We must embrace a multidimensional, continuous view of ancestry and move away from continental ancestry categories

No abstract

Fresh market sweet corn (Zea mays L.) is a row crop commercialized as a vegetable, resulting in strict expectations for ear size, color, and shape. Ear phenotyping in breeding programs is typically done manually and can be subjective, time consuming, and unreliable. Computer vision tools have enabled an inexpensive, high‐throughput, and quantitative alternative to phenotyping in agriculture. Here we present a computer vision tool using open‐source Python and OpenCV to measure yield component and quality traits relevant to sweet corn from photographs. This tool increases accuracy and efficiency in phenotyping through high‐throughput, quantitative feature extraction of traits typically measured qualitatively. EarCV worked in variable lighting and background conditions, such as under full sun and shade and against grass and dirt backgrounds. The package compares ears in images taken at varying distances and accurately measures ear length and ear width. It can measure traits that were previously difficult to quantify such as color, tip fill, taper, and curvature. EarCV allows users to phenotype any number of ears, dried or fresh, in any orientation while tolerating some debris and silk noise. The tool can categorize husked ears according to the predefined USDA quality grades based on length and tip fill. We show that the information generated from this computer vision approach can be incorporated into breeding programs by analyzing hybrid ears, capturing heritability of yield component traits, and detecting phenotypic differences between cultivars that conventional yield measurements cannot. Ultimately, computer vision can reduce the cost and resources dedicated to phenotyping in breeding programs.

Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term “ancestry” is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered.Methods: Systematic literature analysis of 205 articles at least tangentially related to human health from diverse disciplines that use the concept of ancestry, and semi-structured interviews with 44 lead authors of some of those articles.Results: Ancestry is relied on to structure research questions and key methodological approaches. Yet researchers struggle to define it, and/or offer diverse definitions. For some ancestry is a genetic concept, but for many—including geneticists—ancestry is only tangentially related to genetics. For some interviewees, ancestry is explicitly equated to ethnicity; for others it is explicitly distanced from it. Ancestry is operationalized using multiple data types (including genetic variation and self-reported identities), though for a large fraction of articles (26%) it is impossible to tell which data types were used. Across the literature and interviews there is no consistent understanding of how ancestry relates to genetic concepts (including genetic ancestry and population structure), nor how these genetic concepts relate to each other. Beyond this conceptual confusion, practices related to summarizing patterns of genetic variation often rest on uninterrogated conventions. Continental labels are by far the most common type of label applied to ancestry groups. We observed many instances of slippage between reference to ancestry groups and racial groups.Conclusion: Ancestry is in practice a highly ambiguous concept, and far from an objective counterpart to race or ethnicity. It is not uniquely a “biological” construct, and it does not represent a “safe haven” for researchers seeking to avoid evoking race or ethnicity in their work. Distinguishing genetic ancestry from ancestry more broadly will be a necessary part of providing conceptual clarity.

Introduction  Individuals with blood group O are reported to have reduced otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) compared with individuals with different blood groups. Objective  The present study attempted to determine if the blood group has any effect on high-frequency auditory sensitivity using ultrahigh-frequency audiometry and ultrahigh-frequency distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). Methods  High-frequency thresholds and high-frequency DPOAEs were measured in 60 individuals with normal hearing and different blood groups. Results  The results of the study showed that there was a significant reduction in DPOAE amplitude for individuals with blood group O compared with individuals with other blood groups. However, there was no significant difference in ultrahigh-frequency thresholds across the blood groups. Conclusion  This reduction in OAE amplitude may be attributed to a lower number of healthy outer hair cells in individuals with blood group O. Further studies on larger groups of individuals are essential for a better generalization of the results.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract