We have sequenced the genome of a second Drosophila species, Drosophila pseudoobscura, and compared this to the genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster, a primary model organism. Throughout evolution the vast majority of Drosophila genes have remained on the same chromosome arm, but within each arm gene order has been extensively reshuffled, leading to a minimum of 921 syntenic blocks shared between the species. A repetitive sequence is found in the D. pseudoobscura genome at many junctions between adjacent syntenic blocks. Analysis of this novel repetitive element family suggests that recombination between offset elements may have given rise to many paracentric inversions, thereby contributing to the shuffling of gene order in the D. pseudoobscura lineage. Based on sequence similarity and synteny, 10,516 putative orthologs have been identified as a core gene set conserved over 25-55 million years (Myr) since the pseudoobscura/melanogaster divergence. Genes expressed in the testes had higher amino acid sequence divergence than the genome-wide average, consistent with the rapid evolution of sex-specific proteins. Cis-regulatory sequences are more conserved than random and nearby sequences between the species-but the difference is slight, suggesting that the evolution of cis-regulatory elements is flexible. Overall, a pattern of repeat-mediated chromosomal rearrangement, and high coadaptation of both male genes and cis-regulatory sequences emerges as important themes of genome divergence between these species of Drosophila.
The introduction of an ERP adds additional value in laparoscopic colorectal resections, with further reductions in morbidity and length of stay.
A case of hyperprolactinaemia/amenorrhoea-galactorrhoea syndrome is described. A prolactinoma was diagnosed, but histology of the excised tumour revealed it to be a thyrotoph adenoma. alpha-subunit and beta-TSH levels were lowered after the operation. The significance of this tumour is discussed.
Edited by: Harold SchultzThese are interesting times! We are participating in a revolution of biological knowledge and in the manipulation of medical phenomena. But accompanying these scientific developments, there is also a realization that the pace of change and the pressure to publish may undermine scientific rigour, prompting increased scrutiny and the challenge to find ways to improve reproducibility in scientific data and publication. The increasing complexity of physiological sciences over that past decade or so is reflected in our research publications that are integrating multiple complementary methods and have numerous collaborators. There is also the broader political imperative to demonstrate that society is benefitting from the public money invested in scientific research.Greater attention is being paid to the value of open science and data sharing, especially with high-throughput methods being adopted that are capable of generating large datasets. Physiology thrives on our collective vitality and creativity. In all this activity, there are inevitable questions about whether the scientific literature is keeping up with the times.The Journal of Physiology has a long history of refining and improving the research that it publishes through peer review. Over the decades, the modes of research publication have evolved; there is a pressure to keep costs down, automation up and submission-to-publication times minimised, and yet each submitted article must still receive effective peer review: this is the fundamental pillar to evaluate and judge scientific quality. The Editorial Board of The Journal of Physiology has often discussed how best to improve statistical reporting, and over the past 8 years both The Journal of Physiology and the British Journal of Pharmacology have sought to encourage authors to voluntarily improve their statistical reporting through joint publication of a series of statistical 'how-to' guides (https://bit.ly/StatisticalGuidelines) and data presentation advice (https://bit.ly/ PresentingYourData) aimed at providing instructions to authors and referees and raising data reporting standards. Sadly, however, these voluntary initiatives have failed to generate a meaningful change in the research papers that have been published, in spite of the effort we have put into educating our colleagues.This conclusion was reached in a recent paper by Diong et al. (2018) that examined the quality of statistical reporting prior to the joint statistical guidelines initiative and afterwards. They compared 200 articles from both publications and showed there was little or no improvement in reporting practice for statistics or data presentation. We must conclude that our 'encouragement' has demonstrably failed, so how should we respond? We need a system to standardize delivery of information; and one that has high ethical standards of reporting. We are committed to publishing the best physiology research, but without clear rules, change will not happen. We recognise that almost all authors are applying h...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.