Fast and efficient QTL mapper for thousands of molecular phenotypes

In order to discover quantitative trait loci, multi-dimensional genomic datasets combining DNA-seq and ChiP-/RNA-seq require methods that rapidly correlate tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes with millions of genetic variants while appropriately controlling for multiple testing

The microbiome of professional athletes differs from that of more sedentary subjects in composition and particularly at the functional metabolic level

Objective: It is evident that the gut microbiota and factors that influence its composition and activity effect human metabolic, immunological and developmental processes. We previously reported that extreme physical activity with associated dietary adaptations, such as that pursued by professional athletes, is associated with changes in faecal microbial diversity and composition relative to that of individuals with a more sedentary lifestyle. Here we address the impact of these factors on the functionality/metabolic activity of the microbiota which reveals even greater separation between exercise and a more sedentary state. Design: Metabolic phenotyping and functional metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiome of professional international rugby union players (n=40) and controls (n=46) was carried out and results were correlated with lifestyle parameters and clinical measurements (eg, dietary habit and serum creatine kinase, respectively). Results Athletes had relative increases in pathways (eg, amino acid and antibiotic biosynthesis and carbohydrate metabolism) and faecal metabolites (eg, microbial produced short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) acetate, propionate and butyrate) associated with enhanced muscle turnover (fitness) and overall health when compared with control groups. Conclusions: Differences in faecal microbiota between athletes and sedentary controls show even greater separation at the metagenomic and metabolomic than at compositional levels and provide added insight into the diet-exercise-gut microbiota paradigm

A prospective metagenomic and metabolomic analysis of the impact of exercise and/or whey protein supplementation on the gut microbiome of sedentary adults

Many components of modern living exert influence on the resident intestinal microbiota of humans with resultant impact on host health. For example, exercise-associated changes in the diversity, composition, and functional profiles of microbial populations in the gut have been described in cross-sectional studies of habitual athletes. However, this relationship is also affected by changes in diet, such as changes in dietary and supplementary protein consumption, that coincide with exercise. To determine whether increasing physical activity and/or increased protein intake modulates gut microbial composition and function, we prospectively challenged healthy but sedentary adults with a short-term exercise regime, with and without concurrent daily whey protein consumption. Metagenomics- and metabolomics-based assessments demonstrated modest changes in gut microbial composition and function following increases in physical activity. Significant changes in the diversity of the gut virome were evident in participants receiving daily whey protein supplementation. Results indicate that improved body composition with exercise is not dependent on major changes in the diversity of microbial populations in the gut. The diverse microbial characteristics previously observed in long-term habitual athletes may be a later response to exercise and fitness improvement

Lessons for Remote Post-earthquake Reconnaissance from the 14 August 2021 Haiti Earthquake

On 14th August 2021, a magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck the Tiburon Peninsula in the Caribbean nation of Haiti, approximately 150 km west of the capital Port-au-Prince. Aftershocks up to moment magnitude 5.7 followed and over 1,000 landslides were triggered. These events led to over 2,000 fatalities, 15,000 injuries and more than 137,000 structural failures. The economic impact is of the order of US$1.6 billion. The on-going Covid pandemic and a complex political and security situation in Haiti meant that deploying earthquake engineers from the UK to assess structural damage and identify lessons for future building construction was impractical. Instead, the Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) carried out a hybrid mission, modelled on the previous EEFIT Aegean Mission of 2020. The objectives were: to use open-source information, particularly remote sensing data such as InSAR and Optical/Multispectral imagery, to characterise the earthquake and associated hazards; to understand the observed strong ground motions and compare these to existing seismic codes; to undertake remote structural damage assessments, and to evaluate the applicability of the techniques used for future post-disaster assessments. Remote structural damage assessments were conducted in collaboration with the Structural Extreme Events Reconnaissance (StEER) team, who mobilised a group of local non-experts to rapidly record building damage. The EEFIT team undertook damage assessment for over 2,000 buildings comprising schools, hospitals, churches and housing to investigate the impact of the earthquake on building typologies in Haiti. This paper summarises the mission setup and findings, and discusses the benefits, and difficulties, encountered during this hybrid reconnaissance mission.</jats:p

Crop Updates 2009 - Genetically Modified Crops, Nutrition, Soils, & Others

This session covers fifteen papers from different authors: 1. Performance of Canola Breeders Roundup Ready® canola hybrid CHYB-166 in 2008, Wallace Cowling, Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd 2. The implications of GM glyphosate resistant lupin, Art Diggle, Caroline Peek, Frank D’Emden, Fiona Evans, Bob French, Rob Grima, Sam Harburg, Abul Hashem,, John Holmes, Jeremy Lemon, Peter Newman, Janet Paterson, Steve Penny,Department of Agriculture and Food, Peter Portmann, Agriconnect 3. Nufarm Roundup Ready® Canola Systems Trials— 2008 Mark Slatter, Research and Development Officer, Victoria, Nufarm (0438 064 845) Angus MacLennan, Business Development Manager, New South Wales, Nufarm (0408 358 024) Cooperators: Monsanto, Nuseed, Pacific Seeds, Pioneer Seeds 4. Roundup Ready® canola—2008 Limited Commercial Release. Getting the system right, Andrew Wells and Mark Slatter, Nufarm Australia Limited (Reprint from 2008 GRDC Cropping Updates with Introductory note) NUTRITION 5. Fertilising in a changing price environment, Bill Bowden1, Wayne Pluske2 and Jeremy Lemon1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Back Paddock Company 6. Making better fertiliser for Western Australian cropping systems, Wen Chen1 2, Geoff Anderson1, Ross Brennan1and Richard Bell2 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University 7. The nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of biosolids from wastewater treatment, Hannah Rigby1, Deborah Pritchard1, David Collins1, Katrina Walton2, David Allen2 and Nancy Penney31School of Agriculture and Environment,Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Campus, 2Chemistry Centre of Western Australia 3Water Corporation of Western Australia 8. Fertilising to soil type (usually) pays, Michael Robertson, Bill Bowden and Roger Lawes, CSIRO, Floreat and Department of Agriculture and Food SOILS 9. Management of subsoil acidity and compaction using a combination of lime, deep ripping and controlled traffic, Stephen Davies, Chris Gazey, Breanne Best and David Gartner, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. Optimising gypsum applications through remote sensing and Variable Rate Technology, Frank D’Emden, Department of Agriculture and Food and Quenten Knight,Precision Agronomics Australia 11. Case study of a 17 year agricultural lime trial, Chris Gazey1, Joel Andrew2and Ryan Pearce3 1Department of Agriculture and Food; 2Precision SoilTech; 3ConsultAg 12. Soil organic carbon in WA agricultural soils, FC Hoyle and A Bennett, Department of Agriculture and Food OTHER 13. Is the no-till revolution complete in WA? Frank D’Emden1, Rick Llewellyn2 and Ken Flower3 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3University of Western Australia 14. Progression Planning (The Concept), Julian Krieg and Owen Catto, Wheatbelt Men’s Health 15. Is the Department of Agriculture and Food still a primary source of cropping information? Cindy Parsons, Department of Agriculture and Foo

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research : IMMPACT recommended considerations

The consensus recommendations are based on the views of IMMPACT meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. The following individuals made important contributions to the IMMPACT meeting but were not able to participate in the preparation of this article: David Atkins, MD (Department of Veterans Affairs), Rebecca Baker, PhD (National Institutes of Health), Allan Basbaum, PhD (University of California San Francisco), Robyn Bent, RN, MS (Food and Drug Administration), Nathalie Bere, MPH (European Medicines Agency), Alysha Croker, PhD (Health Canada), Stephen Bruehl, PhD (Vanderbilt University), Michael Cobas Meyer, MD, MBS (Eli Lilly), Scott Evans, PhD (George Washington University), Gail Graham (University of Maryland), Jennifer Haythornthwaite, PhD (Johns Hopkins University), Sharon Hertz, MD (Hertz and Fields Consulting), Jonathan Jackson, PhD (Harvard Medical School), Mark Jensen, PhD (University of Washington), Francis Keefe, PhD (Duke University), Karim Khan, MD, PhD, MBA (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), Lynn Laidlaw (University of Aberdeen), Steven Lane (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute), Karen Morales, BS (University of Maryland), David Leventhal, MBA (Pfizer), Jeremy Taylor, OBE (National Institute for Health Research), and Lena Sun, MD (Columbia University). The manuscript has not been submitted, presented, or published elsewhere. Parts of the manuscript have been presented in a topical workshop at IASP World Congress on Pain in Toronto, in 2022.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination

Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom trawling in relation to seabed habitats

Management and technical approaches that achieve a sustainable level of fish production while at the same time minimizing or limiting the wider ecological effects caused through fishing gear contact with the seabed might be considered to be ‘best practice’. To identify future knowledge-needs that would help to support a transition towards the adoption of best practices for trawling, a prioritization exercise was undertaken with a group of 39 practitioners from the seafood industry and management, and 13 research scientists who have an active research interest in bottom-trawl and dredge fisheries. A list of 108 knowledge-needs related to trawl and dredge fisheries was developed in conjunction with an ‘expert task force’. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge-need. The top 25 knowledge-needs are presented, as scored separately by practitioners and scientists. There was considerable consistency in the priorities identified by these two groups. The top priority knowledge-need to improve current understanding on the distribution and extent of different habitat types also reinforced the concomitant need for the provision and access to data on the spatial and temporal distribution of all forms of towed bottom-fishing activities. Many of the other top 25 knowledge-needs concerned the evaluation of different management approaches or implementation of different fishing practices, particularly those that explore trade-offs between effects of bottom trawling on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the benefits of fish production as food.Fil: Kaiser, Michel J.. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jennings, Simon. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Amaroso, Ricky. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Michael. Danish Fishermen; DinamarcaFil: Balliet, Kris. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Barratt, Eric. Sanford Limited; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bergstad, Odd A. Institute of Marine Research; NoruegaFil: Bishop, Stephen. Independent Fisheries Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bostrom, Jodi L. Marine Stewardship Council; Reino UnidoFil: Boyd, Catherine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Bruce, Eduardo A. Friosur S.A.; ChileFil: Burden, Merrick. Marine Conservation Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Carey, Chris. Independent Fisheries Ltd.; Estados UnidosFil: Clermont, Jason. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Collie, Jeremy S. University of Rhode Island,; Estados UnidosFil: Delahunty, Antony. National Federation of Fishermen; Reino UnidoFil: Dixon, Jacqui. Pacific Andes International Holdings Limited; ChinaFil: Eayrs, Steve. Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Edwards, Nigel. Seachill Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Fujita, Rod. Environmental Defense Fund; Reino UnidoFil: Gauvin, John. Alaska Seafood Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Gleason, Mary. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Harris, Brad. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: He, Pingguo. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Estados UnidosFil: Hiddink, Jan G. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hughes, Kathryn M. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Inostroza, Mario. EMDEPES; ChileFil: Kenny, Andrew. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Kritzer, Jake. Environmental Defense Fund; Estados UnidosFil: Kuntzsch, Volker. Sanford Limited; Estados UnidosFil: Lasta, Mario. Diag. Montegrande N° 7078. Mar del Plata; ArgentinaFil: Lopez, Ivan. Confederacion Española de Pesca; EspañaFil: Loveridge, Craig. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; Nueva ZelandaFil: Lynch, Don. Gorton; Estados UnidosFil: Masters, Jim. Marine Conservation Society; Reino UnidoFil: Mazor, Tessa. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: McConnaughey, Robert A. US National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Moenne, Marcel. Pacificblu; ChileFil: Francis. Marine Scotland Science; Reino UnidoFil: Nimick, Aileen M. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Olsen, Alex. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Parker, David. Young; Reino UnidoFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Penney, Christine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Pierce, David. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Pitcher, Roland. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Pol, Michael. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Richardson, Ed. Pollock Conservation Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Rijnsdorp, Adriaan D. Wageningen IMARES; Países BajosFil: Rilatt, Simon. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Rodmell, Dale P. National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Craig. FishNext Research; Estados UnidosFil: Sethi, Suresh A. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Short, Katherine. F.L.O.W. Collaborative; Nueva ZelandaFil: Suuronen, Petri. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; ItaliaFil: Taylor, Erin. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wallace, Scott. The David Suzuki Foundation; CanadáFil: Webb, Lisa. Gorton's Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wickham, Eric. Unit four –1957 McNicoll Avenue; CanadáFil: Wilding, Sam R. Monterey Bay Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Ashley. Department for Environment; Reino UnidoFil: Winger, Paul. Memorial University Of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Sutherland, William J. University of Cambridge; Reino Unid

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions