Sugarcane (Saccharum X officinarum): A Reference Study for the Regulation of Genetically Modified Cultivars in Brazil

Global interest in sugarcane has increased significantly in recent years due to its economic impact on sustainable energy production. Sugarcane breeding and better agronomic practices have contributed to a huge increase in sugarcane yield in the last 30 years. Additional increases in sugarcane yield are expected to result from the use of biotechnology tools in the near future. Genetically modified (GM) sugarcane that incorporates genes to increase resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses could play a major role in achieving this goal. However, to bring GM sugarcane to the market, it is necessary to follow a regulatory process that will evaluate the environmental and health impacts of this crop. The regulatory review process is usually accomplished through a comparison of the biology and composition of the GM cultivar and a non-GM counterpart. This review intends to provide information on non-GM sugarcane biology, genetics, breeding, agronomic management, processing, products and byproducts, as well as the current technologies used to develop GM sugarcane, with the aim of assisting regulators in the decision-making process regarding the commercial release of GM sugarcane cultivars

Establishment and cryptic transmission of Zika virus in Brazil and the Americas

University of Oxford. Department of Zoology, Oxford, UK / Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.University of Birmingham. Institute of Microbiology and Infection. Birmingham, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK / Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA, USA / Boston Children's Hospital. Boston, MA, USA.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Epidemiology. Seattle, WA, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.University of Oxford. Department of Statistics. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Institut Pasteur. Biostatistics and Integrative Biology. Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases and Center of Bioinformatics. Paris, FR / Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris, FR.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Ministry of Health. Coordenação dos Laboratórios de Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral de Vigilância e Resposta às Emergências em Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Center of Data and Knowledge Integration for Health. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Brasilia, DF, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Buenos Aires, AR.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, BrazilMinistry of Health. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Brasilia, DF, Brazil.Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Toronto, ON, Canada.University of Nottingham. Nottingham, UKThe Scripps Research Institute. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science. La Jolla, CA, USA.The Scripps Research Institute. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science. La Jolla, CA, USA.University of California. Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine & Infectious Diseases. San Francisco, CA, USA.University of California. Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine & Infectious Diseases. San Francisco, CA, USA.Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. División de Laboratorios de Vigilancia e Investigación Epidemiológica. Ciudad de México, MC.Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. División de Laboratorios de Vigilancia e Investigación Epidemiológica. Ciudad de México, MC.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Biotecnología. Cuernavaca, MC.Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. Langen, Germany.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil / Universidade Potiguar. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil / Faculdade Natalense de Ensino e Cultura. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil / Colorado State University. Department of Microbiology, Immunology &Pathology. Fort Collins, CO, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Heidelberg University Hospital. Department for Infectious Diseases. Section Clinical Tropical Medicine. Heidelberg, Germany.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Amazonas. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Hospital São Francisco. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Tocantins. Palmas, TO, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of Sydney. Sydney, Australia.University of Edinburgh. Institute of Evolutionary Biology. Edinburgh, UK / National Institutes of Health. Fogarty International Center. Bethesda, MD, USA.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division. Seattle, WA, USA.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil / University of Texas Medical Branch. Department of Pathology. Galveston, TX, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.University of Birmingham. Institute of Microbiology and Infection. Birmingham, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology, Oxford, UK / Metabiota. San Francisco, CA, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil / University of Rome Tor Vergata. Rome, Italy.Transmission of Zika virus (ZIKV) in the Americas was first confirmed in May 2015 in northeast Brazil. Brazil has had the highest number of reported ZIKV cases worldwide (more than 200,000 by 24 December 2016) and the most cases associated with microcephaly and other birth defects (2,366 confirmed by 31 December 2016). Since the initial detection of ZIKV in Brazil, more than 45 countries in the Americas have reported local ZIKV transmission, with 24 of these reporting severe ZIKV-associated disease. However, the origin and epidemic history of ZIKV in Brazil and the Americas remain poorly understood, despite the value of this information for interpreting observed trends in reported microcephaly. Here we address this issue by generating 54 complete or partial ZIKV genomes, mostly from Brazil, and reporting data generated by a mobile genomics laboratory that travelled across northeast Brazil in 2016. One sequence represents the earliest confirmed ZIKV infection in Brazil. Analyses of viral genomes with ecological and epidemiological data yield an estimate that ZIKV was present in northeast Brazil by February 2014 and is likely to have disseminated from there, nationally and internationally, before the first detection of ZIKV in the Americas. Estimated dates for the international spread of ZIKV from Brazil indicate the duration of pre-detection cryptic transmission in recipient regions. The role of northeast Brazil in the establishment of ZIKV in the Americas is further supported by geographic analysis of ZIKV transmission potential and by estimates of the basic reproduction number of the virus

NEOTROPICAL ALIEN MAMMALS: a data set of occurrence and abundance of alien mammals in the Neotropics

Biological invasion is one of the main threats to native biodiversity. For a species to become invasive, it must be voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by humans into a nonnative habitat. Mammals were among first taxa to be introduced worldwide for game, meat, and labor, yet the number of species introduced in the Neotropics remains unknown. In this data set, we make available occurrence and abundance data on mammal species that (1) transposed a geographical barrier and (2) were voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by humans into the Neotropics. Our data set is composed of 73,738 historical and current georeferenced records on alien mammal species of which around 96% correspond to occurrence data on 77 species belonging to eight orders and 26 families. Data cover 26 continental countries in the Neotropics, ranging from Mexico and its frontier regions (southern Florida and coastal-central Florida in the southeast United States) to Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay, and the 13 countries of Caribbean islands. Our data set also includes neotropical species (e.g., Callithrix sp., Myocastor coypus, Nasua nasua) considered alien in particular areas of Neotropics. The most numerous species in terms of records are from Bos sp. (n = 37,782), Sus scrofa (n = 6,730), and Canis familiaris (n = 10,084); 17 species were represented by only one record (e.g., Syncerus caffer, Cervus timorensis, Cervus unicolor, Canis latrans). Primates have the highest number of species in the data set (n = 20 species), partly because of uncertainties regarding taxonomic identification of the genera Callithrix, which includes the species Callithrix aurita, Callithrix flaviceps, Callithrix geoffroyi, Callithrix jacchus, Callithrix kuhlii, Callithrix penicillata, and their hybrids. This unique data set will be a valuable source of information on invasion risk assessments, biodiversity redistribution and conservation-related research. There are no copyright restrictions. Please cite this data paper when using the data in publications. We also request that researchers and teachers inform us on how they are using the data

NEOTROPICAL XENARTHRANS: a data set of occurrence of xenarthran species in the Neotropics

Xenarthrans—anteaters, sloths, and armadillos—have essential functions for ecosystem maintenance, such as insect control and nutrient cycling, playing key roles as ecosystem engineers. Because of habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting pressure, and conflicts with domestic dogs, these species have been threatened locally, regionally, or even across their full distribution ranges. The Neotropics harbor 21 species of armadillos, 10 anteaters, and 6 sloths. Our data set includes the families Chlamyphoridae (13), Dasypodidae (7), Myrmecophagidae (3), Bradypodidae (4), and Megalonychidae (2). We have no occurrence data on Dasypus pilosus (Dasypodidae). Regarding Cyclopedidae, until recently, only one species was recognized, but new genetic studies have revealed that the group is represented by seven species. In this data paper, we compiled a total of 42,528 records of 31 species, represented by occurrence and quantitative data, totaling 24,847 unique georeferenced records. The geographic range is from the southern United States, Mexico, and Caribbean countries at the northern portion of the Neotropics, to the austral distribution in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. Regarding anteaters, Myrmecophaga tridactyla has the most records (n = 5,941), and Cyclopes sp. have the fewest (n = 240). The armadillo species with the most data is Dasypus novemcinctus (n = 11,588), and the fewest data are recorded for Calyptophractus retusus (n = 33). With regard to sloth species, Bradypus variegatus has the most records (n = 962), and Bradypus pygmaeus has the fewest (n = 12). Our main objective with Neotropical Xenarthrans is to make occurrence and quantitative data available to facilitate more ecological research, particularly if we integrate the xenarthran data with other data sets of Neotropical Series that will become available very soon (i.e., Neotropical Carnivores, Neotropical Invasive Mammals, and Neotropical Hunters and Dogs). Therefore, studies on trophic cascades, hunting pressure, habitat loss, fragmentation effects, species invasion, and climate change effects will be possible with the Neotropical Xenarthrans data set. Please cite this data paper when using its data in publications. We also request that researchers and teachers inform us of how they are using these data

NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES: a data set on carnivore distribution in the Neotropics

Mammalian carnivores are considered a key group in maintaining ecological health and can indicate potential ecological integrity in landscapes where they occur. Carnivores also hold high conservation value and their habitat requirements can guide management and conservation plans. The order Carnivora has 84 species from 8 families in the Neotropical region: Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Otariidae; Phocidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae. Herein, we include published and unpublished data on native terrestrial Neotropical carnivores (Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae). NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES is a publicly available data set that includes 99,605 data entries from 35,511 unique georeferenced coordinates. Detection/non-detection and quantitative data were obtained from 1818 to 2018 by researchers, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private consultants. Data were collected using several methods including camera trapping, museum collections, roadkill, line transect, and opportunistic records. Literature (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from Portuguese, Spanish and English were incorporated in this compilation. Most of the data set consists of detection data entries (n = 79,343; 79.7%) but also includes non-detection data (n = 20,262; 20.3%). Of those, 43.3% also include count data (n = 43,151). The information available in NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES will contribute to macroecological, ecological, and conservation questions in multiple spatio-temporal perspectives. As carnivores play key roles in trophic interactions, a better understanding of their distribution and habitat requirements are essential to establish conservation management plans and safeguard the future ecological health of Neotropical ecosystems. Our data paper, combined with other large-scale data sets, has great potential to clarify species distribution and related ecological processes within the Neotropics. There are no copyright restrictions and no restriction for using data from this data paper, as long as the data paper is cited as the source of the information used. We also request that users inform us of how they intend to use the data

Brazilian Flora 2020: Leveraging the power of a collaborative scientific network

International audienceThe shortage of reliable primary taxonomic data limits the description of biological taxa and the understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes, complicating biogeographical, ecological, and evolutionary studies. This deficit creates a significant taxonomic impediment to biodiversity research and conservation planning. The taxonomic impediment and the biodiversity crisis are widely recognized, highlighting the urgent need for reliable taxonomic data. Over the past decade, numerous countries worldwide have devoted considerable effort to Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which called for the preparation of a working list of all known plant species by 2010 and an online world Flora by 2020. Brazil is a megadiverse country, home to more of the world's known plant species than any other country. Despite that, Flora Brasiliensis, concluded in 1906, was the last comprehensive treatment of the Brazilian flora. The lack of accurate estimates of the number of species of algae, fungi, and plants occurring in Brazil contributes to the prevailing taxonomic impediment and delays progress towards the GSPC targets. Over the past 12 years, a legion of taxonomists motivated to meet Target 1 of the GSPC, worked together to gather and integrate knowledge on the algal, plant, and fungal diversity of Brazil. Overall, a team of about 980 taxonomists joined efforts in a highly collaborative project that used cybertaxonomy to prepare an updated Flora of Brazil, showing the power of scientific collaboration to reach ambitious goals. This paper presents an overview of the Brazilian Flora 2020 and provides taxonomic and spatial updates on the algae, fungi, and plants found in one of the world's most biodiverse countries. We further identify collection gaps and summarize future goals that extend beyond 2020. Our results show that Brazil is home to 46,975 native species of algae, fungi, and plants, of which 19,669 are endemic to the country. The data compiled to date suggests that the Atlantic Rainforest might be the most diverse Brazilian domain for all plant groups except gymnosperms, which are most diverse in the Amazon. However, scientific knowledge of Brazilian diversity is still unequally distributed, with the Atlantic Rainforest and the Cerrado being the most intensively sampled and studied biomes in the country. In times of “scientific reductionism”, with botanical and mycological sciences suffering pervasive depreciation in recent decades, the first online Flora of Brazil 2020 significantly enhanced the quality and quantity of taxonomic data available for algae, fungi, and plants from Brazil. This project also made all the information freely available online, providing a firm foundation for future research and for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of the Brazilian funga and flora