Behavioral profile of adults with Prader-Willi syndrome : correlations with individual and environmental variables

Background: Maladaptive behavior has been reported as a phenotypical feature in Prader–Willi syndrome (PWS). It severely limits social adaptation and the quality of life of children and adults with the syndrome. Different factors have been linked with the intensity and form of these behavioral disturbances but there is no consensus about the cause. Consequently, there is still controversy regarding management strategies and there is a need for new data. Methods: The behavior of 100 adults with PWS attending a dedicated center was assessed using the Developmental Behavior Checklist for Adults (DBC-A) and the PWS-specific Hyperphagia Questionnaire. The DBC-A was completed separately by trained caregivers at the center and relatives or caregivers in a natural setting. Genotype, gender, age, degree of obesity and cognitive impairment were analyzed as variables with a hypothetical influence on behavioral features. Results: Patients showed a relatively high rate of behavioral disturbances other than hyperphagia. Disruptive and social relating were the highest scoring DBC-A subscales whereas anxiety/antisocial and self-absorbed were the lowest. When hospital caregiver and natural caregiver scores were compared, scores for the latter were higher for all subscales except for disruptive and anxiety/antisocial. These effects of institutional management were underlined. In the DBC-A, 22 items have descriptive indications of PWS behavior and were used for further comparisons and correlation analysis. In contrast to previous reports, rates of disturbed behavior were lower in patients with a deletion genotype. However, the behavioral profile was similar for both genotypes. No differences were found in any measurement when comparing type I and type II deletions. The other analyzed variables showed little relevance. Conclusions: Significant rates of behavioral disorders were highlighted and their typology described in a large cohort of adults with PWS. The deletion genotype was related to a lower severity of symptoms. Some major behavioral problems, such as hyperphagia, may be well controlled if living circumstances are adapted to the specific requirements of individuals with PWS.

Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Volume 1- Pinnipeds: Under Project V.6. Marine Mammals, of the US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection

Some 25 to 30 yr ago, when we as students were beginning our respective careers and were developing for the first time our awareness of marine mammals in the waters separating western North America from eastern Asia, we had visions of eventually bridging the communication gap which existed between our two countries at that time. Each of us was anxious to obtain information on the distribution, biology, and ecological relations of "our" seals and walruses on "the other side," beyond our respective political boundari~s where we were not permitted to go to study them. We were concerned that the resource management practices on the other side of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, implemented in isolation, on a purely unilateral basis, might endanger the species which we had come to know and were striving to conserve. At once apparent to both of us was the need for free exchange of biological information between our two countries and, ultimately, joint management of our shared resources. In a small way, we and others made some initial efforts to generate that exchange by personal correspondence and through vocal interchange at the annual meetings of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. By the enabling Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection, reached between our two countries in 1972, our earlier visions at last came true. Since that time, within the framework of the Marine Mammal Project under Area V of that Agreement, we and our colleagues have forged a strong bond of professional accord and respect, in an atmosphere of free intercommunication and mutual understanding. The strength and utility of this arrangement from the beginning of our joint research are reflected in the reports contained in this, the first compendium of our work. The need for a series of such a compendia became apparent to us in 1976, and its implementation was agreed on by the regular meeting of the Project in La Jolla, Calif., in January 1977. Obviously, the preparation and publication of this first volume has been excessively delayed, in part by continuing political distrust between our governments but mainly by increasing demands placed on the time of the contributors. In this period of growing environmental concern in both countries, we and our colleagues have been totally immersed in other tasks and have experienced great difficulty in drawing together the works presented here. Much of the support for doing so was provided by the State of Alaska, through funding for Organized Research at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. For its ultimate completion in publishable form we wish to thank Helen Stockholm, Director of Publications, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, and her staff, especially Ruth Hand, and the numerous referees narned herein who gave willingly oftheir time to review each ofthe manuscripts critically and to provide a high measure of professionalism to the final product. (PDF file contains 110 pages.)

Management of environmental issues for sustainable fisheries production from aquaculture in Nigeria

Aquaculture depends largely upon a good aquatic environment. The quality of the aquatic medium determines success to a large extent in aquaculture. The medium is particularly vulnerable to excessive abstraction (i.e surface or groundwater) and contamination from a range of sources (industrial, agricultural or domestic) as well as risks of self-pollution. Environmental management options proffered so far include: improvements in farming performance (especially related to feed and feeding strategies, stocking densities, water quality management, disease prevention and control, use of chemicals, etc.) and in the selection of sites and culturable species, treatment of effluents, sensitivity of recipient waters and enforcement of environmental regulations and guidelines specific to the culture system. There are presently conceptual frameworks for aquatic environment management backed by legal administrative tools to create or enforce rational system for water management, fisheries and aquaculture development strengthened by adaptive institutionalisation