamics of hymenopteran pathogens in insect communities. Specifically, they reveal how the hidden effects of the Varroa mite can, by spillover, transform the composition of the pathogens in the interacting species [V. destructor mite in Hawaiian populations of Apis modified the diversity of the DWV virus in the invasive population of the Vespula wasp, with DWV type A being the predominant variant [Many of the bee viruses use transmission vectors such as mites. According to De Jong et al. , mites tney bees . In addiney bees . One of ney bees . This vited bees ,41,45,46velutina  has detem Poland . This fi species . Thus, t variant .Varroa. As Vespid species disperse to areas other than their native origins, the detection of new species linked to viral diseases is more evident. Pneumolaelaps niutirani (P. niutirani) is a species of mite that has recently been discovered in New Zealand [niutirani, which derives from the Maori “Niu Tīrani”, which means “New Zealand”. It is a species of mite identified for the first time in association with the nests of the wasp Vespula germanica. It has also been discovered in other Vespula species (V. germanica and V. vulgaris) in both New Zealander and Belgian individuals [Vespula wasp nests has made it possible to detect viruses such as Moku and DWV in the P. niutirani mite [P. niutirani with specific pathogens could lead to invasive wasp infections. In addition, this mite can be transported by other species of Hymenoptera such as bumblebees and honey and solitary bees, making it a possible vector of viral transmission in the interaction between different species of Hymenoptera [There are transmission vectors other than  Zealand , hence tividuals ,51. The enoptera ,51. ThisNosema microsporidium [Nosema cause the disease known as nosemosis. Nosema apis (N. apis), Nosema ceranae (N. ceranae), Nosema neumanni (N. neumanni) are the most studied and have been found related to the honey bees [N. apis) could transmit and increase the spread of some viruses such as Black Queen Cell Virus (BQCV) [Nosema microsporidia, with a correlation between peak infections of both pathogens [Varroa, Nosema can be transmitted to predatory Vespids such as V. crabro or V. velutina [Polybia scutellaris [Aethina tumida) [There are routes of transmission different to the mites such as the poridium . Severalney bees . In addis (BQCV) . Althougathogens . As is tvelutina ,22,23, Ptellaris  and even tumida) . AlthougHoney bee viruses have been demonstrated to have an ability to infect other hosts such as the Vespidae species. One of the most defended hypotheses that explains the presence of viruses in Vespids is the one that supports this infection as being caused by a predator–prey interaction ,25,45,57V. velutina, have an intense predatory effect on bee colonies. This close relationship could favor the exchange of pathogens between the species and enables V. velutina to act as a vector for transmitting pathogens to other bee populations. The main investigations regarding the presence of the most common honey bee viruses in Vespid species are presented below. This study was carried out considering a total of 117 documents found in the time frame of 1968–2021. The search focused especially on those documents that identified bee viruses in the Vespid genera with the greatest capacity to invade new ecosystems. This search allowed for a characterization of bee viruses in the genera Vespa, Vespula as honey bee predators and Polistes as species that share ecosystems with bee viruses hosts. The scientific literature focused on viruses found in different species of the family Vespidae is scarce. However, further knowledge is essential because social insects with large families play an important role in ecosystems. Moreover, some of them, such as Apis mellifera Filamentous Virus (AmFV), recently identified Macula-like Virus (BeeMLV), Black Queen Cell Virus (BQCV), Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV), Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV), Ifla-like virus, Kashmir bee virus (KBV), La Jolla virus, Lake Sinai Virus (LSV), Luteo-like virus 1, Menton virus, Moku, Mott mill virus, Nora-like virus, Partiti-like virus, Permutotetra-like virus, and Triato-like Virus) have been found in Vespids. These viruses are summarized in A total of 22 viruses , Acypi-like Virus, Aphid Lethal Paralysis Virus (ALPV), Vespa , four to the genus Vespula , and five to the genus Polistes .The tables specify where the replication was detected. The tables refer to the following 15 species. Six belonged to the genus V. velutina, as it is an invasive alien species whose rapid and impactful introduction could be altering the composition of pathogens in invaded ecosystems  treated in this document [Polistes spp. are common social wasps that hunt caterpillar prey and feed on nectar by occasionally visiting flowers [Polistes spp. with the presence of Varroa, since when Varroa is absent in the ecosystems shared with Polistes, DWV has not been detected either. This suggests that Varroa could promote increased horizontal transmission within a honey bee colony, therefore increasing transmission in the environment [One of the most main viruses associated with the collapse of the colony is DWV . This castructor ,74,75,76structor . In addistructor ,65,76,78structor ,70,79, wstructor . Table 1. crabro ,60, the . crabro ,62. In Vdetected ,21,45,60espa sp.  have idedocument ,69,71. P flowers . It woulironment .V. velutina, the replicative form has been detected by Mazzei et al. [V. germanica from New Zealand and Europe [V. vulgaris in samples from New Zealand [Vespula sp. from the USA [The replication of this virus has also been studied in the various species of Vespids. In i et al.  in sampli et al.  in Francd Europe ,69, V. v Zealand  and in V the USA .N. apis, as mentioned previously [V. bicolor, V. crabro, and V. velutina [N. apis, this virus has been observed in co-infection with the Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) in V. velutina, where the absence of vertical transmission is demonstrated [Another virus that has been extensively and frequently studied in Vespids due to its high incidence in honey bees is the BQCV ,64,65,71eviously ,54,83. Leviously . BQCV haeviously . In thiseviously . This vivelutina ,45,60. Instrated .V. vulgaris, P. rothneyi, P. metricus, and Vespula sp. [The replicative form has also been found in the gut and muscle samples of this species, as well as in honey bees collected at the same time, suggesting transmission by predator–prey . As for pula sp. ,60,65,71A. mellifera; these are the Slow Bee Paralysis Virus (SBPV or SPV), Aphid Lethal Paralysis Virus (ALPV), Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV), Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV), and Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV)  [Some viruses cause paralysis in some of the stages of s (ABPV) . SBPV istivities . Althougelutina) , it has Vespa, and exactly in individuals of V. velutina. Major studies demonstrated that this virus has been identified in V. velutina hornets in China [V. velutina can be an important viral reservoir between V. velutina and honey bees, resulting in potential impacts on hive health [The ALPV, a pathogenic aphid RNA virus, was first identified and classified in South Africa; based on its biophysical and biochemical properties, it was classified as a picorna-like virus . It is cin China , France in China , and Itain China . They dee health .Apis colonies, hence its multiple forms of transmission, both horizontal and vertical [Varroa can be a vector for the transmission of this virus and its association also promotes the replication of IAPV, causing more damaging effects on honey bee colonies [Apis populations allows a spillover effect towards other species that interact with Apis, in both predators and non-predators. Therefore, IAPV uses a wide variety of carriers and additional hosts [V. velutina [V. bicolor, V. affinis, and Vespa sp. [V. vulgaris [V. germanica in its replicative form [P. rothneyi [V. bicolor, P. rothneyi, V. affinis, and V. velutina [IAPV is a virus recently incorporated into the Dicistroviridae family. It has been discovered as a consequence of the spread of the virus in the pupae of white-eyed honey bees . IAPV isvertical . Varroa colonies ,46. Thiscolonies . This haal hosts . In Vespal hosts ,46. Thusal hosts . As mainvelutina ,46, V. bespa sp.   and BQCV viruses, in diseased larvae with pathogens such as A. woodi and Nosema spp., was highlighted in the latest study. Symptomatology involved the non-conversion of pupae and a change in larvae color from pearly white to pale yellow and turning dark brown [Chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV) was isolated in Apis  and descApis ,92,93 chApis . FurtherApis ,93. ThesApis , who conApis ,95. The Apis  but alsoApis . In Eurovelutina ,23 for iV. velutina [V. germanica [V. velutina, infection with this virus was detected in muscles and/or cuticle, legs, and mandibles, as well as in the guts of the hornet [V. velutina could be related to the infection cycle; however, further experimentation is necessary to characterize the virus and its virulence in the species [V. germanica, the replicative form has been detected [V. velutina [V. germanica demonstrated that the ABPV sequences were more closely related to each other than to the global GenBank sequences. These different sequences to others could support the hypothesis that Vespid species could be, in addition to carriers, hosts for virus infection.Parallel to the discovery of this latter virus (CBPV), the acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) was discovered ,93,94,97velutina ,45,46,60ermanica . Regardidetected , as showV. destructor [Apis [transovarian transmission) [V. destructor could be involved in the initiation of KBV replication, which can also transmit KBV between adult bees and pupae [Vespa and Vespula. In the case of V. velutina [V. velutina and, therefore, it is not specific to the honey bee. This virus has also been observed in other Vespids of the Vespula genus such as V. vulgaris [V. germanica [ABPV is frequently studied with the Kashmir bee virus (KBV) and Israeli acute bee paralysis virus (IAPV), being a part of the AKI complex. These viruses are closely related virus species from the Dicistroviridae family ,98. ”AKIstructor . KBV is structor  and is oor [Apis ,100. Thior [Apis . In addimission) ,100,101.nd pupae ,99,102. nd pupae . KBV hasvelutina ,46, an avelutina . This favulgaris ,51,66,67ermanica . In bothermanica .A. mellifera, affecting both larvae and adult honey bees [Apis predator and non-Apis predator hymenopteran [V. velutina [V. vulgaris [P. metricus, North American native wasp [Vespula sp. [V. velutina, it has been detected in the part of the gut. This could lead to the suspicion that the transmission of this species occurs by preying on honey bees. However, as mentioned, it is a virus with a high prevalence, which has even been detected in pollen pellets and in non-predatory species of honey bee. In addition, finding this species in a stage such as the pupa of V. vulgaris (without symptoms of infection), it can be thought that it is a well-established virus and a pathogen for a high diversity of pollinating hosts.The Sacbrood virus or Saciform Brood Virus (SBV) is also an RNA virus with a picornavirus in the genus Iflavirus and belongs to the family Iflaviridae ,103,104.ney bees . The sprnopteran ,71. A hinopteran ,60. Regavelutina ,60. Othevulgaris ,65, P. mVespula pensylvanica, probably its native host, on Big Island, Hawaii [V. velutina [Varroa samples. Although it was detected for the first time in V. pensylvanica [V. crabro in UK [V. velutina in Belgium [P. chinensis and P. humilis, V. germanica, and V. vulgaris [V. velutina, as it is a predator that exerts great pressure on honey bees, a transmission in the direction of bees to Vespids could be suggested. Furthermore, the sequencing data and the higher abundance of this virus in Vespids versus honey bees could reinforce this suggestion and pose a future risk in the transmission of the virus from hornets to honey bees during predation events in hives [V. vulgaris from both New Zealand and Belgium, it has been detected in co-infection with high viral diversity. The majority belong to the Picorna family, but other families such as Luteo-Sobemo, Partiti and Tombus were also detected [Vespula vulgaris Luteo-like virus 1, whose high presence in all life stages suggests a persistent infection in V. vulgaris colonies [V. crabro [V. pensylvanica [P. chinensis, V. germanica, and V. vulgaris [V. vulgaris, the viral load of the Moku virus can affect vital traits such as the longevity of the colony [The inflavirus Moku virus (MV) was first discovered in the predatory social wasp , Hawaii . It is avelutina . Howeverylvanica ,70,105, ro in UK  or V. ve Belgium  and Fran Belgium . It has vulgaris ,68. It iin hives ,61,70. H. crabro , V. pensylvanica ,57, P. cvulgaris , as showe colony .A. mellifera) samples near Lake Sinai, South Dakota, USA [Nosema spp. [V. bicolor pupa from China [Apis mellifera Filamentous Virus (AmFV), IAPV, DWV, CSBV, and BQCV. However, given that no virus replication was found in these samples, the appearance of the virus is probably due to contamination by feeding.LSV, belonging to the genus Sinaivirus, was discovered in Western honey bee  [V. bicolor pupae and in both pupae and adults in P. rothneyi [V. bicolor, while in P. rothneyi, AmFV has been detected together with BQCV or together with IAPV [Nosema [AmFV was originally described as a rickettsial disease of honey bees (llifera) ; howeverllifera) ,112. Onellifera) ,112,113.llifera)  has idenrothneyi . In thesith IAPV . In hone [Nosema  as a preV. destructor, in which the replicative form of the virus has been detected, suggesting its participation as a possible transmission vector [V. velutina from France; thus, it is suggested that the presence of this virus is probably related to bee predation [Recently identified Macula-like virus (BeeMLV) is a polyadenylated RNA virus in the family Tymoviridae in the order Tymovirales and close to the order of Maculavirus ,114. Then vector ,114. In redation .Drosophila and detected in honey bees in Australian samples [V. velutina [V. velutina, melanization followed by rapid death has been observed in Drosophila within 3 days after injection of the LJV strain. This contribution has focused on LJV as a good biopesticide candidate for this species [V. velutina, a better characterization of this virus would be necessary.It is also worth mentioning the La Jolla virus (LJV) belonging to the Iflaviridae family, discovered for the first time in  samples . This vivelutina . In that species . HoweverV. velutina from France were also detected, such as the Acypi-like virus, Triato-like virus, Permutotetra-like virus, Partiti-like virus, Ifla-like virus, Nora-like virus, Menton virus, and Mott mill virus [Finally, other viruses associated with the analysis of ll virus .V. velutina in invaded ecosystems, coupled with its ability to carry a wide range of pathogens, is indicative of the potential risk it may pose to the species with which it interacts, such as honey bees. Most of these viruses have been detected as the target of a search for control of this pest species [V. velutina in the invaded ecosystems brings about the presence of new interactions between viral pathogens and insects. A potential indicator of this event could be represented by the ratio of the replicative virus/non-replicative virus [V. velutina, the presence of replicative forms of several of the viruses mentioned above has already been confirmed. A total of nine viruses have replicated in samples of this hornet  viruses. They have a high replication rate and high error rates, resulting in them being genetically very heterogeneous. Some of the bee viruses discussed in this review, such as DWV, have been sequenced and structurally characterized. DWV can present three different variants with different virulence . Some molecular studies estimate a mean evolutionary rate of 1.346 × 10ite/year , allowinV. destructor. This may have favored the evolution of the virulence of the bee viruses it transmits and driven the emergence of viruses in other species in areas where it has been introduced. In parallel, the occurrence of these viruses in Vespid species has revealed more specific replication dynamics in Vespids. However, the lack of knowledge about this type of occurrence in Vespids may suggest that there is a future risk of changes in infection dynamics due to the high rate of evolution of these viruses. This review therefore highlights the need to study bee viruses in invasive species from the time of their early introduction.The main infections caused are usually transmitted by the invasive mite V. velutina, which has an increasing spatial distribution outside its native range, is having a major impact on beekeeping. This has promoted a growing number of investigations on bee viruses in this species. No less impactful are other invasive species that prey on bees or share their habitat, whose introduction has changed the dynamics of virus replication. These species could be a potential factor in the transmission of bee viruses, affecting the health and strength of the colony. The information collected in this review on honey bee viruses in invasive Vespids is relevant to promote the further research on honey bee virus transmission in Vespids and improve the management of infectious diseases caused by bee viruses in apiaries.An increasing number of shared viral genomes have been found between the family Apidae and the family Vespidae. These viruses are RNA viruses with a high rate of evolution, allowing a high frequency of virus exchange within and between the families of Hymenoptera. This could lead to the reformulation of the definition of species-specific viruses and specifically for the bee. Knowledge about bee viruses in Vespid species is scarce. Most of the investigations describe the presence and/or replication of the bee virus in Vespids. However, very little is known about the transmission mechanisms of these viruses.


To determine virus shedding duration, we examined clinical samples collected from the upper respiratory tracts of persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant in Japan during November 29–December 18, 2021. Vaccinees with mild or asymptomatic infection shed infectious virus 6–9 days after onset or diagnosis, even after symptom resolution. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern belonging to the Pango lineage B.1.1.529, known as the Omicron variant, has spread rapidly worldwide  and the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) for the use of human subjects . We obtained written informed consent to publish the article.https://www.gisaid.org)  .For cases detected by SARS-CoV-2 testing at airport quarantines, samples collected for diagnosis  were transported to the NIID to confirm Omicron. We used the residual samples for this study. The date of sample collection of the first Omicron-positive sample for each patient was defined as the diagnosis date (day 0). Nasopharyngeal samples were collected serially during hospitalization, stored at −80°C, and transported to NIID.We quantified SARS-CoV-2 RNA by using quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) and virus isolation testing. We performed qRT-PCR as described previously  Figure 1https://www.graphpad.com). To compare the Cq values, we used Mann-Whitney t and Friedman tests with Dunn multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.To examine infectious virus shedding, we classified samples according to date of diagnosis, date of symptom onset, and date of symptom resolution. For cases in which multiple samples were collected in each time segment, we used the sample with the highest amount of viral RNA  in each time segment for each case for comparison. For data analysis and visualization, we used GraphPad Prism version 8.4.3 (All 18 case-patients had been vaccinated >14 days before coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnosis . The medAmong the 101 serially collected samples analyzed , we detected infectious virus in 10 (9.9%) from 10 patients (8 symptomatic and 2 asymptomatic) , panel AWe detected infectious virus in the samples of 20%–30% symptomatic patients, ranging from before they were symptomatic to 9 days after symptom onset, but we detected no infectious virus beyond 10 days after symptom onset  strain (Wu01) strains (In the United States, the isolation period for COVID-19 patients is 5 days after symptom onset if the symptoms are improving (Our first study limitation is that we identified infectious virus by infection assays among only 18 patients. We do not know about the infectivity outside of this study. In addition, there are no epidemiologic data about whether secondary infections occurred from patients with these infectious viruses. Therefore, comparing theses results with future epidemiologic studies of more samples is necessary. Our second study limitation is that the virus isolation and infectivity assay results depend on the sample collection method, storage period, and storage conditions. Therefore, negative results do not guarantee that there was no infectious virus in the sample at the time of collection. Last, for some case-patients, virus was not isolated in samples collected at the time of diagnosis. For these persons, the samples used for diagnosis were collected at the airport quarantine and were saliva, for which the quality may not be suitable for virus isolation. Although our results are insufficient to show a difference in efficiency of virus isolation between saliva and nasopharyngeal samples in Omicron-infected persons, this difference may have underestimated the presence of infectious virus at diagnosis. In conclusion, fully vaccinated COVID-19 case-patients with mild or asymptomatic infection shed infectious virus in their upper respiratory tract for 6–9 days after illness onset or diagnosis, even after symptom resolution, but not after day 10.Supplemental results from study of duration of infectious virus shedding by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant–infected vaccinees, Japan, November 29–December 18, 2021.


Asymmetry threshold results differ significantly between using a fixed or a specific threshold . All tests indicate that the direction of asymmetry is towards the dominant limb. In conclusion, the ROM test used determines the magnitude and direction of the lateral asymmetry of the amateur soccer players. The ABD and ADD are the ROM tests that showed higher percentages of asymmetry, without differences between female and male soccer players. Using a specific asymmetry threshold formula can classify more players as asymmetrical than with a fixed threshold.This study aimed to: (1) determine the magnitude and direction of lateral asymmetry in well-trained soccer players using hip and knee ROM tests; (2) inquire if asymmetry relies on the ROM test performed and/or gender; and (3) establish asymmetry thresholds for each ROM test to individualize lower-limbs asymmetry. One hundred amateur soccer players were assessed using hip–knee ROM tests: Straight Leg Raise, modified Thomas Test, hip internal rotation and external rotation, hip abduction (ABD) and adduction (ADD), Nachlas Test and Rigde Test. There are significant differences between tests when determining the magnitude of lateral asymmetry (F = 3.451;  As consequence of soccer players lateral dominance, lateral asymmetries can develop, understood as differences in strength, power, stiffness or range of movement (ROM) between muscles of both sides of the body . BesidesHowever, there is no consensus on whether the athlete’s performance is related to a greater or lesser asymmetry . Bishop Soccer players are familiar with this situation, since interlimb asymmetries have already been noticed in parameters such as impulse and maximal power in countermovement (CMJ) , or grouOn the one hand, it has been suggested that asymmetries in single-leg CMJ were associated with lower performance in 5, 10 and 20 m sprint times, both in elite youth  and adulNotwithstanding, multiple authors agree and point out that an interlimb asymmetry is a risk factor for suffering a sport injury . In factAdditionally, the existence of a contralateral deficit has been established when the asymmetry exceeds a 10–15% difference between limbs . HoweverTraditionally, interlimb asymmetry assessments have been carried out based on unilateral jumping (CMJ), strength (isokinetic) or COD speed. Nevertheless, hamstrings are the main muscle involved in knee and hip flexion, actions that are frequently performed by soccer players during their characterized high-speed sprinting and kicking . It has Hence, based on the relevance that lateral asymmetry and hip and knee ROM seems to have on soccer players’ performance and on their risk of injury, we consider it appropriate to explore lateral asymmetry using hip and knee ROM values to establish individualized reference values for female and male soccer players. We hypothesize that the type of test used, the player’s gender and the asymmetry threshold used will determine the magnitude and direction of soccer players’ ROM asymmetry. Therefore, the aim of this study was to (1) determine the magnitude and direction of lateral asymmetry in well-trained soccer players using hip and knee ROM tests; (2) inquire if asymmetry relies on the ROM test performed and/or gender, and (3) establish asymmetry thresholds for each ROM test to individualized lower limb asymmetry in soccer players.A comparative and cross-sectional study design has been used, following an associative strategy to determine the magnitude and direction of lateral asymmetry in hip–knee ROM of female and male amateur soccer players.© goniometric application (v.1.4) for the Samsung Galaxy S7 android smartphone, which works as a digital inclinometer allowing to record ROM in real time. These smartphone app measurements have been shown to be as reliable as those of a universal goniometer  [The ROM testing battery was performed within the players’ competitive period. Eight angular tests were carried out on both lower limbs of the soccer players to assess their hip and knee ROM: straight leg raise (SLR), modified Thomas Test (TT), hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER), hip abduction (ABD) and adduction (ADD), Nachlas Test (NT), and Rigde Test (RT). Measurements were made using the free ROM ≥ 0.93) . The sma ≥ 0.93) . All tes ≥ 0.93)  was usedThis formula implements the excel IF function that allows to monitor the direction of lateral asymmetry without magnitude variation issues . Lateral dominance was determined based on the kicking leg of each player (DL vs. NDL). To assess data reliability, three measurements, with a 15 min interval, were taken from 15 randomly chosen players. All the proposed tests have been shown to have a high intra-day reliability  .A total of 100 amateur soccer players, 56 men  and 44 women  volunteer to the study. Seventy-one of them (71%) presented right-leg dominance and twenty-nine (29%) had left-leg dominance. Both male and female athletes played in the Spanish soccer league, belonging to the 3rd and 2nd National division, respectively, and trained on average three times/week. All soccer players signed an informed consent before testing and presented a healthy state, without symptoms of illness or injuries. The research protocol followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki regarding biomedical research involving human subjects . Approval was granted by the soccer teams management boards and coaching staffs and by the Local Ethical Research Committee.All tests were performed both active  and passive , except TT, NT and RT. The assessments were always performed on Mondays’ recovery session after playing the weekend game. All tests were carried out prior to training sessions and always at the same time and following the same order: first active and then passive. The assessment protocol followed Molina-Cárdenas et al.  ROM testThe SLR was performed following the Ayala et al.  protocolThe modified TT was used to assess the flexibility of the hip flexor muscles, especially the psoas major. The players in a supine position with knees bent over the edge of the stretcher were instructed to flex one knee to the chest and hold it following Peeler and Anderson  protocolThe IR and ER were used as tests to assess hip ROM following Sadeghisani et al.  sitting The ABD and ADD were used as tests to assess hip ROM on the frontal plane. The player lied in a supine position on a stretcher and performed an abduction and adduction with their leg straightened . In thisThe NT and RT were used to evaluate the quadriceps flexibility and the knee ROM. For both tests, the player lied in a prone position (for RT with a hip extension) on stretcher and flexed the knee taking the foot heel to the gluteus until lumbar spine or hip compensations begin to appear . The ROMValues are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Sample size was calculated (using G*Power Version 3.1.9.4), introducing the following parameters: effect size (ES) 0.55 and α error probability (0.05) and power (0.95), which resulted in a sample size of 90 participants. A paired simple T-Test was used to compare ROM between the DL and NDL.The influence on the magnitude and orientation (DL vs. NDL) of the asymmetry as a function of the tests (within-subjects) and gender (between-subjects) factors were assessed with a two-factor ANOVA after previously assuming multivariate normality and homogeneity of variances and covariances. Application of the univariate Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, in conjunction with the Lilliefors test, showed that the sample distribution was normal and linear. Homoscedastic assumption was verified with the Box M test followed by a post hoc HSD Turkey test. Finally, to classify a player as “asymmetrical” in a ROM test, two procedures were carried out: fixed traditional asymmetry thresholds (10–15% difference between legs) ,21, and p2) and interpreted as small (0.01), moderate (0.06), or large (0.14) [p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data were analyzed using SPSS v.24.0 for Windows .Additionally, a two-way ANOVA was used to determine if the number of players classified as “asymmetrical” were modulated by the asymmetry threshold used and/or by gender. The effect sizes in ANOVA two-way were reported as partial eta square (ηe (0.14) . An alphp = 0.003); ABDp (p = 0.004) and RT (p = 0.001). No differences were found in the rest of the ROM tests.Players’ NDL has greater ROM than DL in ABDa  with a small effect size. On the contrary, no difference was found between female and male players  nor in test × gender interaction.The results of the analysis of variance indicate that there are significant differences between tests when determining the magnitude of lateral asymmetry , SLRp (p = 0.001), TT (p = 0.001), IRa (p = 0.002), IRp (p = 0.001), ERa (p = 0.001), ERp (p = 0.001), ADDp (p = 0.001), NT (p = 0.021) and RT (p = 0.003). Similarly, if it is calculated with the ABDp test it is much higher than with SLRa (p = 0.037), SLRp (p = 0.005), TT (p = 0.014), ERp (p = 0.022) and ADDp (p = 0.044). Additionally, if it is calculated with the ADDa test it is greater than with SLRa (p = 0.009), SLRp (p = 0.001), TT (p = 0.003), IRp (p = 0.021), ERa (p = 0.030), ERa (p = 0.005), and ADDp (p = 0.011). Finally, if calculated with NT, it is higher than with SLRp (p = 0.026).If the percentage of asymmetry is calculated with the ABDa tests it is much higher than with SLRa  with a small effect size. There are no differences between male and female players , nor in the test × gender interaction . Except in the TT (0.3509%), all tests indicate that the direction of asymmetry is towards the DL , that is, the NDL presents more flexibility. However, it must be pointed out that greater values achieved in TT (more degrees) represents a worse hip mobility, which in other words, shows that the NDL obtains again greater results than the DL. The greatest asymmetry towards the DL is obtained in the ADDa test (−1.71717%) and in the ABDa (−1.49186%).The magnitude in each test when the direction of lateral asymmetry is added again indicates significant differences between tests when determining the magnitude and direction of lateral asymmetry  with a large effect size. In addition, the threshold × gender interaction  also shows a moderate effect size. However, there are no differences in gender . As it can be observed in The individualized analysis for each player based on each ROM test asymmetry threshold using (a) the specific asymmetry threshold formula or (b) the 10% fixed asymmetry points out that there are significant differences between both thresholds to determine soccer players’ lateral asymmetry . In this line, no significant differences have been found neither between the DL and NDL in passive ER and IR in un-injured Australian professional soccer players . Nor havTaking all these findings together, it would not be possible to classify a player as symmetrical or asymmetrical with certainty. In fact, the limitations that have been highlighted for interpreting the magnitude and direction of lateral asymmetry analyzed together suggests that an individual approach for each player is necessary to determine if there is a lateral asymmetry. In the scientific literature, it is commonly used the interlimb fixed percentage (>10–15%) to indicate a high probability of injury ,18. HoweHowever, the threshold for considering an athlete as asymmetrical should be established based on the sample and the type of test . In factOur findings indicate that if ROM asymmetry is classified based on a specific threshold formula there will be many more asymmetrical players without differences between females and males  than if the 10% fixed threshold is applied (over 0–6% of players) in all ROM tests. For example, 31% of the players of our sample would be classified as asymmetrical in active hip external rotation (ERa), while using the 10% fixed threshold, no player would be considered as asymmetrical. The same happens in the rest of ROM tests. Dos’ Santos et al.  have obtTo our knowledge, few authors have determined the percentage of interlimb flexibility asymmetry in soccer players. It has been reported that the percentage of asymmetrical players in terms of hamstring flexibility was 38% in 3rd division, establishing a cut-off of >6° , and witNevertheless, asymmetry values could be seriously affected by the athlete’s fitness, at least at recreational level . Theses As Fousekis et al.  pointed Future research lines could aim to verify the predictive capacity that ROM lateral asymmetry has on the probability of suffering a muscle or tendon injury in the musculoskeletal structures involved in these specific movement. Likewise, delve into the factors that could explain the differences found between NDL and DL in female and male soccer players.The ROM test used determines the magnitude and direction of the lateral asymmetry of the amateur soccer players. The ABDa, ABDp and ADDa are the ROM tests with which higher percentages of asymmetry are obtained, without differences between females and male soccer players. Players’ NDL has greater ROM than DL in ABDa, ABDp and RT, without differences between limbs in the rest of ROM tests. Coaches and physical trainers should be especially careful in choosing ROM tests to assess lateral asymmetry when it comes to classify players as asymmetrical. Likewise, when deciding whether to apply a fixed or a specific threshold to classify, since the results vary considerably. However, based on our results, it seems more appropriate to use a specific threshold to classify asymmetric players. This will can be very useful for establishing appropriate flexibility training strategies to avoid or reduce ROM interlimb asymmetry in female and male soccer players.