Nucleotide Evolution, Domestication Selection, and Genetic Relationships of Chloroplast Genomes in the Economically Important Crop Genus Gossypium.

Gossypium hirsutum (upland cotton) is one of the most economically important crops worldwide, which has experienced the long terms of evolution and domestication process from wild species to cultivated accessions. However, nucleotide evolution, domestication selection, and the genetic relationship of cotton species remain largely to be studied. In this study, we used chloroplast genome sequences to determine the evolutionary rate, domestication selection, and genetic relationships of 72 cotton genotypes (36 cultivated cotton accessions, seven semi-wild races of G. hirsutum, and 29 wild species). Evolutionary analysis showed that the cultivated tetraploid cotton genotypes clustered into a single clade, which also formed a larger lineage with the semi-wild races. Substitution rate analysis demonstrated that the rates of nucleotide substitution and indel variation were higher for the wild species than the semi-wild and cultivated tetraploid lineages. Selection pressure analysis showed that the wild species might have experienced greater selection pressure, whereas the cultivated cotton genotypes underwent artificial and domestication selection. Population clustering analysis indicated that the cultivated cotton accessions and semi-wild races have existed the obviously genetic differentiation. The nucleotide diversity was higher in the semi-wild races compared with the cultivated genotypes. In addition, genetic introgression and gene flow occurred between the cultivated tetraploid cotton and semi-wild genotypes, but mainly via historical rather than contemporary gene flow. These results provide novel molecular mechanisms insights into the evolution and domestication of economically important crop cotton species.

Bachelor groups in primate multilevel society facilitate gene flow across fragmented habitats.

In the face of ongoing habitat fragmentation, many primate species have experienced reduced gene flow resulting in a reduction of genetic diversity, population bottlenecks, and inbreeding depression, including golden snub-nosed monkeys Rhinopithecus roxellana. Golden snub-nosed monkeys live in a multilevel society composed of several 1 male harem units that aggregate to form a cohesive breeding band, which is followed by one or more bachelor groups composed of juvenile, subadult, and adult male members. In this research, we examine the continuous landscape resistance surface, the genetic diversity and patterns of gene flow among 4 isolated breeding bands and 1 all-male band in the Qinling Mountains, China. Landscape surface modeling suggested that human activities and ecological factors severely limit the movement of individuals among breeding bands. Although these conditions are expected to result in reduced gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, and an increased opportunity for a genetic bottleneck, based on population genetic analyses of 13 microsatellite loci from 188 individuals inhabiting 4 isolated breeding bands and 1 all-male band, we found high levels of genetic diversity but low levels of genetic divergence, as well as high rates of gene flow between males residing in the all-male band and each of the 4 breeding bands. Our results indicate that the movement of bachelor males across the landscape, along with their association with several different breeding bands, appears to provide a mechanism for promoting gene flows and maintaining genetic diversity that may counteract the otherwise isolating effects of habitat fragmentation.

Preliminary report on Sichuan golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana roxellana) at Laohegou Nature Reserve, Sichuan, China.

Comparative studies of subspecies under different ecological environments offer insights into intraspecies evolutionary adaptive mechanisms. Golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana) include three subspecies in China classified mainly by their morphological variations: R. r. roxellana (Sichuan and Gansu province), R. r. qinlingensis (Shaanxi province) and R. r. hubeiensis (Hubei province). These three subspecies live in three isolated area with different environments. Past works focused on the last two subspecies, but little information of habitat and behaviors of the nominated subspecies (R. r. roxellana) is available to date. We conducted a two-year study on the diet, activity budget, home range and social organization of 4 herds of R. r. roxellana, based on a total of 106 days' observation in Laohegou (LHG) Nature Reserve, Sichuan province. By using scan sampling method, our results suggest that the R. r roxellana feeds predominantly on leaves (77.5%), and spends more time feeding (40.0%) and resting (27.0%) while compared to the other two subspecies. Kernel Density Estimation Method based on GPS technology confirms that R. r roxellana has relatively larger home ranges (49.1 km2). The unit size (8.3 ± 3.5 individuals) of R. r roxellana is also smaller. Therefore, it is possible that differences in food availability in relation to habitats have important impacts on the feeding strategy and social system of the golden snub-nosed monkey. These results provide data to further explore intraspecific adaptations of living primates.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years. OBJECTIVES: To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.