Genetic evaluation of a proposed introduction: the case of the greater prairie chicken and the extinct heath hen.

Population introduction is an important tool for ecosystem restoration. However, before introductions should be conducted, it is important to evaluate the genetic, phenotypic and ecological suitability of possible replacement populations. Careful genetic analysis is particularly important if it is suspected that the extirpated population was unique or genetically divergent. On the island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, the introduction of greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) to replace the extinct heath hen (T. cupido cupido) is being considered as part of an ecosystem restoration project. Martha's Vineyard was home to the last remaining heath hen population until its extinction in 1932. We conducted this study to aid in determining the suitability of greater prairie chickens as a possible replacement for the heath hen. We examined mitochondrial control region sequences from extant populations of all prairie grouse species (Tympanuchus) and from museum skin heath hen specimens. Our data suggest that the Martha's Vineyard heath hen population represents a divergent mitochondrial lineage. This result is attributable either to a long period of geographical isolation from other prairie grouse populations or to a population bottleneck resulting from human disturbance. The mtDNA diagnosability of the heath hen contrasts with the network of mtDNA haplotypes of other prairie grouse (T. cupido attwateri, T. pallidicinctus and T. phasianellus), which do not form distinguishable mtDNA groupings. Our findings suggest that the Martha's Vineyard heath hen was more genetically isolated than are current populations of prairie grouse and place the emphasis for future research on examining prairie grouse adaptations to different habitat types to assess ecological exchangeability between heath hens and greater prairie chickens.

Phylotastic! Making tree-of-life knowledge accessible, reusable and convenient.

BACKGROUND: Scientists rarely reuse expert knowledge of phylogeny, in spite of years of effort to assemble a great "Tree of Life" (ToL). A notable exception involves the use of Phylomatic, which provides tools to generate custom phylogenies from a large, pre-computed, expert phylogeny of plant taxa. This suggests great potential for a more generalized system that, starting with a query consisting of a list of any known species, would rectify non-standard names, identify expert phylogenies containing the implicated taxa, prune away unneeded parts, and supply branch lengths and annotations, resulting in a custom phylogeny suited to the user's needs. Such a system could become a sustainable community resource if implemented as a distributed system of loosely coupled parts that interact through clearly defined interfaces. RESULTS: With the aim of building such a "phylotastic" system, the NESCent Hackathons, Interoperability, Phylogenies (HIP) working group recruited 2 dozen scientist-programmers to a weeklong programming hackathon in June 2012. During the hackathon (and a three-month follow-up period), 5 teams produced designs, implementations, documentation, presentations, and tests including: (1) a generalized scheme for integrating components; (2) proof-of-concept pruners and controllers; (3) a meta-API for taxonomic name resolution services; (4) a system for storing, finding, and retrieving phylogenies using semantic web technologies for data exchange, storage, and querying; (5) an innovative new service, DateLife.org, which synthesizes pre-computed, time-calibrated phylogenies to assign ages to nodes; and (6) demonstration projects. These outcomes are accessible via a public code repository (GitHub.com), a website (http://www.phylotastic.org), and a server image. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 9 person-months of effort (centered on a software development hackathon) resulted in the design and implementation of proof-of-concept software for 4 core phylotastic components, 3 controllers, and 3 end-user demonstration tools. While these products have substantial limitations, they suggest considerable potential for a distributed system that makes phylogenetic knowledge readily accessible in computable form. Widespread use of phylotastic systems will create an electronic marketplace for sharing phylogenetic knowledge that will spur innovation in other areas of the ToL enterprise, such as annotation of sources and methods and third-party methods of quality assessment.

Psychiatric correlates of snuff and chewing tobacco use.

Compared to the association between cigarette smoking and psychiatric disorders, relatively little is known about the relationship between smokeless tobacco use and psychiatric disorders. To identify the psychiatric correlates of smokeless tobacco use, the analysis used a national representative sample from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave 1. Smokeless tobacco use was classified as exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both snuff and chewing tobacco at some time in the smokeless tobacco user's life. Lifetime psychiatric disorders were obtained via structured diagnostic interviews. The results show that the prevalence of lifetime exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both snuff and chewing tobacco was 2.16%, 2.52%, and 2.79%, respectively. After controlling for sociodemographic variables and cigarette smoking, the odds of exclusive chewing tobacco in persons with panic disorder and specific phobia were 1.53 and 1.41 times the odds in persons without those disorders, respectively. The odds of exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both products for individuals with alcohol use disorder were 1.97, 2.01, and 2.99 times the odds for those without alcohol use disorder, respectively. Respondents with cannabis use disorder were 1.44 times more likely to use snuff exclusively than those without cannabis use disorder. Respondents with inhalant/solvent use disorder were associated with 3.33 times the odds of exclusive chewing tobacco. In conclusion, this study highlights the specific links of anxiety disorder, alcohol, cannabis, and inhalant/solvent use disorders with different types of smokeless tobacco use.