Phylogenomics Controlling for Base Compositional Bias Reveals a Single Origin of Eusociality in Corbiculate Bees.

As increasingly large molecular data sets are collected for phylogenomics, the conflicting phylogenetic signal among gene trees poses challenges to resolve some difficult nodes of the Tree of Life. Among these nodes, the phylogenetic position of the honey bees (Apini) within the corbiculate bee group remains controversial, despite its considerable importance for understanding the emergence and maintenance of eusociality. Here, we show that this controversy stems in part from pervasive phylogenetic conflicts among GC-rich gene trees. GC-rich genes typically have a high nucleotidic heterogeneity among species, which can induce topological conflicts among gene trees. When retaining only the most GC-homogeneous genes or using a nonhomogeneous model of sequence evolution, our analyses reveal a monophyletic group of the three lineages with a eusocial lifestyle (honey bees, bumble bees, and stingless bees). These phylogenetic relationships strongly suggest a single origin of eusociality in the corbiculate bees, with no reversal to solitary living in this group. To accurately reconstruct other important evolutionary steps across the Tree of Life, we suggest removing GC-rich and GC-heterogeneous genes from large phylogenomic data sets. Interpreted as a consequence of genome-wide variations in recombination rates, this GC effect can affect all taxa featuring GC-biased gene conversion, which is common in eukaryotes.

Intervals between response choices on a single-item measure of quality of life.

BACKGROUND: A single overall rating of quality of life (QoL) is a sensitive method that is often used in population surveys. However, the exact meaning of response choices is unclear. In particular, uneven spacing may affect the way QoL ratings should be analyzed and interpreted. This study aimed to determine the intervals between response choices to a single-item QoL assessment. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on data from the Lc65+ cohort study and two additional, population-based, stratified random samples of older people (N = 5,300). Overall QoL was rated as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. A QoL score (range 0-100) was derived from participants' answers to a 28-item QoL assessment tool. A transformed QoL score ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) was calculated. The same procedure was repeated to compute seven domain-specific QoL subscores (Feeling of safety; Health and mobility; Autonomy; Close entourage; Material resources; Esteem and recognition; Social and cultural life). RESULTS: Mean (95 % confidence intervals) QoL scores were 96.23 (95.81-96.65) for excellent, 93.09 (92.74-93.45) for very good, 81.45 (80.63-82.27) for good, 65.44 (62.67-68.20) for fair and 54.52 (45.31-63.73) for poor overall QoL, corresponding to transformed QoL scores of respectively 5.00, 4.70, 3.58, 2.05, and 1.00. Ordinality of the categories excellent to poor was preserved in all seven QoL subscores. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent-to-poor rating scale provides an ordinal measure of overall QoL. The intervals between response choices are unequal, but an interval scale can be obtained after adequate recoding of excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections. METHODS: 20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines. RESULTS: Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.