Genetic admixture patterns in argentinian patagonia

As in other Latin American populations, Argentinians are the result of the admixture amongst different continental groups, mainly from America and Europe, and to a lesser extent from Sub-Saharan Africa. However, it is known that the admixture processes did not occur homogeneously throughout the country. Therefore, considering the importance for anthropological, medical and forensic researches, this study aimed to investigate the population genetic structure of the Argentinian Patagonia, through the analysis of 46 ancestry informative markers, in 433 individuals from five different localities. Overall, in the Patagonian sample, the average individual ancestry was estimated as 35.8% Native American (95% CI: 32.2–39.4%), 62.1% European (58.5–65.7%) and 2.1% African (1.7–2.4%). Comparing the five localities studied, statistically significant differences were observed for the Native American and European contributions, but not for the African ancestry. The admixture results combined with the genealogical information revealed intra-regional variations that are consistent with the different geographic origin of the participants and their ancestors. As expected, a high European ancestry was observed for donors with four grandparents born in Europe (96.8%) or in the Central region of Argentina (85%). In contrast, the Native American ancestry increased when the four grandparents were born in the North (71%) or in the South (61.9%) regions of the country, or even in Chile (60.5%). In summary, our results showed that differences on continental ancestry contribution have different origins in each region in Patagonia, and even in each locality, highlighting the importance of knowing the origin of the participants and their ancestors for the correct interpretation and contextualization of the genetic information.Finantial support was granted by Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina (ANPCyT; https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ ciencia/agencia; grants ref. MPL PICT 2013-2414, JLL PICT 2014-1558), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil (CNPq; http://www.cnpq.br; grant ref. LG 305330/2016-0)

Research priorities for maintaining biodiversity’s contributions to people in Latin America

Maintaining biodiversity is crucial for ensuring human well-being. The authors participated in a workshop held in Palenque, Mexico, in August 2018, that brought together 30 mostly early-career scientists working in different disciplines (natural, social and economic sciences) with the aim of identifying research priorities for studying the contributions of biodiversity to people and how these contributions might be impacted by environmental change. Five main groups of questions emerged: (1) Enhancing the quantity, quality, and availability of biodiversity data; (2) Integrating different knowledge systems; (3) Improved methods for integrating diverse data; (4) Fundamental questions in ecology and evolution; and (5) Multi-level governance across boundaries. We discuss the need for increased capacity building and investment in research programmes to address these challenges

Research priorities for maintaining biodiversity’s contributions to people in Latin America

Maintaining biodiversity is crucial for ensuring human well-being. We participated in a workshop held in Palenque, Mexico, in August 2018, that brought together thirty mostly early-career scientists working in different disciplines (natural, social and economic sciences) with the aim of identifying research priorities for studying the contributions of biodiversity to people and how these contributions might be impacted by environmental change. Five main groups of questions emerged: (1) Enhancing the quantity, quality, and availability of biodiversity data; (2) Integrating different knowledge systems; (3) Improved methods for integrating diverse data; (4) Fundamental questions in ecology and evolution; and (5) Multi-level governance across boundaries. We discuss the need for increased capacity building and investment in research programs to address these challenges

Hemangioma hepático gigante versus hemangioma hepático convencional: características clínicas, factores de riesgo y manejo

Antecedentes: Los hemangiomas hepáticos gigantes (HHG) son aquellos con un tamaño superior a 4 cm. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue describir los hallazgos clínicos del HHG, sus factores de riesgo, el abordaje diagnóstico y el manejo, y comparar esta información con la del hemangioma convencional. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo del periodo 1990-2008 de pacientes con diagnóstico, sea por imagen o histopatología, de hemangioma hepático atendidos en nuestro hospital. De cada paciente se revisó su expediente para extraer información médica y/o quirúrgica. Resultados: De 57 pacientes con hemangioma hepático, 41 (72%) eran mujeres y 32 (56%) tenían un HHG. La mediana de tamaño fue de 4.49 cm. Con respecto a los HHG, el 31.2% estaban asintomáticos; el síntoma más común fue dolor. Tanto los síntomas como el uso de anticonceptivos orales fueron más comunes en pacientes con HHG. Nueve pacientes con HHC fueron sometidos a cirugía: 2 biopsias abiertas por duda diagnóstica, una enucleación y 6 resecciones. Conclusiones: Los HHG son más prevalentes en mujeres y, cuando son sintomáticos, el dolor es la manifestación más frecuente. El diagnóstico habitualmente se hace por imagen, pero a veces se requiere abordaje quirúrgico por duda diagnóstica. El uso de anticonceptivos orales es probablemente un factor de riesgo de más peso para el HHG que para el hemangioma convencional; esta asociación necesita ser estudiada más a fondo

Genetic Breeding of Prosopis Species from the “Great American Chaco”

Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos VegetalesFil: Lopez Lauenstein, Diego. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos Vegetales; ArgentinaFil: Lopez Lauenstein, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Unidad de Estudios Agropecuarios (UDEA); ArgentinaFil: Teich, Ingrid. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos Vegetales; ArgentinaFil: Teich, Ingrid. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Unidad de Estudios Agropecuarios (UDEA); ArgentinaFil: Carloni, Edgardo José. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos Vegetales; Argentina.Fil: Carloni, Edgardo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Unidad de Estudios Agropecuarios (UDEA); ArgentinaFil: Melchiorre, Mariana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos Vegetales; ArgentinaFil: Melchiorre, Mariana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Unidad de Estudios Agropecuarios (UDEA); ArgentinaFil: Sagadin, Monica Beatriz. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Fisiología y Recursos Genéticos Vegetales; ArgentinaFil: Sagadin, Monica Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Unidad de Estudios Agropecuarios (UDEA); ArgentinaFil: Frassoni, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias; ArgentinaFil: Joseau, Marisa Jacqueline. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias; Argentin

Research priorities for maintaining biodiversitys contributions to people in Latin America

Maintaining biodiversity is crucial for ensuring human well-being. We participated in a workshop held in Palenque, Mexico, in August 2018, that brought together thirty mostly early-career scientists working in different disciplines (natural, social and economic sciences) with the aim of identifying research priorities for studying the contributions of biodiversity to people and how these contributions might be impacted by environmental change. Five main groups of questions emerged: (1) Enhancing the quantity, quality, and availability of biodiversity data; (2) Integrating different knowledge systems; (3) Improved methods for integrating diverse data; (4) Fundamental questions in ecology and evolution; and (5) Multi-level governance across boundaries. We discuss the need for increased capacity building and investment in research programs to address these challenges.</ns7:p