Assortative mating has been a focus of considerable research because of its potential to influence biodiversity at many scales. Sharon et al. (2010) discovered that an inbred strain of Drosophila melanogaster mated assortatively based on the diet of previous generations, leading to initial reproductive isolation without genetic evolution. This behavior was reproduced by manipulating the microbiome independently of the diet, pointing to extracellular bacterial symbionts as the assortative mating cue. To further investigate the biological significance of this result, we attempted to reproduce this phenomenon in an independent laboratory using different genotypes and additional mating assays. Supporting the previous result, we found that a different inbred strain also mated assortatively based on the diets of previous generations. However, we were unable to generate assortative mating in an outbred strain from North Carolina. Our results support the potential for non-genetic mechanisms to influence reproductive isolation, but additional work is needed to investigate the importance of this mechanism in natural populations of Drosophila.

Recent work on the model fly Drosophila melanogaster has reported inconsistencies in their preference for laying eggs on intermediate concentrations of ethanol. In this study, we resolve this discrepancy by showing that this species strongly prefers ovipositing on ethanol when it is close to a non-ethanol substrate, but strongly avoids ethanol when options are farther apart. We also show fluidity of these behaviors among other Drosophila species: D. melanogaster is more responsive to ethanol than close relatives in that it prefers ethanol more than other species in the close-proximity case, but avoids ethanol more than other species in the distant case. In the close-proximity scenario, the more ethanol-tolerant species generally prefer ethanol more, with the exception of the island endemic D. santomea. This species has the lowest tolerance in the clade, but behaves like D. melanogaster. We speculate that this could be an adaptation to protect eggs from parasites or predators such as parasitoid wasps, as larvae migrate to non-toxic substrates after hatching. These natural differences among species are an excellent opportunity to study how genes and brains evolve to alter ethanol preferences, and provide an interesting model for genetic variation in preferences in other organisms, including humans.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:The electronic health record (EHR) has increased time spent outside of face-to-face encounters, with higher EHR burden associated with differences in provider sex, specialty, and rates of burnout. However, the EHR burden specific to gastroenterology (GI) providers is not fully understood. Methods: Measures of EHR use calculated through Epic Systems were retrospectively collected for GI providers from a tertiary referral center during a 6-month period starting January 1, 2021. Primary measures used to characterize EHR use included time spent performing clinical review, documentation, and in-basket management as well as quantification of efficiency, messaging, and time logged into the EHR, including time outside regularly scheduled hours (5:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and weekends). EHR use patterns were compared across provider sex, sub-specialty (inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], motility/irritable bowel syndrome, advanced endoscopy [AE], and esophagus [ESO]), and training (physician vs non-physician provider [NPP]). Data was analyzed in aggregate using t-tests and analysis of variance with post-hoc Boniferri correction. Results: Data from 33 providers compromising 3,743 clinic days and 16,572 appointments was collected. Overall, 69.7% (23/33) were physicians, 30.3% (10/33) NPPs and 48.5% (16/33) were women, with women comprising all NPPs. Comparing EHR burden across sexes, women spent more daily time in clinical review than men (42.4 minutes vs 26.0, P 5 0.02), though this result lost statistical significance when excluding NPPs. Comparing sub-specialties, IBD specialists spent more daily time in clinical review per appointment than AEs or ESOs (13.7 minutes vs 3.9 and 3.7, respectively; P , 0.001) yet had higher efficiency scores compared to these sub-specialties (P , 0.001). Compared to AEs, IBD specialists spent more overall daily time in the EHR (131.5 minutes vs 39.7, P , 0.005) as well as more daily time outside of regular work hours (60.0 minutes vs 8.9, P , 0.01). Comparing provider training, NPPs spent more daily time in the in-basket (P 5 0.03), clinical review (P 5 0.02), and overall EHR (P , 0.001) than physicians. Additionally, NPPs received more patient medical advice request messages per day than physicians (P 5 0.03). Conclusion: IBD specialists and NPPs have an increased EHR burden. More work is needed to better understand sex, sub-specialty, and training-based differences in workload to combat factors contributing to provider burnout.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract