The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25–50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3–11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11–27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4–3.6 vs. 8.4–8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu.

No abstract

No abstract

in Asthma and All. RATIONALE: Previous quantitative studies suggest that food allergy (FA) management outcomes are suboptimal among low-income pediatric populations. However, no qualitative studies to date have attempted to comprehensively characterize barriers to optimal FA management within these communities. Therefore, this study aims to (a) identify barriers to providing proper FA management and acute care to Medicaid-insured FA children in Chicago and (b) understand the impact of these barriers on affected families. METHODS: We completed ten comprehensive semi-structured interviews with adult caregivers of Medicaid-insured food-allergic children in Chicago. The interview transcripts underwent a bifurcated qualitative analytic process that independently examined each objective and systematically identified relevant themes. RESULTS: Three themes were identified in the barriers analysis: (1) ''Limited caregiver knowledge'', which was indicated by participant assertions of faulty risk perception, uncertainty surrounding their child's specific allergens, and confusion about symptoms, treatment, and aftercare of a reaction. (2) ''Poor inter-caregiver management'', which was expressed via participant concerns regarding secondary caregivers' ability to properly manage their child's FA, understand the severity of a child's allergy, and effectively recognize/treat allergic reactions. Lastly, (3) ''Insecure access to safe food'' was articulated through caregivers' characterizations of allergen-free meals as expensive and time-consuming to prepare. The second analysis focusing on the impact of these barriers revealed psychosocial impacts on both caregiver and food allergic child, including mutual sentiments of restriction, social isolation, anxiety, and, ultimately, resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous, substantial barriers to FA management exist within the Medicaid-insured population. These data will inform future studies/interventions to further understand how to mitigate these barriers.

Many food allergy action plans contain a controversial option to inject epinephrine for mild (''OptionA'') or no (''OptionB'') symptoms following allergen ingestion. There are no data on frequency/ criteria to select these options. METHODS: Surveys were administered in person/by email to a convenience sample of allergists and pediatricians. A chart review was conducted in a pediatric food allergy referral center to assess option use. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 35% (15 allergists, 43 pediatricians). All allergists and 74% pediatricians were familiar with OptionA; 93% and 72% for OptionB, respectively. Most allergists (80%) indicated that they used OptionA in 1-9% of plans, compared to 28% of pediatricians (p<.01). Most allergists (57%) used OptionB in 1-9% of plans, compared to 26% of pediatricians (p<.11). Cumulatively, 17% of allergists and 42% of pediatricians selected the options in over 9% of plans (p5.02). The top reasons to use the options for both allergists and pediatricians included past anaphylaxis, PICU admission, intubation, and cardiovascular collapse; the latter 3 were significantly more often identified by allergists (p <.05). Overall, 4.1% of chart review action plans indicated at least one option (OptionA-61%, OptionB-37%, both-2%), varying from 0% to 9% of plans among 9 allergists. Option selection was higher (p<.05) in patients with asthma, use of asthma treatments, prior anaphylaxis and prior epinephrine use, but not for atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians endorsed use of epinephrine for mild/no symptoms more often than allergists. Severity of past reactions were drivers of selecting these options (more so for allergists than pediatricians). 738 The Food Allergy Management in Low Income Youth (FAMILY) Study: A family-centered approach to improving anaphylaxis knowledge and childhood food allergy management skills.