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.

Dosimetric Evaluation of Metal Artefact Reduction using Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) Algorithm and Dual-energy Computed Tomography (CT) Method

Purpose: Computed Tomography (CT) is one of the standard diagnostic imaging modalities for the evaluation of a patient’s medical condition. In comparison to other imaging modalities such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), CT is a fast acquisition imaging device with higher spatial resolution and higher contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for bony structures. CT images are presented through a gray scale of independent values in Hounsfield units (HU). High HU-valued materials represent higher density. High density materials, such as metal, tend to erroneously increase the HU values around it due to reconstruction software limitations. This problem of increased HU values due to metal presence is referred to as metal artefacts. Hip prostheses, dental fillings, aneurysm clips, and spinal clips are a few examples of metal objects that are of clinical relevance. These implants create artefacts such as beam hardening and photon starvation that distort CT images and degrade image quality. This is of great significance because the distortions may cause improper evaluation of images and inaccurate dose calculation in the treatment planning system. Different algorithms are being developed to reduce these artefacts for better image quality for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, very limited information is available about the effect of artefact correction on dose calculation accuracy. This research study evaluates the dosimetric effect of metal artefact reduction algorithms on severe artefacts on CT images. This study uses Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI)-based MAR algorithm, projection-based Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) algorithm, and the Dual-Energy method.

Materials and Methods: The Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI)-based and SMART Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) algorithms are metal artefact reduction protocols embedded in two different CT scanner models by General Electric (GE), and the Dual-Energy Imaging Method was developed at Duke University. All three approaches were applied in this research for dosimetric evaluation on CT images with severe metal artefacts. The first part of the research used a water phantom with four iodine syringes. Two sets of plans, multi-arc plans and single-arc plans, using the Volumetric Modulated Arc therapy (VMAT) technique were designed to avoid or minimize influences from high-density objects. The second part of the research used projection-based MAR Algorithm and the Dual-Energy Method. Calculated Doses (Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Doses) to the planning treatment volume (PTV) were compared and homogeneity index (HI) calculated.

Results: (1) Without the GSI-based MAR application, a percent error between mean dose and the absolute dose ranging from 3.4-5.7% per fraction was observed. In contrast, the error was decreased to a range of 0.09-2.3% per fraction with the GSI-based MAR algorithm. There was a percent difference ranging from 1.7-4.2% per fraction between with and without using the GSI-based MAR algorithm. (2) A range of 0.1-3.2% difference was observed for the maximum dose values, 1.5-10.4% for minimum dose difference, and 1.4-1.7% difference on the mean doses. Homogeneity indexes (HI) ranging from 0.068-0.065 for dual-energy method and 0.063-0.141 with projection-based MAR algorithm were also calculated.

Conclusion: (1) Percent error without using the GSI-based MAR algorithm may deviate as high as 5.7%. This error invalidates the goal of Radiation Therapy to provide a more precise treatment. Thus, GSI-based MAR algorithm was desirable due to its better dose calculation accuracy. (2) Based on direct numerical observation, there was no apparent deviation between the mean doses of different techniques but deviation was evident on the maximum and minimum doses. The HI for the dual-energy method almost achieved the desirable null values. In conclusion, the Dual-Energy method gave better dose calculation accuracy to the planning treatment volume (PTV) for images with metal artefacts than with or without GE MAR Algorithm.