Testing the effects of genetic crossing distance on embryo survival within a metapopulation of brown trout (Salmo trutta)

Predicting progeny performance from parental genetic divergence can potentially enhance the efficiency of supportive breeding programmes and facilitate risk assessment. Yet, experimental testing of the effects of breeding distance on offspring performance remains rare, especially in wild populations of vertebrates. Recent studies have demonstrated that embryos of salmonid fish are sensitive indicators of additive genetic variance for viability traits. We therefore used gametes of wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) from five genetically distinct populations of a river catchment in Switzerland, and used a full factorial design to produce over 2,000 embryos in 100 different crosses with varying genetic distances (FST range 0.005-0.035). Customized egg capsules allowed recording the survival of individual embryos until hatching under natural field conditions. Our breeding design enabled us to evaluate the role of the environment, of genetic and nongenetic parental contributions, and of interactions between these factors, on embryo viability. We found that embryo survival was strongly affected by maternal environmental (i.e. non-genetic) effects and by the microenvironment, i.e. by the location within the gravel. However, embryo survival was not predicted by population divergence, parental allelic dissimilarity, or heterozygosity, neither in the field nor under laboratory conditions. Our findings suggest that the genetic effects of inter-population hybridization within a genetically differentiated meta-population can be minor in comparison to environmental effects.

Patients' understanding of blood tests and attitudes to HIV screening in the emergency department of a Swiss teaching hospital: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, patients may undergo "blood tests" without being informed what these are screening for. Inadequate doctor-patient communication may result in patient misunderstanding. We examined what patients in the emergency department (ED) believed they had been screened for and explored their attitudes to routine (non-targeted) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening. METHODS: Between 1st October 2012 and 28th February 2013, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted among patients aged 16-70 years old presenting to the ED of Lausanne University Hospital. Patients were asked: (1) if they believed they had been screened for HIV; (2) if they agreed in principle to routine HIV screening and (3) if they agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. RESULTS: Of 466 eligible patients, 411 (88%) agreed to participate. Mean age was 46 ± 16 years; 192 patients (47%) were women; 366 (89%) were Swiss or European; 113 (27%) believed they had been screened for HIV, the proportion increasing with age (p ≤0.01), 297 (72%) agreed in principle with routine HIV testing in the ED, and 138 patients (34%) agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. CONCLUSION: In this ED population, 27% believed incorrectly they had been screened for HIV. Over 70% agreed in principle with routine HIV testing and 34% agreed to be tested during their current visit. These results demonstrate willingness among patients concerning routine HIV testing in the ED and highlight a need for improved doctor-patient communication about what a blood test specifically screens for.