Macro- and microhabitat use of Telfair’s skink (Leiolopisma telfairii) on Round Island,Mauritius: implications for their translocation

The successful eradication of introduced rodents from islets off the coast of Mauritius has led to local conservation bodies investigating the possibility of translocation as a measure of safeguarding endemic reptile populations. The present study was the first to determine the habitat and microhabitat requirements of Telfair's skinks (Leiolopisma telfairii) on Round Island, Mauritius, with a view to aiding future translocation projects to islands within their historic range. Contrasting preferences found for Telfair's skink at macro- and micro- habitat levels underline the importance of sampling at multiple ecological scales in such investigations. Significantly fewer sightings of L. telfairii were recorded in bare rock habitats compared to more vegetated habitats. Conversely, at a microhabitat scale principal component analysis indicated structural characteristics were the primary determinant of microhabitat choice. The first dietary analysis of Telfair's skinks confirmed their status as omnivores. Cockroaches (Blattodea spp.) appeared to be a primary food source. Four exotic plant species were also present in faecal samples and the potential for L. telfairii to aid their dispersal is discussed. Implications for the long-term management and proposed translocation of Telfair's skinks are discussed.     

Roads,speculators, and colonization in the Ecuadorian Amazon

In view of the generally disappointing performance of colonization projects in the Amazon basin, unusual projects merit close scrutiny because they may suggest a more effective organizational form for the colonization of humid lowlands. With this end in mind, this article examines those aspects of the Upano-Palora project in southeastern Ecuador that are attributable to the project's unusual plan of establishing settlements first and building the roads afterwards. It concludes that the “settlements first, roads second” developmental sequence reduced the costs of the project, produced an egalitarian pattern of landownership, and contributed to a pattern of land use that had potentially damaging ecological effects. These findings suggest that variations in the timing of road building have an important impact on outcomes in new land settlement schemes.     

Rhinanthus minor population genetic structure and subspecies: Potential seed sources of a keystone species in grassland restoration projects

In the last few decades unimproved semi-natural grasslands have been affected by intensification of land use and habitat fragmentation. Because of their biodiversity these species-rich grasslands are of high conservation importance and efforts are under way to restore such habitats. Detailed knowledge of within species diversity will aid deciding on the optimal seed source for such restoration projects, e.g. local genotypes or ecotypes. Rhinanthus minor is a species that is typically found in semi-natural grasslands and is commonly used in grassland restoration projects. This is because R. minor is a hemiparasitic plant that takes minerals and nutrients from its host, which in turn decreases the host's biomass and leads to opportunities for less competitive species in the vegetation. Here, we investigate genetic diversity within and between R. minor populations. This allowed us to test whether the six different subspecies of R. minor that have been described in the UK, based on their morphology, flowering time, and habitat, can be differentiated using molecular markers. We identified moderate levels of genetic differentiation between R. minor populations within the UK. In addition, R. minor individuals from the UK appear to be distinct from R. minor and Rhinanthus angustifolius individuals from other European countries based on microsatellite genotyping and DNA sequencing of cpDNA and rDNA ITS. The molecular markers used in the current study did not separate populations of R. minor based on either their subspecies or habitat. The implication for the use of R. minor in grassland restoration projects seems to be that it is not necessary to use local seeds or seeds from the same subspecies.     

Two Low Coverage Bird Genomes and a Comparison of Reference-Guided versus De Novo Genome Assemblies

As a greater number and diversity of high-quality vertebrate reference genomes become available, it is increasingly feasible to use these references to guide new draft assemblies for related species. Reference-guided assembly approaches may substantially increase the contiguity and completeness of a new genome using only low levels of genome coverage that might otherwise be insufficient for de novo genome assembly. We used low-coverage (∼3.5–5.5x) Illumina paired-end sequencing to assemble draft genomes of two bird species (the Gunnison Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus minimus, and the Clark''s Nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana). We used these data to estimate de novo genome assemblies and reference-guided assemblies, and compared the information content and completeness of these assemblies by comparing CEGMA gene set representation, repeat element content, simple sequence repeat content, and GC isochore structure among assemblies. Our results demonstrate that even lower-coverage genome sequencing projects are capable of producing informative and useful genomic resources, particularly through the use of reference-guided assemblies.     

An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea

Reference phylogenies are crucial for providing a taxonomic framework for interpretation of marker gene and metagenomic surveys, which continue to reveal novel species at a remarkable rate. Greengenes is a dedicated full-length 16S rRNA gene database that provides users with a curated taxonomy based on de novo tree inference. We developed a ‘taxonomy to tree'' approach for transferring group names from an existing taxonomy to a tree topology, and used it to apply the Greengenes, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and cyanoDB (Cyanobacteria only) taxonomies to a de novo tree comprising 408 315 sequences. We also incorporated explicit rank information provided by the NCBI taxonomy to group names (by prefixing rank designations) for better user orientation and classification consistency. The resulting merged taxonomy improved the classification of 75% of the sequences by one or more ranks relative to the original NCBI taxonomy with the most pronounced improvements occurring in under-classified environmental sequences. We also assessed candidate phyla (divisions) currently defined by NCBI and present recommendations for consolidation of 34 redundantly named groups. All intermediate results from the pipeline, which includes tree inference, jackknifing and transfer of a donor taxonomy to a recipient tree (tax2tree) are available for download. The improved Greengenes taxonomy should provide important infrastructure for a wide range of megasequencing projects studying ecosystems on scales ranging from our own bodies (the Human Microbiome Project) to the entire planet (the Earth Microbiome Project). The implementation of the software can be obtained from http://sourceforge.net/projects/tax2tree/.     

Understanding sampling and taxonomic biases recorded by citizen scientists

Projects involving citizen scientists have greatly increased over the last decade and understanding errors associated with such projects has been identified as an important step. NatureWatch NZ is a biodiversity recording system accessible to members of the public. The “NZ wasps, ants, bees and parasitoids (Hymenoptera) project” was initiated within NatureWatch NZ in December 2012, and comparisons were analysed between these records and the known Hymenoptera fauna of the New Zealand region. Over the course of 1 year 25 members contributed 360 records from 186 taxa, including the discovery of several introduced species new to New Zealand. There was a strong geographical bias to the records, with the majority being based around the major cities. Aculeates (stinging wasps) were significantly over-represented in the NatureWatch records. Only half (55 %) of taxa were identified to species level, with a further 28 % at genus level, and 17 % identified above genus level (family, order). Furthermore, the majority (65 %) of taxa were recorded only once, and only a few taxa were recorded >5 times (top records were “Ichneumonidae”, “Hymenoptera”, Anthidium manicatum, and Apis mellifera). It is probable that these same biases also exist for many other taxonomic groups in projects operated by citizen scientists lacking set protocols. Caution should be exercised on the subsequent use, compilation, and analysis of citizen science, especially without prior examination of records and potential biases.     

Trust and cooperation among economic agents

The units that are subject to selection pressure in evolutionary biology are ‘strategies’, which are conditional actions (‘Do P if X occurs, otherwise do Q’). In contrast, the units in economics select strategies from available menus so as to further their projects and purposes. As economic agents do not live in isolation, each agent''s optimum choice, in general, depends on the choices made by others. Because their projects and purposes involve the future, not just the present, each agent reasons about the likely present and future consequences of their respective choices. That is why beliefs, about what others may do and what the consequences of those choices could be, are at the basis of strategy selection. A catalogue of social environments is constructed in which agents not only promise each other''s cooperation, but also rationally believe that the promises will be kept. Unfortunately, non-cooperation arising from mistrust can be the outcome in those same environments: societies harbour multiple ‘equilibria’ and can skid from cooperation to non-cooperation. Moreover, a pre-occupation among analysts with the Prisoners'' Dilemma game has obscured the fact that cooperative arrangements can harbour not only inequality, but also exploitation. The analysis is used to discuss why international cooperation over the use of global public goods has proved to be so elusive.     

Big,small or mezzo?

Lessons from science studies for the ongoing debate about ‘big'' versus ‘little'' research projectsDuring the past six decades, the importance of scientific research to the developed world and the daily lives of its citizens has led many industrialized countries to rebrand themselves as ‘knowledge-based economies''. The increasing role of science as a main driver of innovation and economic growth has also changed the nature of research itself. Starting with the physical sciences, recent decades have seen academic research increasingly conducted in the form of large, expensive and collaborative ‘big science'' projects that often involve multidisciplinary, multinational teams of scientists, engineers and other experts.Although laboratory biology was late to join the big science trend, there has nevertheless been a remarkable increase in the number, scope and complexity of research collaborations…Although laboratory biology was late to join the big science trend, there has nevertheless been a remarkable increase in the number, scope and complexity of research collaborations and projects involving biologists over the past two decades (Parker et al, 2010). The Human Genome Project (HGP) is arguably the most well known of these and attracted serious scientific, public and government attention to ‘big biology''. Initial exchanges were polarized and often polemic, as proponents of the HGP applauded the advent of big biology and argued that it would produce results unattainable through other means (Hood, 1990). Critics highlighted the negative consequences of massive-scale research, including the industrialization, bureaucratization and politicization of research (Rechsteiner, 1990). They also suggested that it was not suited to generating knowledge at all; Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner joked that sequencing was so boring it should be done by prisoners: “the more heinous the crime, the bigger the chromosome they would have to decipher” (Roberts, 2001).A recent Opinion in EMBO reports summarized the arguments against “the creeping hegemony” of ‘big science'' over ‘little science'' in biomedical research. First, many large research projects are of questionable scientific and practical value. Second, big science transfers the control of research topics and goals to bureaucrats, when decisions about research should be primarily driven by the scientific community (Petsko, 2009). Gregory Petsko makes a valid point in his Opinion about wasteful research projects and raises the important question of how research goals should be set and by whom. Here, we contextualize Petsko''s arguments by drawing on the history and sociology of science to expound the drawbacks and benefits of big science. We then advance an alternative to the current antipodes of ‘big'' and ‘little'' biology, which offers some of the benefits and avoids some of the adverse consequences.Big science is not a recent development. Among the first large, collaborative research projects were the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, and efforts to decipher German codes during the Second World War. The concept itself was put forward in 1961 by physicist Alvin Weinberg, and further developed by historian of science Derek De Solla Price in his pioneering book, Little Science, Big Science. “The large-scale character of modern science, new and shining and all powerful, is so apparent that the happy term ‘Big Science'' has been coined to describe it” (De Solla Price, 1963). Weinberg noted that science had become ‘big'' in two ways. First, through the development of elaborate research instrumentation, the use of which requires large research teams, and second, through the explosive growth of scientific research in general. More recently, big science has come to refer to a diverse but strongly related set of changes in the organization of scientific research. This includes expensive equipment and large research teams, but also the increasing industrialization of research activities, the escalating frequency of interdisciplinary and international collaborations, and the increasing manpower needed to achieve research goals (Galison & Hevly, 1992). Many areas of biological research have shifted in these directions in recent years and have radically altered the methods by which biologists generate scientific knowledge.Despite this long history of collaboration, laboratory biology remained ‘small-scale'' until the rising prominence of molecular biology changed the research landscapeUnderstanding the implications of this change begins with an appreciation of the history of collaborations in the life sciences—biology has long been a collaborative effort. Natural scientists accompanied the great explorers in the grand alliance between science and exploration during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Capshew & Rader, 1992), which not only served to map uncharted territories, but also contributed enormously to knowledge of the fauna and flora discovered. These early expeditions gradually evolved into coordinated, multidisciplinary research programmes, which began with the International Polar Years, intended to concentrate international research efforts at the North and South Poles (1882–1883; 1932–1933). The Polar Years became exemplars of large-scale life science collaboration, begetting the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958) and the International Biological Programme (1968–1974).For Weinberg, the potentially negative consequences associated with big science were “adminstratitis, moneyitis, and journalitis”…Despite this long history of collaboration, laboratory biology remained ‘small-scale'' until the rising prominence of molecular biology changed the research landscape. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, many research organizations encouraged international collaboration in the life sciences, spurring the creation of, among other things, the European Molecular Biology Organization (1964) and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (1974). In addition, international mapping and sequencing projects were developed around model organisms such as Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans, and scientists formed research networks, exchanged research materials and information, and divided labour across laboratories. These new ways of working set the stage for the HGP, which is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of the current ‘post-genomics era''. As an editorial on ‘post-genomics cultures'' put it in the journal Nature, “Like it or not, big biology is here to stay” (Anon, 2001).Just as big science is not new, neither are concerns about its consequences. As early as 1948, the sociologist Max Weber worried that as equipment was becoming more expensive, scientists were losing autonomy and becoming more dependent on external funding (Weber, 1948). Similarly, although Weinberg and De Solla Price expressed wonder at the scope of the changes they were witnessing, they too offered critical evaluations. For Weinberg, the potentially negative consequences associated with big science were “adminstratitis, moneyitis, and journalitis”; meaning the dominance of science administrators over practitioners, the tendency to view funding increases as a panacea for solving scientific problems, and progressively blurry lines between scientific and popular writing in order to woo public support for big research projects (Weinberg, 1961). De Solla Price worried that the bureaucracy associated with big science would fail to entice the intellectual mavericks on which science depends (De Solla Price, 1963). These concerns remain valid and have been voiced time and again.As big science represents a major investment of time, money and manpower, it tends to determine and channel research in particular directions that afford certain possibilities and preclude others (Cook & Brown, 1999). In the worst case, this can result in entire scientific communities following false leads, as was the case in the 1940s and 1950s for Soviet agronomy. Huge investments were made to demonstrate the superiority of Lamarckian over Mendelian theories of heritability, which held back Russian biology for decades (Soyfer, 1994). Such worst-case scenarios are, however, rare. A more likely consequence is that big science can diminish the diversity of research approaches. For instance, plasma fusion scientists are now under pressure to design projects that are relevant to the large-scale International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, despite the potential benefits of a wide array of smaller-scale machines and approaches (Hackett et al, 2004). Big science projects can also involve coordination challenges, take substantial time to realize success, and be difficult to evaluate (Neal et al, 2008).Importantly, big science projects allow for the coordination and activation of diverse forms of expertise across disciplinary, national and professional boundariesAnother danger of big science is that researchers will lose the intrinsic satisfaction that arises from having personal control over their work. Dissatisfaction could lower research productivity (Babu & Singh, 1998) and might create the concomitant danger of losing talented young researchers to other, more engaging callings. Moreover, the alienation of scientists from their work as a result of big science enterprises can lead to a loss of personal responsibility for research. In turn, this can increase the likelihood of misconduct, as effective social control is eroded and “the satisfactions of science are overshadowed by organizational demands, economic calculations, and career strategies” (Hackett, 1994).Practicing scientists are aware of these risks. Yet, they remain engaged in large-scale projects because they must, but also because of the real benefits these projects offer. Importantly, big science projects allow for the coordination and activation of diverse forms of expertise across disciplinary, national and professional boundaries to solve otherwise intractable basic and applied problems. Although calling for international and interdisciplinary collaboration is popular, practicing it is notably less popular and much harder (Weingart, 2000). Big science projects can act as a focal point that allows researchers from diverse backgrounds to cooperate, and simultaneously advances different scientific specialties while forging interstitial connections among them. Another major benefit of big science is that it facilitates the development of common research standards and metrics, allowing for the rapid development of nascent research frontiers (Fujimura, 1996). Furthermore, the high profile of big science efforts such as the HGP and CERN draw public attention to science, potentially enhancing scientific literacy and the public''s willingness to support research.Rather than arguing for or against big science, molecular biology would best benefit from strategic investments in a diverse portfolio of big, little and ‘mezzo'' research projectsBig science can also ease some of the problems associated with scientific management. In terms of training, graduate students and junior researchers involved in big science projects can gain additional skills in problem-solving, communication and team working (Court & Morris, 1994). The bureaucratic structure and well-defined roles of big science projects also make leadership transitions and researcher attrition easier to manage compared with the informal, refractory organization of most small research projects. Big science projects also provide a visible platform for resource acquisition and the recruitment of new scientific talent. Moreover, through their sheer size, diversity and complexity, they can also increase the frequency of serendipitous social interactions and scientific discoveries (Hackett et al, 2008). Finally, large-scale research projects can influence scientific and public policy. Big science creates organizational structures in which many scientists share responsibility for, and expectations of, a scientific problem (Van Lente, 1993). This shared ownership and these shared futures help coordinate communication and enable researchers to present a united front when advancing the potential benefits of their projects to funding bodies.Given these benefits and pitfalls of big science, how might molecular biology best proceed? Petsko''s response is that, “[s]cientific priorities must, for the most part, be set by the free exchange of ideas in the scientific literature, at meetings and in review panels. They must be set from the bottom up, from the community of scientists, not by the people who control the purse strings.” It is certainly the case, as Petsko also acknowledges, that science has benefited from a combination of generous public support and professional autonomy. However, we are less sanguine about his belief that the scientific community alone has the capacity to ascertain the practical value of particular lines of inquiry, determine the most appropriate scale of research, and bring them to fruition. In fact, current mismatches between the production of scientific knowledge and the information needs of public policy-makers strongly suggest that the opposite is true (Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007).Instead, we maintain that these types of decision should be determined through collective decision-making that involves researchers, governmental funding agencies, science policy experts and the public. In fact, the highly successful HGP involved such collaborations (Lambright, 2002). Taking into account the opinions and attitudes of these stakeholders better links knowledge production to the public good (Cash et al, 2003)—a major justification for supporting big biology. We do agree with Petsko, however, that large-scale projects can develop pathological characteristics, and that all programmes should therefore undergo regular assessments to determine their continuing worth.Rather than arguing for or against big science, molecular biology would best benefit from strategic investments in a diverse portfolio of big, little and ‘mezzo'' research projects. Their size, duration and organizational structure should be determined by the research question, subject matter and intended goals (Westfall, 2003). Parties involved in making these decisions should, in turn, aim at striking a profitable balance between differently sized research projects to garner the benefits of each and allow practitioners the autonomy to choose among them.This will require new, innovative methods for supporting and coordinating research. An important first step is ensuring that funding is made available for all kinds of research at a range of scales. For this to happen, the current funding model needs to be modified. The practice of allocating separate funds for individual investigator-driven and collective research projects is a positive step in the right direction, but it does not discriminate between projects of different sizes at a sufficiently fine resolution. Instead, multiple funding pools should be made available for projects of different sizes and scales, allowing for greater accuracy in project planning, funding and evaluation.It is up to scientists and policymakers to discern how to benefit from the advantages that ‘bigness'' has to offer, while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in doing soSecond, science policy should consciously facilitate the ‘scaling up'', ‘scaling down'' and concatenation of research projects when needed. For instance, special funds might be established for supporting small-scale but potentially transformative research with the capacity to be scaled up in the future. Alternatively, small-scale satellite research projects that are more nimble, exploratory and risky, could complement big science initiatives or be generated by them. This is also in line with Petsko''s statement that “the best kind of big science is the kind that supports and generates lots of good little science.” Another potentially fruitful strategy we suggest would be to fund independent, small-scale research projects to work on co-relevant research with the later objective of consolidating them into a single project in a kind of building-block assembly. By using these and other mechanisms for organizing research at different scales, it could help to ameliorate some of the problems associated with big science, while also accruing its most important benefits.Within the life sciences, the field of ecology perhaps best exemplifies this strategy. Although it encompasses many small-scale laboratory and field studies, ecologists now collaborate in a variety of novel organizations that blend elements of big, little and mezzo science and that are designed to catalyse different forms of research. For example, the US National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis brings together researchers and data from many smaller projects to synthesize their findings. The Long Term Ecological Research Network consists of dozens of mezzo-scale collaborations focused on specific sites, but also leverages big science through cross-site collaborations. While investments are made in classical big science projects, such as the National Ecological Observatory Network, no one project or approach has dominated—nor should it. In these ways, ecologists have been able to reap the benefits of big science whilst maintaining diverse research approaches and individual autonomy and still being able to enjoy the intrinsic satisfaction associated with scientific work.Big biology is here to stay and is neither a curse nor a blessing. It is up to scientists and policy-makers to discern how to benefit from the advantages that ‘bigness'' has to offer, while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in so doing. The challenge confronting molecular biology in the coming years is to decide which kind of research projects are best suited to getting the job done. Molecular biology itself arose, in part, from the migration of physicists to biology; as physics research projects and collaborations grew and became more dependent on expensive equipment, appreciating the saliency of one''s own work became increasingly difficult, which led some to seek refuge in the comparatively little science of biology (Dev, 1990). The current situation, which Petsko criticizes in his Opinion article, is thus the result of an organizational and intellectual cycle that began more than six decades ago. It would certainly behoove molecular biologists to heed his warnings and consider the best paths forward.? Open in a separate windowNiki VermeulenOpen in a separate windowJohn N. ParkerOpen in a separate windowBart Penders     

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Population Trends and Ecology: Insights from South African Citizen Science Data

Data from two long-term citizen science projects were used to examine the status and ecology of a Red List species, the Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius (Vulnerable), in South Africa. The first phase of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project operated from 1987 until 1992, and the second phase began in 2007. The Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) project began in 1993 and by 1998 had expanded to cover much of the south-eastern half of the country. Data submitted up until April 2013 were used. A new method of comparing reporting rates between atlas projects was developed. Changing reporting rates are likely to reflect changes in abundance; in this instance the data suggest that the Secretarybird population decreased across much of South Africa between the two atlas projects, with a widespread important decrease in the Kruger National Park. Habitat data from the CAR project were analysed to gain insight into the ecology of the species. Secretarybirds tended to avoid transformed habitats across much of the area covered by the CAR project. In the winter rainfall region of the Western Cape, which is characterised by heavily transformed fynbos vegetation, at least 50% of Secretarybirds recorded were in transformed environments. This implies that in the Fynbos biome, at least, Secretarybirds have adapted to transformed environments to some degree. However, in the rest of the country it is likely that habitat loss, largely through widespread bush encroachment but also through agriculture, afforestation, and urbanisation, is a major threat to the species. The methods developed here represent a new approach to analysing data from long-term citizen science projects, which can provide important insights into a species'' conservation status and ecology.     

Funnels,gas exchange and cliff jumping: natural history of the cliff dwelling ant Malagidris sofina

The Malagasy endemic ant Malagidris sofina (Bolton and Fisher 2014) nests on cliff faces in natural rock alcoves or clay banks. Colonies have single ergatoid queens and reproduce by fission. Each nest has a funnel-shaped entrance that projects horizontally from the cliff face. We examine three hypotheses for the function of the funnels—water exclusion, gas exchange and defense. Entrance funnels are relatively impermeable and divert water from nests, but simple tubes would achieve the same result. Consistent with the gas exchange hypothesis, projected funnel entrances likely increase gas exchange rates over sixfold compared to simple tubes and may increase air flow within the nest. Gas exchange may explain the recurrent evolution of funnel entrances in several ant lineages, especially among cliff dwelling species. We outline M. sofina defense responses to conspecifics and co-occurring ant species, and find no support for a defense role of entrance funnels. Workers display little aggression but respond to several species with an original form of nest defense––cliff jumping—in which workers drop off the cliff face while clinging to invaders and then return to their nest. M. sofina is a restricted range species under threat of extinction by habitat destruction. Its novel lifestyle underscores the urgency of exploration and conservation in a tropical biodiversity hotspot.     

Discriminant Projective Non-Negative Matrix Factorization

Projective non-negative matrix factorization (PNMF) projects high-dimensional non-negative examples X onto a lower-dimensional subspace spanned by a non-negative basis W and considers W^T X as their coefficients, i.e., X≈WW^T X. Since PNMF learns the natural parts-based representation Wof X, it has been widely used in many fields such as pattern recognition and computer vision. However, PNMF does not perform well in classification tasks because it completely ignores the label information of the dataset. This paper proposes a Discriminant PNMF method (DPNMF) to overcome this deficiency. In particular, DPNMF exploits Fisher''s criterion to PNMF for utilizing the label information. Similar to PNMF, DPNMF learns a single non-negative basis matrix and needs less computational burden than NMF. In contrast to PNMF, DPNMF maximizes the distance between centers of any two classes of examples meanwhile minimizes the distance between any two examples of the same class in the lower-dimensional subspace and thus has more discriminant power. We develop a multiplicative update rule to solve DPNMF and prove its convergence. Experimental results on four popular face image datasets confirm its effectiveness comparing with the representative NMF and PNMF algorithms.     

A simple protocol to obtain highly pure Wolbachia endosymbiont DNA for genome sequencing

Most genome sequencing projects using intracellular bacteria face difficulties in obtaining sufficient bacterial DNA free of host contamination. We have developed a simple and rapid protocol to isolate endosymbiont DNA virtually free from fly and mosquito host DNA. We purified DNA from six Wolbachia strains in preparation for genome sequencing using this method, and achieved up to 97% pure Wolbachia sequence, even after using frozen insects. This is a significant improvement for future Wolbachia and other endosymbiont genome projects.     

围填海区渔业生态损害的补偿标准定量研究——以舟山近岸海域为例

围绕海洋工程项目建设中渔业资源损害补偿这一关键要素至今尚缺乏一致认可的统一标准这一核心问题,根据2015年11月、2016年5月在舟山近岸海域(29°20′—31°00′N、121°40′—123°00′E)开展80个站位的渔业资源拖网调查数据,结合历史资料和渔民访谈交流等,分别以是否为生产渔场、是否为鱼卵仔稚鱼聚集区以及渔业资源量数量分布状况,赋予不同海域的权重系数,将直接经济损害补偿与渔业生态服务价值补偿结合起来,提出渔业生态损害补偿标准核算思路,建立了围填海工程项目渔业生态损害的补偿补偿模型,并计算得出不同县(区)、乡镇的渔业生态损害补偿金标准。可在舟山近岸不同海域的渔业生态损害补偿金收缴实践中推广应用,也为建立我国海洋生态损害补偿机制提供技术支撑。     

Identification of Genes Important for Cutaneous Function Revealed by a Large Scale Reverse Genetic Screen in the Mouse

The skin is a highly regenerative organ which plays critical roles in protecting the body and sensing its environment. Consequently, morbidity and mortality associated with skin defects represent a significant health issue. To identify genes important in skin development and homeostasis, we have applied a high throughput, multi-parameter phenotype screen to the conditional targeted mutant mice generated by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute''s Mouse Genetics Project (Sanger-MGP). A total of 562 different mouse lines were subjected to a variety of tests assessing cutaneous expression, macroscopic clinical disease, histological change, hair follicle cycling, and aberrant marker expression. Cutaneous lesions were associated with mutations in 23 different genes. Many of these were not previously associated with skin disease in the organ (Mysm1, Vangl1, Trpc4ap, Nom1, Sparc, Farp2, and Prkab1), while others were ascribed new cutaneous functions on the basis of the screening approach (Krt76, Lrig1, Myo5a, Nsun2, and Nf1). The integration of these skin specific screening protocols into the Sanger-MGP primary phenotyping pipelines marks the largest reported reverse genetic screen undertaken in any organ and defines approaches to maximise the productivity of future projects of this nature, while flagging genes for further characterisation.     

Sustainable Development and Cleaner Technology in Brazilian Energy CDM Projects: Consideration of Risks

Given the international urgency of addressing climate change, this article evaluates the contribution of energy Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects for the generation of cleaner technologies and the promotion of sustainable development in Brazil. In order to do this, energy CDM projects representing the Brazilian context were selected and a multi-case study was conducted. The data collected were compared using a data triangulation technique and further analyzed in the light of an analysis model built on the following concepts: CDM project's cycle, technology transfer, environmental technologies, and sustainable development. The results demonstrate the prevalence of projects that: (a) use renewable energy sources and technologies that can be classified as cleaner, (b) have a triple bottom line profile with regard to sustainable development, and (c) show partially exogenous or predominantly endogenous technology transfer. General risk factors are presented and analyzed from a CDM project's life cycle's perspective. The results show that Brazilian energy CDM projects contribute to cleaner technology generation and to the promotion of triple bottom line (social, economic, and environmental) sustainable development.     

PlasmoDB: the Plasmodium genome resource. An integrated database providing tools for accessing, analyzing and mapping expression and sequence data (both finished and unfinished)

PlasmoDB (http://PlasmoDB.org) is the official database of the Plasmodium falciparum genome sequencing consortium. This resource incorporates finished and draft genome sequence data and annotation emerging from Plasmodium sequencing projects. PlasmoDB currently houses information from five parasite species and provides tools for cross-species comparisons. Sequence information is also integrated with other genomic-scale data emerging from the Plasmodium research community, including gene expression analysis from EST, SAGE and microarray projects. The relational schemas used to build PlasmoDB [Genomics Unified Schema (GUS) and RNA Abundance Database (RAD)] employ a highly structured format to accommodate the diverse data types generated by sequence and expression projects. A variety of tools allow researchers to formulate complex, biologically based queries of the database. A version of the database is also available on CD-ROM (Plasmodium GenePlot), facilitating access to the data in situations where Internet access is difficult (e.g. by malaria researchers working in the field). The goal of PlasmoDB is to enhance utilization of the vast quantities of data emerging from genome-scale projects by the global malaria research community.     

Evaluation of Three Automated Genome Annotations for Halorhabdus utahensis

Genome annotations are accumulating rapidly and depend heavily on automated annotation systems. Many genome centers offer annotation systems but no one has compared their output in a systematic way to determine accuracy and inherent errors. Errors in the annotations are routinely deposited in databases such as NCBI and used to validate subsequent annotation errors. We submitted the genome sequence of halophilic archaeon Halorhabdus utahensis to be analyzed by three genome annotation services. We have examined the output from each service in a variety of ways in order to compare the methodology and effectiveness of the annotations, as well as to explore the genes, pathways, and physiology of the previously unannotated genome. The annotation services differ considerably in gene calls, features, and ease of use. We had to manually identify the origin of replication and the species-specific consensus ribosome-binding site. Additionally, we conducted laboratory experiments to test H. utahensis growth and enzyme activity. Current annotation practices need to improve in order to more accurately reflect a genome''s biological potential. We make specific recommendations that could improve the quality of microbial annotation projects.