Epigenetic modelling

The field of epigenetics looks at changes in the chromosomal structure that affect gene expression without altering DNA sequence. A large-scale modelling project to better understand these mechanisms is gaining momentum. Early advances in genetics led to the all-genetic paradigm: phenotype (an organism's characteristics/behaviour) is determined by genotype (its genetic make-up). This was later amended and expressed by the well-known formula P = G + E, encompassing the notion that the visible characteristics of a living organism (the phenotype, P) is a combination of hereditary genetic factors (the genotype, G) and environmental factors (E). However, this method fails to explain why in diseases such as schizophrenia we still observe differences between identical twins. Furthermore, the identification of environmental factors (such as smoking and air quality for lung cancer) is relatively rare. The formula also fails to explain cell differentiation from a single fertilized cell. In the wake of early work by Waddington, more recent results have emphasized that the expression of the genotype can be altered without any change in the DNA sequence. This phenomenon has been tagged as epigenetics. To form the chromosome, DNA strands roll over nucleosomes, which are a cluster of nine proteins (histones), as detailed in Figure 1. Epigenetic mechanisms involve inherited alterations in these two structures, eg through attachment of a functional group to the amino acids (methyl, acetyl and phosphate). These 'stable alterations' arise during development and cell proliferation and persist through cell division. While information within the genetic material is not changed, instructions for its assembly and interpretation may be. Modelling this new paradigm, P = G + E + EpiG, is the object of our study.

Errors in the knee joint forces and moments during gait depending on the foot and knee prosthetic components

Background Previously studies showed that inverse dynamics based on motion analysis and force-plate is inaccurate compared to direct measurements for individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA). Indeed, direct measurements can appropriately take into account the absorption at the prosthetic foot and the resistance at the prosthetic knee. [1-3] However, these studies involved only a passive prosthetic knee. Aim The objective of the present study was to investigate if different types of prosthetic feet and knees can exhibit different levels of error in the knee joint forces and moments. Method Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 9 TFAs (7 males and 2 females, 47±9 years old, 1.76±0.1 m 79±17 kg) with a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden), force plates (Kitsler, Winterthur, Switzerland) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee [1-17]. TFAs were all fitted with an osseointegrated implant system. The prostheses included different type of foot (N=5) and knee (N=3) components. The root mean square errors (RMSE) between direct measurements and the knee joint forces and moments estimated by inverse dynamics were computed for stance and swing phases of gait and expressed as a percentage of the measured amplitudes. A one-way Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was performed (Statgraphics, Levallois-Perret, France) to analyse the effects of the prosthetic components on the RMSEs. Cross-effects and post-hoc tests were not analysed in this study. Results A significant effect (*) was found for the type of prosthetic foot on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.016), lateral-medial force during stance (p=0.009), adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.038), internal-external rotation moment during stance (p=0.014) and during swing (p=0.006), and flexion-extension moment during stance (p = 0.035). A significant effect (#) was found for the type of prosthetic knee on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.018) and adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.035). Discussion & Conclusion The RMSEs were larger during swing than during stance. It is because the errors on accelerations (as derived from motion analysis) become substantial with respect to the external loads. Thus, inverse dynamics during swing should be analysed with caution because the mean RMSEs are close to 50%. Conversely, there were fewer effects of the prosthetic components on RMSE during swing than during stance and, accordingly, fewer effects due to knees than feet. Thus, inverse dynamics during stance should be used with caution for comparison of different prosthetic components.

Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia: Final report

FRDC project 2008/306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia was developed and approved in response to the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of incorporating economic considerations into marine management in Australia and of the persistent undersupply of suitably trained and qualified individuals capable of providing this input. The need to address this shortfall received broad based support and following widespread stakeholder consultation and building on previous unsuccessful State-based initiatives, a collaborative, cross-jurisdictional cross-institutional capability building model was developed. The resulting project sits within the People Development Program as part of FRDC’s ‘investment in RD&E to develop the capabilities of the people to whom the industry entrusts its future’, and has addressed its objectives largely through three core activities: 1. The Fisheries Economics Graduate Research Training Program which provides research training in fisheries/marine economics through enrolment in postgraduate higher degree studies at the three participating Universities; 2. The Fisheries Economics Professional Training Program which aims to improve the economic literacy of non-economist marine sector stakeholders and was implemented in collaboration with the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre through the Future Harvest Masterclass in Fisheries Economics; and, 3. The Australian Fisheries Economics Network (FishEcon) which aims to strengthen research in the area of fisheries economics by creating a forum in which fisheries economists, fisheries managers and Ph.D. students can share research ideas and results, as well as news of upcoming research opportunities and events. These activities were undertaken by a core Project team, comprising economic researchers and teachers from each of the four participating institutions (namely the University of Tasmania, the University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), spanning three States and the Commonwealth. The Project team reported to and was guided by a project Steering Committee. Commensurate with the long term nature of the project objectives and some of its activities the project was extended (without additional resources) in 2012 to 30th June 2015.