Reproductive and post-reproductive life history of wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster under laboratory conditions.

The life history of the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) is well understood, but fitness components are rarely measured by following single individuals over their lifetime, thereby limiting insights into lifetime reproductive success, reproductive senescence and post-reproductive lifespan. Moreover, most studies have examined long-established laboratory strains rather than freshly caught individuals and may thus be confounded by adaptation to laboratory culture, inbreeding or mutation accumulation. Here, we have followed the life histories of individual females from three recently caught, non-laboratory-adapted wild populations of D. melanogaster. Populations varied in a number of life-history traits, including ovariole number, fecundity, hatchability and lifespan. To describe individual patterns of age-specific fecundity, we developed a new model that allowed us to distinguish four phases during a female's life: a phase of reproductive maturation, followed by a period of linear and then exponential decline in fecundity and, finally, a post-ovipository period. Individual females exhibited clear-cut fecundity peaks, which contrasts with previous analyses, and post-peak levels of fecundity declined independently of how long females lived. Notably, females had a pronounced post-reproductive lifespan, which on average made up 40% of total lifespan. Post-reproductive lifespan did not differ among populations and was not correlated with reproductive fitness components, supporting the hypothesis that this period is a highly variable, random 'add-on' at the end of reproductive life rather than a correlate of selection on reproductive fitness. Most life-history traits were positively correlated, a pattern that might be due to genotype by environment interactions when wild flies are brought into a novel laboratory environment but that is unlikely explained by inbreeding or positive mutational covariance caused by mutation accumulation.

Spare non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis by active contacting and testing of the source person.

OBJECTIVE: HIV-1 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is frequently prescribed after exposure to source persons with an undetermined HIV serostatus. To reduce unnecessary use of PEP, we implemented a policy including active contacting of source persons and the availability of free, anonymous HIV testing ('PEP policy'). METHODS: All consultations for potential non-occupational HIV exposures i.e. outside the medical environment) were prospectively recorded. The impact of the PEP policy on PEP prescription and costs was analysed and modelled. RESULTS: Among 146 putative exposures, 47 involved a source person already known to be HIV positive and 23 had no indication for PEP. The remaining 76 exposures involved a source person of unknown HIV serostatus. Of 33 (43.4%) exposures for which the source person could be contacted and tested, PEP was avoided in 24 (72.7%), initiated and discontinued in seven (21.2%), and prescribed and completed in two (6.1%). In contrast, of 43 (56.6%) exposures for which the source person could not be tested, PEP was prescribed in 35 (81.4%), P < 0.001. Upon modelling, the PEP policy allowed a 31% reduction of cost for management of exposures to source persons of unknown HIV serostatus. The policy was cost-saving for HIV prevalence of up to 70% in the source population. The availability of all the source persons for testing would have reduced cost by 64%. CONCLUSION: In the management of non-occupational HIV exposures, active contacting and free, anonymous testing of source persons proved feasible. This policy resulted in a decrease in prescription of PEP, proved to be cost-saving, and presumably helped to avoid unnecessary toxicity and psychological stress.

Feed the ICU patient 'gastric' first, and go post-pyloric only in case of failure.

In a randomised trial comparing early enteral feeding by gastric and post-pyloric routes, White and colleagues have shown that gastric feeding is possible and efficient in the vast majority of critically ill patients. But the authors' conclusion that gastric is equivalent to post-pyloric is true in only the least severe patients. Given the extra workload and costs, post-pyloric is now clearly indicated in case of gastric feeding failure.