Whole genome expression array profiling highlights differences in mucosal defense genes in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has become a major concern in Western countries due to rapid rises in incidence coupled with very poor survival rates. One of the key risk factors for the development of this cancer is the presence of Barrett's esophagus (BE), which is believed to form in response to repeated gastro-esophageal reflux. In this study we performed comparative, genome-wide expression profiling (using Illumina whole-genome Beadarrays) on total RNA extracted from esophageal biopsy tissues from individuals with EAC, BE (in the absence of EAC) and those with normal squamous epithelium. We combined these data with publically accessible raw data from three similar studies to investigate key gene and ontology differences between these three tissue states. The results support the deduction that BE is a tissue with enhanced glycoprotein synthesis machinery (DPP4, ATP2A3, AGR2) designed to provide strong mucosal defenses aimed at resisting gastro-esophageal reflux. EAC exhibits the enhanced extracellular matrix remodeling (collagens, IGFBP7, PLAU) effects expected in an aggressive form of cancer, as well as evidence of reduced expression of genes associated with mucosal (MUC6, CA2, TFF1) and xenobiotic (AKR1C2, AKR1B10) defenses. When our results are compared to previous whole-genome expression profiling studies keratin, mucin, annexin and trefoil factor gene groups are the most frequently represented differentially expressed gene families. Eleven genes identified here are also represented in at least 3 other profiling studies. We used these genes to discriminate between squamous epithelium, BE and EAC within the two largest cohorts using a support vector machine leave one out cross validation (LOOCV) analysis. While this method was satisfactory for discriminating squamous epithelium and BE, it demonstrates the need for more detailed investigations into profiling changes between BE and EAC.     

Predicting a change in the order of spring phenology in temperate forests

The rise in spring temperatures over the past half‐century has led to advances in the phenology of many nontropical plants and animals. As species and populations differ in their phenological responses to temperature, an increase in temperatures has the potential to alter timing‐dependent species interactions. One species‐interaction that may be affected is the competition for light in deciduous forests, where early vernal species have a narrow window of opportunity for growth before late spring species cast shade. Here we consider the Marsham phenology time series of first leafing dates of thirteen tree species and flowering dates of one ground flora species, which spans two centuries. The exceptional length of this time series permits a rare comparison of the statistical support for parameter‐rich regression and mechanistic thermal sensitivity phenology models. While mechanistic models perform best in the majority of cases, both they and the regression models provide remarkably consistent insights into the relative sensitivity of each species to forcing and chilling effects. All species are sensitive to spring forcing, but we also find that vernal and northern European species are responsive to cold temperatures in the previous autumn. Whether this sensitivity reflects a chilling requirement or a delaying of dormancy remains to be tested. We then apply the models to projected future temperature data under a fossil fuel intensive emissions scenario and predict that while some species will advance substantially others will advance by less and may even be delayed due to a rise in autumn and winter temperatures. Considering the projected responses of all fourteen species, we anticipate a change in the order of spring events, which may lead to changes in competitive advantage for light with potential implications for the composition of temperate forests.     

Regional‐scale dominance of non‐framework building corals on Caribbean reefs affects carbonate production and future reef growth

Coral cover on Caribbean reefs has declined rapidly since the early 1980's. Diseases have been a major driver, decimating communities of framework building Acropora and Orbicella coral species, and reportedly leading to the emergence of novel coral assemblages often dominated by domed and plating species of the genera Agaricia, Porites and Siderastrea. These corals were not historically important Caribbean framework builders, and typically have much smaller stature and lower calcification rates, fuelling concerns over reef carbonate production and growth potential. Using data from 75 reefs from across the Caribbean we quantify: (i) the magnitude of non‐framework building coral dominance throughout the region and (ii) the contribution of these corals to contemporary carbonate production. Our data show that live coral cover averages 18.2% across our sites and coral carbonate production 4.1 kg CaCO₃ m^?2 yr^?1. However, non‐framework building coral species dominate and are major carbonate producers at a high proportion of sites; they are more abundant than Acropora and Orbicella at 73% of sites; contribute an average 68% of the carbonate produced; and produce more than half the carbonate at 79% of sites. Coral cover and carbonate production rate are strongly correlated but, as relative abundance of non‐framework building corals increases, average carbonate production rates decline. Consequently, the use of coral cover as a predictor of carbonate budget status, without species level production rate data, needs to be treated with caution. Our findings provide compelling evidence for the Caribbean‐wide dominance of non‐framework building coral taxa, and that these species are now major regional carbonate producers. However, because these species typically have lower calcification rates, continued transitions to states dominated by non‐framework building coral species will further reduce carbonate production rates below ‘predecline’ levels, resulting in shifts towards negative carbonate budget states and reducing reef growth potential.     

Implications of reef ecosystem change for the stability and maintenance of coral reef islands

Coral reef islands are among the most vulnerable environments on Earth to climate change because they are low lying and largely constructed from unconsolidated sediments that can be readily reworked by waves and currents. These sediments derive entirely from surrounding coral reef and reef flat environments and are thus highly sensitive to ecological transitions that may modify reef community composition and productivity. How such modifications – driven by anthropogenic disturbances and on‐going and projected climatic and environmental change – will impact reef island sediment supply and geomorphic stability remains a critical but poorly resolved question. Here, we review the unique ecological–geomorphological linkages that underpin this question and, using different scenarios of environmental change for which reef sediment production responses can be projected, explore the likely resilience of different island types. In general, sand‐dominated islands are likely to be less resilient than those dominated by rubble grade material. However, because different islands typically have different dominant sediment constituents (usually either coral, benthic foraminifera or Halimeda) and because these respond differently to individual ecological disturbances, island resilience is likely to be highly variable. Islands composed of coral sands are likely to undergo major morphological change under most near‐future ecological change scenarios, while those dominated by Halimeda may be more resilient. Islands composed predominantly of benthic foraminifera (a common state through the Pacific region) are likely to exhibit varying degrees of resilience depending upon the precise combination of ecological disturbances faced. The study demonstrates the critical need for further research bridging the ecological–geomorphological divide to understand: (1) sediment production responses to different ecological and environmental change scenarios; and (2) dependant landform vulnerability.