Monitoring Butterfly Abundance: Beyond Pollard Walks

Most butterfly monitoring protocols rely on counts along transects (Pollard walks) to generate species abundance indices and track population trends. It is still too often ignored that a population count results from two processes: the biological process (true abundance) and the statistical process (our ability to properly quantify abundance). Because individual detectability tends to vary in space (e.g., among sites) and time (e.g., among years), it remains unclear whether index counts truly reflect population sizes and trends. This study compares capture-mark-recapture (absolute abundance) and count-index (relative abundance) monitoring methods in three species (Maculinea nausithous and Iolana iolas: Lycaenidae; Minois dryas: Satyridae) in contrasted habitat types. We demonstrate that intraspecific variability in individual detectability under standard monitoring conditions is probably the rule rather than the exception, which questions the reliability of count-based indices to estimate and compare specific population abundance. Our results suggest that the accuracy of count-based methods depends heavily on the ecology and behavior of the target species, as well as on the type of habitat in which surveys take place. Monitoring programs designed to assess the abundance and trends in butterfly populations should incorporate a measure of detectability. We discuss the relative advantages and inconveniences of current monitoring methods and analytical approaches with respect to the characteristics of the species under scrutiny and resources availability.

An immunohistochemical procedure to detect patients with paraganglioma and phaeochromocytoma with germline SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD gene mutations: a retrospective and prospective analysis

BACKGROUND: Phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas are neuro-endocrine tumours that occur sporadically and in several hereditary tumour syndromes, including the phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. This syndrome is caused by germline mutations in succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB), C (SDHC), or D (SDHD) genes. Clinically, the phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome is often unrecognised, although 10-30% of apparently sporadic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas harbour germline SDH-gene mutations. Despite these figures, the screening of phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas for mutations in the SDH genes to detect phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome is rarely done because of time and financial constraints. We investigated whether SDHB immunohistochemistry could effectively discriminate between SDH-related and non-SDH-related phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas in large retrospective and prospective tumour series. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry for SDHB was done on 220 tumours. Two retrospective series of 175 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with known germline mutation status for phaeochromocytoma-susceptibility or paraganglioma-susceptibility genes were investigated. Additionally, a prospective series of 45 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas was investigated for SDHB immunostaining followed by SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD mutation testing. FINDINGS: SDHB protein expression was absent in all 102 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with an SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD mutation, but was present in all 65 paraganglionic tumours related to multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, von Hippel-Lindau disease, and neurofibromatosis type 1. 47 (89%) of the 53 phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas with no syndromic germline mutation showed SDHB expression. The sensitivity and specificity of the SDHB immunohistochemistry to detect the presence of an SDH mutation in the prospective series were 100% (95% CI 87-100) and 84% (60-97), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome can be diagnosed reliably by an immunohistochemical procedure. SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD germline mutation testing is indicated only in patients with SDHB-negative tumours. SDHB immunohistochemistry on phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas could improve the diagnosis of phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Dutch Cancer Society, Vanderes Foundation, Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, and a PHRC grant COMETE 3 for the COMETE network.