Identification of field caught Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis by TaqMan single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping

BACKGROUND: Identification of Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis from field-collected Anopheles gambiae s.l. is often necessary in basic and applied research, and in operational control programmes. The currently accepted method involves use of standard polymerase chain reaction amplification of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) from the 3' 28S to 5' intergenic spacer region of the genome, and visual confirmation of amplicons of predicted size on agarose gels, after electrophoresis. This report describes development and evaluation of an automated, quantitative PCR method based upon TaqMan™ single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. METHODS: Standard PCR, and TaqMan SNP genotyping with newly designed primers and fluorophore-labeled probes hybridizing to sequences of complementary rDNA specific for either An. gambiae s.s. or An. arabiensis, were conducted in three experiments involving field-collected An. gambiae s.l. from western Kenya, and defined laboratory strains. DNA extraction was from a single leg, sonicated for five minutes in buffer in wells of 96-well PCR plates. RESULTS: TaqMan SNP genotyping showed a reaction success rate, sensitivity, and species specificity comparable to that of standard PCR. In an extensive field study, only 29 of 3,041 (0.95%) were determined to be hybrids by TaqMan (i.e., having rDNA sequences from both species), however, all but one were An. arabiensis by standard PCR, suggesting an acceptably low (ca. 1%) error rate for TaqMan genotyping in mistakenly identifying species hybrids. CONCLUSION: TaqMan SNP genotyping proved to be a sensitive and rapid method for identification of An. gambiae s.l. and An. arabiensis, with a high success rate, specific results, and congruence with the standard PCR method

Using developmental trajectories to understand developmental disorders

Purpose: In this article, the authors present a tutorial on the use of developmental trajectories for studying language and cognitive impairments in developmental disorders and compare this method with the use of matching. Method: The authors assess the strengths, limitations, and practical implications of each method. The contrast between the methodologies is highlighted using the example of developmental delay and the criteria used to distinguish delay from atypical development. Results: The authors argue for the utility of the trajectory approach, using illustrations from studies investigating language and cognitive impairments in individuals with Williams syndrome, Down syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder. Conclusion: Two conclusions were reached: (a) An understanding of the underlying mechanism will be furthered by the richer descriptive vocabulary provided by the trajectories approach (e.g., in distinguishing different types of delay) and (b) an optimal design for studying developmental disorders is to combine initial cross-sectional designs with longitudinal follow-up