1. Freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and Gammarus pulex are widespread in Europe, with some evidence of cryptic diversity in the former. We used DNA barcoding to assess genetic diversity within and among amphipod populations and examined mate discrimination and pre-copulatory pair formation between genetically divergent individuals. 2. Eight distinct G. fossarum and four distinct G. pulex molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs) were detected. Among the 33 amphipod populations sampled, 11 contained a single MOTU, 11 had two and 11 were composed of three sympatric MOTUs. Genetic divergences between sympatric MOTUs (G. fossarum and G. pulex MOTUs combined) ranged up to 28% (Kimura two parameter estimates). 3. In amphipod populations containing sympatric MOTUs, pre-copulatory pair formation was random between MOTUs diverging by <4%. However, pre-copulatory pairs involving amphipod individuals from MOTUs diverging by >4% were rare, suggesting mate discrimination between sympatric, highly divergent MOTUs. 4. Although the likelihood decreased with genetic distance between partners, pre-copulatory pair formation in the laboratory can occur between MOTUs diverging by c. 16% and led to successful mating: most female amphipod carried viable, fertilised eggs 48 h post-mating. 5. Data showed high cryptic diversity in the G. fossarum/G. pulex groups, even at a small spatial scale. Mate discrimination between genetically divergent amphipods in natural populations suggests that some of the MOTUs found in G. fossarum and G. pulex may be separated into (sub)species. However, amphipods from different MOTUs can still form pre-copulatory pairs and females produce viable eggs. Overall, data suggest that cryptic diversity is common in the G. fossarum/G. pulex groups and that pre-zygotic isolation through mate discrimination, rather than post-zygotic incompatibility, is likely to drive cryptic speciation.

No abstract

Biobanks correspond to different situations: research and technological development, medical diagnosis or therapeutic activities. Their status is not clearly defined. We aimed to investigate human biobanking in Europe, particularly in relation to organisational, economic and ethical issues in various national contexts. Data from a survey in six EU countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK) were collected as part of a European Research Project examining human and non-human biobanking (EUROGENBANK, coordinated by Professor JC Galloux). A total of 147 institutions concerned with biobanking of human samples and data were investigated by questionnaires and interviews. Most institutions surveyed belong to the public or private non-profit-making sectors, which have a key role in biobanking. This activity is increasing in all countries because few samples are discarded and genetic research is proliferating. Collections vary in size, many being small and only a few very large. Their purpose is often research, or research and healthcare, mostly in the context of disease studies. A specific budget is very rarely allocated to biobanking and costs are not often evaluated. Samples are usually provided free of charge and gifts and exchanges are the common rule. Good practice guidelines are generally followed and quality controls are performed but quality procedures are not always clearly explained. Associated data are usually computerised (identified or identifiable samples). Biobankers generally favour centralisation of data rather than of samples. Legal and ethical harmonisation within Europe is considered likely to facilitate international collaboration. We propose a series of recommendations and suggestions arising from the EUROGENBANK project.