Relationship between foraging rates and A) the number of aggressive interactions (i.e. chases) initiated, and B) the number of avoidances (i.e. retreats) displayed for <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i> and <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i> (species pooled) in predator and no predator treatment.

<p>Line of fit on panel A represents that the slope is significantly different from zero.</p

Sampling design of experiment, with treatment names as they are referred to throughout the text.

<p>PA = <i>Pomacentrus amboinensis</i>, PM = <i>Pomacentrus moluccensis</i>. Numbers refer to fish per replicate tank (e.g. PA2 = 2 PA per tank), PA: PM indicates one individual of each species per replicate tank.</p

Growth (mean cumulative otolith increment width ±1 SE) of A) <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i> and B) <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i> during the experimental period according to predator and competitor treatments.

<p>Paired conspecific treatments (PA2 and PM2) are controls for the paired heterospecific (interspecific competition) treatment (PA1:PM1). PA = <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i>, PM = <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i>. Colours correspond to effect sizes (Cohen’s d values) as follows: orange = predator effects only, green = competitor effects only, blue = both predator and competitor effects. Effect sizes were calculated from day 19 cumulative growth data.</p

A) Foraging rates, and B) activity patterns of <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i> and <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i> in the interspecific competition treatments (PA1: PM1), separated by predator absence (left panels) or presence (right panels).

<p>Asterisks indicate significant differences between species within each predator treatment (t-tests); all bars show means ±1 SE.</p

Mean (±1 SE) agonistic interactions (i.e. chases) initiated by <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i> and <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i> in the interspecific competition treatment (PA1:PM1), separated by predator absence or presence.

<p>Asterisks indicate significant differences between species within each predator treatment (t-tests).</p

Growth (mean cumulative otolith increment width ±1 SE) of A) <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i> and B) <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i> during the experimental period according to competitor treatment, with no predator present.

<p>Paired conspecific treatments (PA2 and PM2) are controls for the paired heterospecific (interspecific competition) treatment (PA1:PM1). PA = <i>P</i>. <i>amboinensis</i>, PM = <i>P</i>. <i>moluccensis</i>.</p

DataSheet2_Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices.pdf

Introduction: The practice of informed consent (IC) for pharmacogenomic testing in clinical settings varies, and there is currently no consensus on which elements of IC to provide to patients. This study aims to assess current IC practices for pharmacogenomic testing.Methods: An online survey was developed and sent to health providers at institutions that offer clinical germline pharmacogenomic testing to assess current IC practices.Results: Forty-six completed surveys representing 43 clinical institutions offering pharmacogenomic testing were received. Thirty-two (74%) respondents obtain IC from patients with variability in elements incorporated. Results revealed that twenty-nine (67%) institutions discuss the benefits, description, and purpose of pharmacogenomic testing with patients. Less commonly discussed elements included methodology and accuracy of testing, and laboratory storage of samples.Discussion: IC practices varied widely among survey respondents. Most respondents desire the establishment of consensus IC recommendations from a trusted pharmacogenomics organization to help address these disparities.</p

DataSheet1_Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices.docx

Introduction: The practice of informed consent (IC) for pharmacogenomic testing in clinical settings varies, and there is currently no consensus on which elements of IC to provide to patients. This study aims to assess current IC practices for pharmacogenomic testing.Methods: An online survey was developed and sent to health providers at institutions that offer clinical germline pharmacogenomic testing to assess current IC practices.Results: Forty-six completed surveys representing 43 clinical institutions offering pharmacogenomic testing were received. Thirty-two (74%) respondents obtain IC from patients with variability in elements incorporated. Results revealed that twenty-nine (67%) institutions discuss the benefits, description, and purpose of pharmacogenomic testing with patients. Less commonly discussed elements included methodology and accuracy of testing, and laboratory storage of samples.Discussion: IC practices varied widely among survey respondents. Most respondents desire the establishment of consensus IC recommendations from a trusted pharmacogenomics organization to help address these disparities.</p