Neolithic and Bronze age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome

The Neolithic and Bronze Age transitions were profound cultural shifts catalyzed in parts of Europe by migrations, first of early farmers from the Near East and then Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe. However, a decades-long, unresolved controversy is whether population change or cultural adoption occurred at the Atlantic edge, within the British Isles. We address this issue by using the first whole genome data from prehistoric Irish individuals. A Neolithic woman (3343–3020 cal BC) from a megalithic burial (10.3× coverage) possessed a genome of predominantly Near Eastern origin. She had some hunter–gatherer ancestry but belonged to a population of large effective size, suggesting a substantial influx of early farmers to the island. Three Bronze Age individuals from Rathlin Island (2026–1534 cal BC), including one high coverage (10.5×) genome, showed substantial Steppe genetic heritage indicating that the European population upheavals of the third millennium manifested all of the way from southern Siberia to the western ocean. This turnover invites the possibility of accompanying introduction of Indo-European, perhaps early Celtic, language. Irish Bronze Age haplotypic similarity is strongest within modern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh populations, and several important genetic variants that today show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland appear at this horizon. These include those coding for lactase persistence, blue eye color, Y chromosome R1b haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele; to our knowledge, the first detection of a known Mendelian disease variant in prehistory. These findings together suggest the establishment of central attributes of the Irish genome 4,000 y ago.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Use is Not Associated With Reduced Risk of Barrett’s Esophagus

OBJECTIVES: Regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a reduced risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Epidemiological studies examining the association between NSAID use and the risk of the precursor lesion, Barrett’s esophagus, have been inconclusive.

METHODS: We analyzed pooled individual-level participant data from six case-control studies of Barrett’s esophagus in the Barrett’s and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON). We compared medication use from 1474 patients with Barrett’s esophagus separately with two control groups: 2256 population-based controls and 2018 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) controls. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression models and were combined using a random effects meta-analytic model.

RESULTS: Regular (at least once weekly) use of any NSAIDs was not associated with the risk of Barrett’s esophagus (vs. population-based controls, adjusted OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.76–1.32; I2=61%; vs. GERD controls, adjusted OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.82–1.19; I2=19%). Similar null findings were observed among individuals who took aspirin or non-aspirin NSAIDs. We also found no association with highest levels of frequency (at least daily use) and duration (≥5 years) of NSAID use. There was evidence of moderate between-study heterogeneity; however, associations with NSAID use remained non-significant in “leave-one-out” sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: Use of NSAIDs was not associated with the risk of Barrett’s esophagus. The previously reported inverse association between NSAID use and esophageal adenocarcinoma may be through reducing the risk of neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

Revisiting intersectionality for EU Anti-Discrimination Law in an economic crisis –a critical legal studies perspective

This article discusses the role of EU anti-discrimination law in challenging EU anti-crisis measures from a critical legal studies perspective. Critical legal scholarship is defined through its challenge of ‘lex’ through the vision of ‘ius’ and its critical links with social movements. EU anti-discrimination law attracts critique for constituting a compartmentalised socio-legal field, which prevents justice for those at intersections of inequalities. By defining as the aim of anti-discrimination law the combat of disadvantage resulting from ascribed otherness around the nodes sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and disability, the article suggests a convincing normative vision suitable to de-compartmentalise the field and adequately address intersectionality. This critical legal perspective on intersectionality differs from its sociological counterparts by omitting class as a category. The article demonstrates that this distinction is necessary for EU anti-discrimination law to maintain its critical edge.