No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Fatigue is almost a common problem often reported by the cancer patients that severely affects all aspects of quality of life. Prevalence of cancer related fatigue ranges from 50% to 90% of cancer patients overall. After addressing treatable contributing factors, such as hypothyroidism, anemia, insomnia, pain, emotional distress, medication adverse effects, metabolic disturbances, or organ dysfunction such as heart failure, myopathy, and pulmonary fibrosis, patients may be screened with a short fatigue assessment tool. There is a pressure for pharmacologic therapy to shift away from reliance on opioids and ineffective procedures toward comprehensive cancer related fatigue (CRF) management that includes evidence-based nonpharmacologic options. This review details the magnitude of the current CRF problem including its impact on quality of life as well as the challenges of CRF management for patients and a healthcare workforce engaging prevalent strategies not entirely based in current evidence. Transforming the current system of CRF care to a responsive comprehensive model necessitates those options for treatment and collaborative care must be evidence-based and include effective nonpharmacologic strategies that have the advantage of reduced risks of adverse events and addiction liability. Patients with cancer related fatigue may benefit from self-administrable nonpharmacological interventions without any side effects. Health care personnel often have insufficient knowledge about fatigue and its treatments or underestimate the impact of fatigue on quality of life. A practical review may be useful to health care professionals in order to identify the cancer related fatigue during the early period of cancer process and treat it effectively to improve the quality of life which contribute to the positive outcomes in cancer clients. Therefore, the main purpose of this review is to analyze the possible nonpharmacological approach to manage cancer related fatigue and recommend future research that will clarify these approaches and facilitate the formulation of new treatment options.

Advances in the field of museomics have promoted a high sampling demand for natural history collections (NHCs), eventually resulting in damage to invaluable resources to understand historical biodiversity. It is thus essential to achieve a consensus about which historical tissues present the best sources of DNA. In this study, we evaluated the performance of different historical tissues from Iberian wolf NHCs in genome-wide assessments. We targeted three tissues—bone (jaw and femur), maxilloturbinal bone, and skin—that have been favored by traditional taxidermy practices for mammalian carnivores. Specifically, we performed shotgun sequencing and target capture enrichment for 100,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) selected from the commercial Canine HD BeadChip across 103 specimens from 1912 to 2005. The performance of the different tissues was assessed using metrics based on endogenous DNA content, uniquely high-quality mapped reads after capture, and enrichment proportions. All samples succeeded as DNA sources, regardless of their collection year or sample type. Skin samples yielded significantly higher amounts of endogenous DNA compared to both bone types, which yielded equivalent amounts. There was no evidence for a direct effect of tissue type on capture efficiency; however, the number of genotyped SNPs was strictly associated with the starting amount of endogenous DNA. Evaluation of genotyping accuracy for distinct minimum read depths across tissue types showed a consistent overall low genotyping error rate (<7%), even at low (3x) coverage. We recommend the use of skins as reliable and minimally destructive sources of endogenous DNA for whole-genome and target enrichment approaches in mammalian carnivores. In addition, we provide a new 100,000 SNP capture array validated for historical DNA (hDNA) compatible to the Canine HD BeadChip for high-quality DNA. The increasing demand for NHCs as DNA sources should encourage the generation of genomic datasets comparable among studies.

Noninvasive samples for genetic analyses have become essential to address ecological questions. Popular noninvasive samples such as faeces contain degraded DNA which may compromise genotyping success. Saliva is an excellent alternative DNA source but scarcity of suitable collection methods makes its use anecdotal in field ecological studies. We develop a noninvasive method of collection that combines baits and porous materials able to capture saliva. We report its potential in optimal conditions, using confined dogs and collecting saliva early after deposition. DNA concentration in saliva extracts was generally high (mean 14 ng μl-1). We correctly identified individuals in 78% of samples conservatively using ten microsatellite loci, and 90% of samples using only eight loci. Consensus genotypes closely matched reference genotypes obtained from hair DNA (99% of identification successes and 91% of failures). Mean genotyping effort needed for identification using ten loci was 2.2 replicates. Genotyping errors occurred at a very low frequency (allelic dropout: 2.3%; false alleles: 1.5%). Individual identification success increased with duration of substrate handling inside dog’s mouth and the volume of saliva collected. Low identification success was associated with baits rich in DNA-oxidant polyphenols and DNA concentrations <1 ng μl-1. The procedure performed at least as well as other noninvasive methods, and could advantageously allow detection of socially low-ranked individuals underrepresented in sources of DNA that are involved in marking behaviour (faeces or urine). Once adapted and refined, there is promise for this technique to allow potentially high rates of individual identification in ecological field studies requiring noninvasive sampling of wild vertebrates.