We report an improved draft nucleotide sequence of the 2.3-gigabase genome of maize, an important crop plant and model for biological research. Over 32,000 genes were predicted, of which 99.8% were placed on reference chromosomes. Nearly 85% of the genome is composed of hundreds of families of transposable elements, dispersed nonuniformly across the genome. These were responsible for the capture and amplification of numerous gene fragments and affect the composition, sizes, and positions of centromeres. We also report on the correlation of methylation-poor regions with Mu transposon insertions and recombination, and copy number variants with insertions and/or deletions, as well as how uneven gene losses between duplicated regions were involved in returning an ancient allotetraploid to a genetically diploid state. These analyses inform and set the stage for further investigations to improve our understanding of the domestication and agricultural improvements of maize.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundScreening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia.ObjectiveTo develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC.MethodsA 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed.ResultsThere was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended.ConclusionsScreening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.

Elevated serum IgG4 levels are characteristic of AIP. However, mild (<2-fold) elevations in serum IgG4 are seen in up to 10% of subjects without AIP including pancreatic cancer and cannot be used alone to distinguish AIP from pancreatic cancer. Because AIP is uncommon, IgG4 elevations in patients with low pretest probability of having AIP are likely to represent false positives.

In type 1 AIP relapses are common. Relapse-free survival is similar in those treated with steroids plus IM compared to those treated with steroids alone. Nearly half the patients on IMs will relapse during treatment. RTX is effective in the treatment of both IM resistant and steroid intolerant patients.

No abstract

The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis remains challenging in early stages of the disease. This report defines the diagnostic criteria useful in the assessment of patients with suspected and established chronic pancreatitis. All current diagnostic procedures are reviewed and evidence based statements are provided about their utility and limitations. Diagnostic criteria for chronic pancreatitis are classified as definitive, probable or insufficient evidence. A diagnostic (STEP-wise; S-survey, T-tomography, E-endoscopy and P-pancreas function testing) algorithm is proposed that proceeds from a non-invasive to a more invasive approach. This algorithm maximizes specificity (low false positive rate) in subjects with chronic abdominal pain and equivocal imaging changes. Futhermore, a nomenclature is suggested to further characterize patients with established chronic pancreatitis based on TIGAR-O (T-toxic, I-idiopathic, G-genetic, A- autoimmune, R-recurrent and O-obstructive) etiology, gland morphology (Cambridge criteria) and physiologic state (exocrine, endocrine function) for uniformity across future multi-center research collaborations. This guideline will serve as a baseline manuscript that will be modified as new evidence becomes available and our knowledge of chronic pancreatitis improves.