A phytochemical investigation of Abuta rufescens was performed to authenticate plant material reported previously and to assess the cytotoxicity of the alkaloids obtained from the plant. Three alkaloids which have not previously been reported from this species, two phenolic (subsessiline, an oxoaporphine, and telitoxine, an azafluoranthene) and one non-phenolic (isoimerubrine, a tropoloisoquinoline), were isolated and identified. These alkaloids, along with others previously isolated from this and another Abuta species (grandirubrine, a tropoloisoquinoline), were evaluated for cytotoxic activity against several human cancer cell lines (HCT-116 colon adenocarcinoma, ACHN renal carcinoma, and A549 lung carcinoma). The tropoloisoquinoline alkaloids (grandirubrine, imerubrine, and isoimerubrine) exhibited the greatest cytotoxicity against the cell lines, especially ACHN and HCT-116 cells. The azafluoranthene alkaloid imeluteine exhibited lesser cytotoxicity, as did one of the oxoaporphine alkaloids.

Probing for spatial cognitive processes in model rodent species has a long history in the psychological literature, with well-established protocols and paradigms successfully revealing the mechanisms underlying spatial learning and memory. There has also been much interest in examining the ecological and evolutionary context of spatial cognition, with a focus on how selection has molded spatial cognitive abilities in nonmodel species, how spatial cognitive traits vary across species, the neural mechanisms underlying spatial cognitive abilities, and the fitness outcomes of spatial cognition. Behavioral ecologists have been able to take advantage of paradigms from experimental psychology's rich history of spatial cognitive testing for use in nonmodel species. However, as the field advances, it is important to highlight noncognitive factors that can impact performance on spatial cognitive tasks (e.g., motivation to perform the task, switching navigational strategies, variation across protocols, ecological relevance of the task), as these factors may explain discrepancies in findings among some studies. This review highlights how these noncognitive factors can differentially modulate performance on spatial cognitive tests in different nonmodel species. Accounting for these factors when creating protocols and paradigms allows for a more nuanced approach with more explanatory power when probing for spatial cognitive abilities in nonmodel species.