Breeding value estimation with incomplete marker data

International audienc

Bayesian estimation of dispersion parameters with a reduced animal model including polygenic and QTL effects

International audienc

Estimation in a multiplicative mixed model involving a genetic relationship matrix

Genetic models partitioning additive and non-additive genetic effects for populations tested in replicated multi-environment trials (METs) in a plant breeding program have recently been presented in the literature. For these data, the variance model involves the direct product of a large numerator relationship matrix A, and a complex structure for the genotype by environment interaction effects, generally of a factor analytic (FA) form. With MET data, we expect a high correlation in genotype rankings between environments, leading to non-positive definite covariance matrices. Estimation methods for reduced rank models have been derived for the FA formulation with independent genotypes, and we employ these estimation methods for the more complex case involving the numerator relationship matrix. We examine the performance of differing genetic models for MET data with an embedded pedigree structure, and consider the magnitude of the non-additive variance. The capacity of existing software packages to fit these complex models is largely due to the use of the sparse matrix methodology and the average information algorithm. Here, we present an extension to the standard formulation necessary for estimation with a factor analytic structure across multiple environments

Prognostic implications of p16 and HPV discordance in oropharyngeal cancer (HNCIG-EPIC-OPC): a multicentre, multinational, individual patient data analysis

Background p16(INK4a) (p16) immunohistochemistry is the most widely used biomarker assay for inferring HPV causation in oropharyngeal cancer in clinical and trial settings. However, discordance exists between p16 and HPV DNA or RNA status in some patients with oropharyngeal cancer. We aimed to clearly quantify the extent of discordance, and its prognostic implications. Methods In this multicentre, multinational individual patient data analysis, we did a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane database for systematic reviews and original studies published in English between Jan 1, 1970, and Sept 30, 2022. We included retrospective series and prospective cohorts of consecutively recruited patients previously analysed in individual studies with minimum cohort size of 100 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Patient inclusion criteria were diagnosis with a primary squamous cell carcinoma of oropharyngeal cancer; data on p16 immunohistochemistry and on HPV testing; information on age, sex, tobacco, and alcohol use; staging by TNM 7th edition; information on treatments received; and data on clinical outcomes and follow-up (date of last follow-up if alive, date of recurrence or metastasis, and date and cause of death). There were no limits on age or performance status. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients of the overall cohort who showed the different p16 and HPV result combinations, as well as 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. Patients with recurrent or metastatic disease or who were treated palliatively were excluded from overall survival and disease-free survival analyses. Multivariable analysis models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for different p16 and HPV testing methods for overall survival, adjusted for prespecified confounding factors. Findings Our search returned 13 eligible studies that provided individual data for 13 cohorts of patients with oropharyngeal cancer from the UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain. 7895 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were assessed for eligibility. 241 were excluded before analysis, and 7654 were eligible for p16 and HPV analysis. 5714 (74middot7%) of 7654 patients were male and 1940 (25middot3%) were female. Ethnicity data were not reported. 3805 patients were p16-positive, 415 (10middot9%) of whom were HPV-negative. This proportion differed significantly by geographical region and was highest in the areas with lowest HPV-attributable fractions (r=-0middot744, p=0middot0035). The proportion of patients with p16+/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer was highest in subsites outside the tonsil and base of tongue (29middot7% vs 9middot0%, p<0middot0001). 5-year overall survival was 81middot1% (95% CI 79middot5-82middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 40middot4% (38middot6-42middot4) for p16-/HPV-, 53middot2% (46middot6-60middot8) for p16-/HPV+, and 54middot7% (49middot2-60middot9) for p16+/HPV-. 5-year disease-free survival was 84middot3% (95% CI 82middot9-85middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 60middot8% (58middot8-62middot9) for p16-/HPV-; 71middot1% (64middot7-78middot2) for p16-/HPV+, and 67middot9% (62middot5-73middot7) for p16+/HPV-. Results were similar across all European sub-regions, but there were insufficient numbers of discordant patients from North America to draw conclusions in this cohort. Interpretation Patients with discordant oropharyngeal cancer (p16-/HPV+ or p16+/HPV-) had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with p16+/HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer, and a significantly better prognosis than patients with p16-/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer. Along with routine p16 immunohistochemistry, HPV testing should be mandated for clinical trials for all patients (or at least following a positive p16 test), and is recommended where HPV status might influence patient care, especially in areas with low HPV-attributable fractions. Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Data availability: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.Supplementary information is available online at https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06406-9/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6406_MOESM1_ESM.docx . The Supplementary Information includes three parts. Part A explains how the paper is associated with the IPBES Values Assessment. Part B provides details about each of the 29 review protocols. Part C offers information about the case study of Chilika Lagoon, India, that is used in the main paper.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Values Assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions, including non-earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments. All donors are listed on the IPBES website www.ipbes.net/donors. U.P. acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023–2026 (reference no. CEX2021-001201-M) provided by grant no. MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033