Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Evaluation of the Precision of Ancestry Inferences in South American Admixed Populations

Ancestry informative markers (AIMs) are used in forensic genetics to infer biogeographical ancestry (BGA) of individuals and may also have a prominent role in future police and identification investigations. In the last few years, many studies have been published reporting new AIM sets. These sets include markers (usually around 100 or less) selected with different purposes and different population resolutions. Regardless of the ability of these sets to separate populations from different continents or regions, the uncertainty associated with the estimates provided by these panels and their capacity to accurately report the different ancestral contributions in individuals of admixed populations has rarely been investigated. This issue is addressed in this study by evaluating different AIM sets. Ancestry inference was carried out in admixed South American populations, both at population and individual levels. The results of ancestry inferences using AIM sets with different numbers of markers among admixed reference populations were compared. To evaluate the performance of the different ancestry panels at the individual level, expected and observed estimates among families and their offspring were compared, considering that (1) the apportionment of ancestry in the offspring should be closer to the average ancestry of the parents, and (2) full siblings should present similar ancestry values. The results obtained illustrate the importance of having a good balance/compromise between not only the number of markers and their ability to differentiate ancestral populations, but also a balanced differentiation among reference groups, to obtain more precise values of genetic ancestry. This work also highlights the importance of estimating errors associated with the use of a limited number of markers. We demonstrate that although these errors have a moderate effect at the population level, they may have an important impact at the individual level. Considering that many AIM-sets are being described for inferences at the individual level and not at the population level, e.g., in association studies or the determination of a suspect’s BGA, the results of this work point to the need of a more careful evaluation of the uncertainty associated with the ancestry estimates in admixed populations, when small AIM-sets are used.LG was supported by the Ellen og Aage Andersen’s Foundation, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq (ref. 306342/2019-7), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ(CNE-2018)

O Centro de Atenção Psicossocial no cotidiano dos seus usuários

O estudo teve por objetivo compreender o cotidiano de usuários de um Centro de Atenção Psicossocial (CAPS). Trata-se de um estudo qualitativo, tendo como referencial teórico-metodológico a sociologia fenomenológica de Alfred Schutz. O campo do estudo foi um CAPS localizado em Porto Alegre e os sujeitos entrevistados constituíram-se em 13 usuários. A coleta de dados ocorreu entre abril e junho de 2008, por meio de entrevista com uma questão norteadora. Na análise compreensiva dos depoimentos, emergiram cinco categorias concretas e este artigo relata sobre a categoria denominada: Os usuários consideram o CAPS como uma dimensão do seu cotidiano. Com essa pesquisa pôde-se compreender as concepções que os usuários têm acerca do seu cotidiano, demonstrando que estão (re)adquirindo o convívio social em diversos espaços da sociedade. Considera-se que os CAPS estão promovendo, além do atendimento, a reabilitação psicossocial dos seus usuários