RESUMEN
Repetitive elements can cause large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, for example through ectopic recombination, potentially promoting reproductive isolation and speciation. Species with holocentric chromosomes, that lack a localized centromere, might be more likely to retain chromosomal rearrangements that lead to karyotype changes such as fusions and fissions. This is because chromosome segregation during cell division should be less affected than in organisms with a localized centromere. The relationships between repetitive elements and chromosomal rearrangements and how they may translate to patterns of speciation in holocentric organisms are though poorly understood. Here, we use a reference-free approach based on low-coverage short-read sequencing data to characterize the repeat landscape of two independently evolved holocentric groups: Erebia butterflies and Carex sedges. We consider both micro- and macro-evolutionary scales to investigate the repeat landscape differentiation between Erebia populations and the association between repeats and karyotype changes in a phylogenetic framework for both Erebia and Carex. At a micro-evolutionary scale, we found population differentiation in repeat landscape that increases with overall intraspecific genetic differentiation among four Erebia species. At a macro-evolutionary scale, we found indications for an association between repetitive elements and karyotype changes along both Erebia and Carex phylogenies. Altogether, our results suggest that repetitive elements are associated with the level of population differentiation and chromosomal rearrangements in holocentric clades and therefore likely play a role in adaptation and potentially species diversification.
RESUMEN
High reciprocal pollination specialization leading to pollinator isolation can prevent interspecific pollen transfer and competition for pollinators. Sharing pollinators may induce mating costs, but it may also increase pollination services and pollen dispersal and offer more resources to pollinators, which may be important in case of habitat fragmentation leading to pollination disruption. We estimated pollen dispersal and pollinator isolation or sharing between two reproductively isolated genetic lineages of Silene nutans (Caryophyllaceae), which are rare and occur in parapatry in southern Belgium, forming two edaphic ecotypes. As inter-ecotypic crosses may lead to pollen wastage and inviable progeny, pollinator isolation might have evolved between ecotypes. Silene nutans is mainly pollinated by nocturnal moths, including nursery pollinators, which pollinate and lay their eggs in flowers, and whose caterpillars feed on flowers and seeds. Pollinator assemblages of the two ecotypes are largely unknown and inter-ecotypic pollen flows have never been investigated. Fluorescent powdered dyes were used as pollen analogues to quantify intra- and inter-ecotypic pollen transfers and seeds were germinated to detect chlorotic seedlings resulting from inter-ecotypic pollination. Nocturnal pollinators were observed using infrared cameras on the field, and seed-eating caterpillars were collected and reared to identify nursery pollinator species. No pollinator isolation was found: we detected long-distance (up to 5 km) inter-ecotypic dye transfers and chlorotic seedlings, indicating inter-ecotypic fertilization events. The rare moth Hadena albimacula, a nursery pollinator specialized on S. nutans, was found on both ecotypes, as well as adults visiting flowers (cameras recordings) as seed-eating caterpillars. However, S. nutans populations harbor different abundance and diversity of seed predator communities, including other rare nursery pollinators, suggesting a need for distinct conservation strategies. Our findings demonstrate the efficiency of moths, especially of nursery pollinators, to disperse pollen over long distances in natural landscapes, so to ensure gene flow and population sustainability of the host plant. Seed-predator specificities between the two reproductively isolated genetic lineages of S. nutans, and pollinator sharing instead of pollinator isolation when plants occur in parapatry, suggest that conservation of the host plant is also essential for sustaining (rare) pollinator and seed predator communities.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations-Diprivan (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propoven (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)-were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient's discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propoven required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propoven (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P < 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported. CONCLUSION: Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.
