Genetic identification of source and likely vector of a widespread marine invader

The identification of native sources and vectors of introduced species informs their ecological and evolutionary history and may guide policies that seek to prevent future introductions. Population genetics provides a powerful set of tools to identify origins and vectors. However, these tools can mislead when the native range is poorly sampled or few molecular markers are used. Here, we traced the introduction of the Asian seaweed Gracilaria vermiculophylla (Rhodophyta) into estuaries in coastal western North America, the eastern United States, Europe, and northwestern Africa by genotyping more than 2,500 thalli from 37 native and 53 non-native sites at mitochondrial cox1 and 10 nuclear microsatellite loci. Overall, greater than 90% of introduced thalli had a genetic signature similar to thalli sampled from the coastline of northeastern Japan, strongly indicating this region served as the principal source of the invasion. Notably, northeastern Japan exported the vast majority of the oyster Crassostrea gigas during the 20th century. The preponderance of evidence suggests G. vermiculophylla may have been inadvertently introduced with C. gigas shipments and that northeastern Japan is a common source region for estuarine invaders. Each invaded coastline reflected a complex mix of direct introductions from Japan and secondary introductions from other invaded coastlines. The spread of G. vermiculophylla along each coastline was likely facilitated by aquaculture, fishing, and boating activities. Our ability to document a source region was enabled by a robust sampling of locations and loci that previous studies lacked and strong phylogeographic structure along native coastlines

Direct Stenting versus Conventional Stenting in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction—A COMPARE CRUSH Sub-Study

Background: Direct stenting (DS) compared with conventional stenting (CS) after balloon predilatation may reduce distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thereby improving tissue reperfusion. In contrast, DS may increase the risk of stent underexpansion and target lesion failure. Methods:In this sub-study of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial (NCT03296540), we reviewed the efficacy of DS versus CS in a cohort of contemporary, pretreated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI. We compared DS versus CS, assessing (1) stent diameter in the culprit lesion, (2) thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery post-PCI and complete ST-segment resolution (STR) one-hour post-PCI, and (3) target lesion failure at one year. For proportional variables, propensity score weighting was applied to account for potential treatment selection bias. Results: This prespecified sub-study included 446 patients, of whom 189 (42%) were treated with DS. Stent diameters were comparable between groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.17). Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and complete STR post-PCI rates were similar between groups (DS 93% vs. CS 90%, adjusted OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.56–2.39], p = 0.69, and DS 72% vs. CS 58%, adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.77–2.16], p = 0.34, respectively). Moreover, target lesion failure rates at one year were comparable (DS 2% vs. 1%, adjusted OR 2.93 [95% CI 0.52–16.49], p = 0.22). Conclusion:In this contemporary pretreated STEMI cohort, we found no difference in early myocardial reperfusion outcomes between DS and CS. Moreover, DS seemed comparable to CS in terms of stent diameter and one-year vessel patency.</p

Management Capabilities and Policy Capacity Where are the Links?

1-1