A Proposed Astronomy Learning Progression For Remote Telescope Observation

Providing meaningful telescope observing experiences for students who are deeply urban or distantly rural place-bound—or even daylight time-bound—has consistently presented a formidable challenge for astronomy educators.  For nearly 2 decades, the Internet has promised unfettered access for large numbers of students to conduct remote telescope observing, but it has only been in recent years that the technology has become readily available.  Now that this once fanciful possibility is becoming a reality, astronomy education researchers need a guiding theory on which to develop learning experiences.  As one departure point, we propose a potential learning progression anchored on one end with recognizing that stars visible at night have describable locations and predictable motions, and anchored at the other with distant robotic telescopes can be programmed to record specific astronomical data for later analysis

Crop Updates 2000 - Lupins

This session covers nineteen papers from different authors: 1.1999 Lupin Highlights, Bill O’Neill, LUPIN PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT LUPIN ANTHRACNOSE 2. Anthracnose – 1999/2000, Geoff Thomas and Mark Sweetingham, Agriculture Western Australia LUPIN BREEDING AND AGRONOMY 3. The genetic control of mildly restricted branching in narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus augustifolius L), Kedar Adhikari1,3, Nick Galwey1,3 and Miles Dracup2,3 1Plant Sciences, University of Western Australia 2Agriculture Western Australia 3Cooperative Research Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, University of Western Australia 4. Genotype x time of sowing interaction in lupins – Mingenew, Bob French, Agriculture Western Australia 5. Genotype x time of sowing interaction in lupins – Wongan Hills, Bob French, Agriculture Western Australia 6. Genetic variation in lupin tolerance to Brown Leaf Spot, Bob French, Agriculture Western Australia 7. Yellow lupin management in Western Australia, Bob French, Agriculture Western Australia APHIDS AND VIRUS CONTROL 8. Forecasting aphid and virus risk in lupins, Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Agriculture Western Australia 9. When should lupin crops be sprayed for aphids to achieve maximum yield response? Françoise Berlandier, Agriculture Western Australia 10. Yield limiting potential of the new, non-necrotic strain of bean yellow mosaic virus in narrow-leafed lupin, Roger Jones, Yvonne Cheng and Lisa Smith, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture LUPIN NUTRITION 11. Increasing the value of a rotation by applying lime, Chris Gazey and Michael O’Connell, Agriculture Western Australia HERBICIDE TOLERANCE AND WEED CONTROL 12. Herbicide damage does not mean lower yield in Lupins, Peter Carlton, Trials Coordinator, Elders Limited 13. Effect of herbicides Tordonä 75D and Lontrelä, used for eradication of Skeleton Weed, on production of Lupins in following seasons, John R. Peirce and Brad J. Rayner, Agriculture Western Australia 14. Herbicide tolerance of lupins, Terry Piper, Agriculture Western Australia 15. Tanjil lupins will tolerate metribuzin under the right conditions, Peter Newman, Agronomist Elders Limited and Cameron Weeks, Mingenew/Irwin Group LUPIN ESTABLISHMENT 16. A new seed pressing system for ryegrass suppression and healthy lupin establishment, Mohammad Amjad and Glen Riethmuller,Agriculture Western Australia 17. Banded surfactant for better lupin yield on non-wetting sand, Dr Paul Blackwell, Agriculture Western Australia DROUGHT TOLERANCE 18. Drought tolerance of lupin genotypes in Western Australia, Jairo A. Palta1,2,, Neil C. Turner1,2, Robert J. French2,3 ,1CSIRO Plant Industry, Centre for Mediterranean Agricultural Research, 2Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, University of Western Australia, 3Agriculture Western Australia, 19. Stem carbohydrate in lupins: a possible buffer to maintain seed growth under adverse conditions, Bob French1, Tim Setter2, Jairo Palta3 , 1Agriculture Western Australia, and CLIMA, 2Agriculture Western Australia, 3CSIRO, Floreat Park, and CLIM

Prior consumption of a fat meal in healthy adults modulates the brain’s response to fat

Background: Consumption of fat is regulated by reward and homeostatic pathways, but no studies have examined the role of the intake of a high fat meal (HFM) on subsequent brain activation to oral stimuli. Objective: We evaluated how prior consumption of a HFM or water load (WL) modulates reward, homeostatic and taste brain responses to subsequent delivery of oral fat. Methods: A randomized 2-way crossover design (1-week apart) was used to compare prior consumption of a 250mL HFM (520kcal) (rapeseed oil (440kcal), emulsifier, sucrose, flavor cocktail) or non-caloric WL on brain activation to the delivery of repeated trials of an oral flavored no-fat control stimulus (CS) or flavored fat stimulus (FS) in 17 healthy adults (11 male, age=25±2 years, BMI=22.4±0.8kg/m2). Analyses tested differences in brain activation to the CS and FS, and baseline cerebral blood flow (CBF), following the HFM and WL. Individual’s plasma cholecystokinin (CCK) concentration following the HFM was correlated with their BOLD activation. Results: Prior consumption of the HFM compared to the WL led to decreased anterior insula taste activation in response to both the CS (36.3%,P<0.05) and FS (26.5%,P<0.05). The HFM caused reduced amygdala activation (25.1%,P<0.01) in response to the FS compared to the CS (fat-related satiety). Baseline CBF significantly reduced in taste (insula (5.7%,P<0.01)), homeostatic (hypothalamus (9.2%,P<0.01), thalamus (5.1%,P<0.05))), and reward areas (striatum (9.2%,P<0.01)) following the HFM. Individual’s plasma CCK concentration negatively correlated with brain activation in taste, oral somatosensory and reward areas. Conclusions: To reduce obesity, policy in industry is to lower the fat content of foods. Our results in healthy adults show that a HFM suppresses BOLD activation in taste and reward areas compared to a WL. This understanding will help inform the reformulation of reduced-fat foods that mimic the brain’s response to high fat counterparts, and guide future interventions to reduce obesity

Crop Updates 2002 - Lupins

This session covers twenty four papers from different authors: LUPIN INDUSTRY ISSUES AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Amelia McLarty LUPIN CONVENOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VARIETIES 1. Evaluation of lupinus mutabilis in Western Australia, Bob French, Laurie Wahlsten and Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 2. Adaption of restricted-branching lupins in short-growing season environments, Bob French, Laurie Wahlsten, Department of Agriculture ESTABLISHMENT 3. Moisture delving for better lupin establishment, Dr Paul Blackwell, Department of Agriculture 4. Lupins, tramlines, 600mm rows, rolling and shield spraying … a good result in a dry season! Paul Blackwell and Mike Collins, Department of Agriculture 5. Lupin wider row spacing data and observations, Bill CrabtreeA, Geoff FosberyB, Angie RoeB, Mike CollinsCand Matt BeckettA,AWANTFA, BFarm Focus Consultants and CDepartment of Agriculture NUTRITION 6. Lupin genotypes respond differently to potash, Bob French and Laurie Wahlsten, Department of Agriculture 7. Consequence of radish competition on lupin nutrients in a wheat-lupin rotation, Abul Hashem and Nerys Wilkins, Department of Agriculture 8. Consequence of ryegrass competition on lupin nutrients in a wheat-lupin rotation, Abul Hashem and Nerys Wilkins, Department of Agriculture PESTS AND DISEASES 9. Fungicide sprays for control of lupin anthracnose, Geoff Thomas and Ken Adcock, Department of Agriculture 10. Estimated yield losses in lupin varieties from sowing anthracnose infected seed, Geoff Thomas, Department of Agriculture 11. Effect of variety and environment (northern and southern wheatbelt) on yield losses in lupins due to anthracnose, Geoff Thomas and Ken Adcock, Department of Agriculture, 12. A decision support system for the control of aphids and CMV in lupin crops, Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Department of Agriculture 13. Integrated management strategies for virus diseases of lupin, Roger Jones, Crop Improvement Institute, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, University of WA 14. Quantifying yield losses caused by the non-necrotic strain of BYMV in lupin, Roger Jones and Brenda Coutts, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 15. Screening for pod resistance to phomopsis in various lupin species, Manisha Shankar1, Mark Sweetingham1&2and Bevan Buirchell2 1Co-operative Research Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 2 Department of Agriculture 16. Lupin disease diagnostics, Nichole Burges and Dominie Wright, Department of Agriculture QUALITY AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT 17. To GM or not to GM pulses – that is the question, Dr Susan J. Barker, The University of Western Australia 18. Towards a management package for grain protein in lupins, Bob French, Senior Research Officer, Department of Agriculture 19. Yield and seed protein response to foliar application of N among lupin genotypes, Jairo A Palta1&2, Bob French2&3and Neil C Turner1&2 , 1 CSIRO Plant Industry, Floreat Park, 2 CLIMA, University of Western Australia,3Department of Agriculture 20. Foliar nitrogen application to improve protein content in narrow-leafed lupin, Martin Harries, Bob French, Laurie Wahlsten, Department of Agriculture, Matt Evans, CSBP 21. Effect of time of swathing of lupins on grain protein content, Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 22. Putting a value on protein premiums for the animal feed industries: Aquaculture, Brett Glencross and John Curnow, Department of Fisheries, Wayne Hawkins, Department of Agriculture 23. Progress in selecting for reduced seed hull and pod wall in lupin, Jon C. Clements, CLIMA, University of Western Australia 24. Contact details for principal author

Explaining clinical behaviors using multiple theoretical models

PMID: 23075284 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3500222 Free PMC ArticlePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Crop Updates 2006 - Weeds

This session covers thirty seven papers from different authors: 1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, Alexandra Douglas, CONVENOR – WEEDS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPRAY TECHNOLOGY 2. Meeting the variable application goals with new application technology, Thomas M. Wolf, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre 3. Spray nozzles for grass weed control, Harm van Rees, BCG (Birchip Cropping Group) 4. Boom sprayer setups – achieving coarse droplets with different operating parameters, Bill Gordon, Bill Gordon Consulting 5. Complying with product label requirements, Bill Gordon, Bill Gordon Consulting 6. IWM a proven performer over 5 years in 33 focus paddocks, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 7. Crop topping of wild radish in lupins and barley, how long is a piece of string? Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 8. Determining the right timing to maximise seed set control of wild radish, Aik Cheam and Siew Lee, Department of Agriculture 9. Why weed wiping varies in success rates in broadacre crops? Aik Cheam1, Katherine Hollaway2, Siew Lee1, Brad Rayner1 and John Peirce1,1Department of Agriculture, 2Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 10. Are WA growers successfully managing herbicide resistant annual ryegrass? Rick Llewellynabc, Frank D’Emdena, Mechelle Owenb and Stephen Powlesb aCRC Australian Weed Management, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia; bWA Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia. cCurrent address: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 11. Do herbicide resistant wild radish populations look different? Michael Walsh, Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia 12. Can glyphosate and paraquat annual ryegrass reduce crop topping efficacy? Emma Glasfurd, Michael Walsh and Kathryn Steadman, Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia 13. Tetraploid ryegrass for WA. Productive pasture phase AND defeating herbicide resistant ryegrass, Stephen Powlesa, David Ferrisab and Bevan Addisonc, aWA Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia; bDepartment of Agriculture, and cElders Limited 14. Long-term management impact on seedbank of wild radish with multiple resistance to diflufenican and triazines, Aik Cheam, Siew Lee, Dave Nicholson and Ruben Vargas, Department of Agriculture 15. East-west crop row orientation improves wheat and barley yields, Dr Shahab Pathan, Dr Abul Hashem, Nerys Wilkins and Catherine Borger3, Department of Agriculture, 3WAHRI, The University ofWestern Australia 16. Competitiveness of different lupin cultivars with wild radish, Dr Shahab Pathan, Dr Bob French and Dr Abul Hashem, Department of Agriculture 17. Managing herbicide resistant weeds through farming systems, Kari-Lee Falconer, Martin Harries and Chris Matthews, Department of Agriculture 18. Lupins tolerate in-row herbicides well, Peter Newman and Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 19. Summer weeds can reduce wheat grain yield and protein, Dr Abul Hashem1, Dr Shahab Pathan1 and Vikki Osten3, 1Department Agriculture, 3Senior Agronomist, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 20. Diuron post-emergent in lupins, the full story, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 21. Double incorporation of trifluralin, Peter Newman and Glenn Adam, Department of Agriculture 22. Herbicide tolerance of narrow leafed and yellow lupins, Harmohinder Dhammu, David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 23. MIG narrow leaf lupin herbicide tolerance trial, Richard Quinlan, Planfarm Pty Ltd, Trials Coordinator MIG; Debbie Allen, Research Agronomist – MIG 24. Herbicide tolerance of new albus lupins, Harmohinder Dhammu, David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 25. Field pea x herbicide tolerance, Mark Seymour and Harmohinder Dhammu, Research Officers, and Pam Burgess, Department of Agriculture 26. Faba bean variety x herbicide tolerance, Mark Seymour and Harmohinder Dhammu, Research Officers, and Pam Burgess, Department of Agriculture 27. Herbicide tolerance of new Kabili chickpeas, Harmohinder Dhammu, Owen Coppen and Chris Roberts, Department of Agriculture 28. Timing of phenoxys application in EAG Eagle Rock, Harmohinder Dhammu, David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 29. Herbicide tolerance of new wheat varieties, Harmohinder Dhammu, David Nicholson, Department of Agriculture 30. Lathyrus sativus x herbicide tolerance, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 31. Tolerance of annual pasture species to herbicides and mixtures containing diuron, Christiaan Valentine and David Ferris, Department of Agriculture 32. The impact of herbicides on pasture legume species – a summary of scientific trial results across 8 years, Christiaan Valentine and David Ferris, Department of Agriculture 33. The impact of spraytopping on pasture legume seed set, Christiaan Valentine and David Ferris, Department of Agriculture 34. Ascochyta interaction with Broadstrike in chickpeas, H.S. Dhammu1, A.K. Basandrai2,3, W.J. MacLeod1, 3 and C. Roberts1, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CSKHPAU, Dhaulakuan, Sirmour (HP), India and 3CLIMA 35. Best management practices for atrazine in broadacre crops, John Moore, Department of Agriculture, Neil Rothnie, Chemistry Centre of WA, Russell Speed, Department of Agriculture, John Simons, Department of Agriculture, and Ted Spadek, Chemistry Centre of WA 36. Biology and management of red dodder (Cuscuta planiflolia) – a new threat to the grains industry, Abul Hashem, Daya Patabendige and Chris Roberts, Department Agriculture 37. Help the wizard stop the green invaders! Michael Renton, Sally Peltzer and Art Diggle, Department of Agricultur

Crop Updates 2006 - Lupins and Pulses

This session covers sixty six papers from different authors: 2005 LUPIN AND PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS 1. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2. Pulses Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 3. Monthly rainfall at experimental sites in 2005 4. Acknowledgements Amelia McLarty EDITOR 5. Contributors 6. Background Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2005 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 7. Northern agricultural region Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 8. Central agricultural region Ian Pritchard and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 9. Great southern and lakes Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture 10. South east region Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture LUPIN AND PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 11. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 12. Narrow-leafed lupin breeding Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 13. Progress in the development of pearl lupin (Lupinus mutabilis) for Australian agriculture, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Jon Clements1, Geoff Thomas2, Roger Jones1, Sofia Sipsas1, John Quealy2, Leigh Smith1 and Gordon Francis1 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 14. Molecular genetic markers and lupin breeding, Huaan Yang, Jeffrey Boersma, Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 15. Construction of a genetic linkage map using MFLP, and identification of molecular markers linked to domestication genes in narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus augustiflolius L) Jeffrey Boersma1,2, Margaret Pallotta3, Bevan Buirchell1, Chengdao Li1, Krishnapillai Sivasithamparam2 and Huaan Yang1 1Department of Agriculture, 2The University of Western Australia, 3Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, South Australia 16. The first gene-based map of narrow-leafed lupin – location of domestication genes and conserved synteny with Medicago truncatula, M. Nelson1, H. Phan2, S. Ellwood2, P. Moolhuijzen3, M. Bellgard3, J. Hane2, A. Williams2, J. Fos‑Nyarko4, B. Wolko5, M. Książkiewicz5, M. Cakir4, M. Jones4, M. Scobie4, C. O’Lone1, S.J. Barker1, R. Oliver2, and W. Cowling1 1School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, 2Australian Centre for Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogens, Murdoch University, 3Centre for Bioinformatics and Biological Computing, Murdoch University, 4School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, SABC, Murdoch University,5Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznań, Poland 17. How does lupin optimum density change row spacing? Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture 18. Wide row spacing and seeding rate of lupins with conventional and precision seeding machines Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 19. Influence of row spacing and plant density on lupin competition with annual ryegrass, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 20. Effect of timing and speed of inter-row cultivation on lupins, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Steve Cosh, Department of Agriculture 21. The interaction of atrazine herbicide rate and row spacing on lupin seedling survival, Martin Harries and Jo Walker Department of Agriculture 22. The banding of herbicides on lupin row crops, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 23. Large plot testing of herbicide tolerance of new lupin lines, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 24. Effect of seed source and simazine rate of seedling emergence and growth, Peter White and Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 25. The effect of lupin row spacing and seeding rate on a following wheat crop, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Dirranie Kirby, Department of Agriculture 26. Response of crop lupin species to row spacing, Leigh Smith1, Kedar Adhikari1, Jon Clements2 and Patrizia Guantini3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3University of Florence, Italy 27. Response of Lupinus mutabilis to lime application and over watering, Peter White, Leigh Smith and Mark Sweetingham, Department of Agriculture 28. Impact of anthracnose on yield of Andromeda lupins, Geoff Thomas, Kedar Adhikari and Katie Bell, Department of Agriculture 29. Survey of lupin root health (in major production areas), Geoff Thomas, Ken Adcock, Katie Bell, Ciara Beard and Anne Smith, Department of Agriculture 30. Development of a generic forecasting and decision support system for diseases in the Western Australian wheatbelt, Tim Maling1, Art Diggle1,2, Debbie Thackray1, Kadambot Siddique1 and Roger Jones1,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 31.Tanjil mutants highly tolerant to metribuzin, Ping Si1, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Bevan Buirchell1,2 and Huaan Yang l,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 32. Precipitation pH vs. yield and functional properties of lupin protein isolate, Vijay Jayasena1, Hui Jun Chih1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 33. Lupin protein isolation with the use of salts, Vijay Jayasena1, Florence Kartawinata1,Ranil Coorey1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 34. Field pea, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 35. Breeding highlights Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Stuart Morgan1 and Phillip Chambers1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 36. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge1 and Rod Hunter1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 37. Days to flowering of field pea varieties throughout WA Mark Seymour1, Ian Pritchard1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Dr Eric Armstrong2 Department of Agriculture, 2NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga 38. Semi-leafless field peas yield more, with less ryegrass seed set, in narrow rows, Glen Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture 39. Swathing, stripping and other innovative ways to harvest field peas, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Rodger Beermier and Pam Burgess, Department of Agriculture 40. Pulse demonstrations, Ian Pritchard, Wayne Parker, Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 41. Field pea extension – focus on field peas 2005, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 42. Field pea blackspot disease in 2005: Prediction versus reality, Moin Salam, Jean Galloway, Pip Payne, Bill MacLeod and Art Diggle, Department of Agriculture 43. Pea seed-borne mosaic virus in pulses: Screening for seed quality defects and virus resistance, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 44. Yield losses from sowing field peas infected with pea seed-borne mosaic virus, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 45. Desi chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 46. Breeding highlights, Tanveer Khan 1,2, Pooran Gaur3, Kadambot Siddique2, Heather Clarke2, Stuart Morgan1and Alan Harris1, 1Department of Agriculture2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India 47. National chickpea improvement program, Kerry Regan1, Ted Knights2 and Kristy Hobson3,1Department of Agriculture, 2Agriculture New South Wales 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 48. Chickpea breeding lines in CVT exhibit excellent ascochyta blight resistance, Tanveer Khan1,2, Alan Harris1, Stuart Morgan1 and Kerry Regan1,2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 49. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge2 and Rod Hunter2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 50. Desi chickpeas for the wheatbelt, Wayne Parker and Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 51. Large scale demonstration of new chickpea varieties, Wayne Parker, MurrayBlyth, Steve Cosh, Dirranie Kirby and Chris Matthews, Department of Agriculture 52. Ascochyta management with new chickpeas, Martin Harries, Bill MacLeod, Murray Blyth and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture 53. Management of ascochyta blight in improved chickpea varieties, Bill MacLeod1, Colin Hanbury2, Pip Payne1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Tanveer Khan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 54. Botrytis grey mould of chickpea, Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 55. Kabuli chickpea, Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 56. New ascochyta blight resistant, high quality kabuli chickpea varieties, Kerry Regan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, Tim Pope2 and Mike Baker1, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 57. Crop production and disease management of Almaz and Nafice, Kerry Regan and Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 58. Faba bean,Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 59. Germplasm evaluation – faba bean, Mark Seymour1, Tim Pope2, Peter White1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Leanne Young1,1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 60. Factors affecting seed coat colour of faba bean during storage, Syed Muhammad Nasar-Abbas1, Julie Plummer1, Kadambot Siddique2, Peter White 3, D. Harris4 and Ken Dods4.1The University of Western Australia, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Agriculture, 4Chemistry Centre 61. Lentil,Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 62. Variety and germplasm evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope2, Leanne Young1, Phill Chambers1, Alan Harris1, Wayne Parker1 and Michael Materne3, 1Department of Agriculture 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria Pulse species 63. Land suitability for production of different crop species in Western Australia, Peter White, Dennis van Gool, and Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture 64. Genomic synteny in legumes: Application to crop breeding, Huyen Phan1, Simon Ellwood1, J. Hane1, Angela Williams1, R. Ford2, S. Thomas3 and Richard Oliver1,1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University 2BioMarka, School of Agriculture and Food Systems, ILFR, University of Melbourne 3NSW Department of Primary Industries 65. ALOSCA – Development of a dry flow legume seed inoculant, Rory Coffey and Chris Poole, ALOSCA Technologies Pty Ltd 66. Genetic dissection of resistance to fungal necrotrophs in Medicago truncatula, Simon Ellwood1, Theo Pfaff1, Judith Lichtenzveig12, Lars Kamphuis1, Nola D\u27Souza1, Angela Williams1, Emma Groves1, Karam Singh2 and Richard Oliver1 1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University, 2CSIRO Plant Industry APPENDIX I: LIST OF COMMON ACRONYM

Telomerecat: A ploidy-agnostic method for estimating telomere length from whole genome sequencing data.

Telomere length is a risk factor in disease and the dynamics of telomere length are crucial to our understanding of cell replication and vitality. The proliferation of whole genome sequencing represents an unprecedented opportunity to glean new insights into telomere biology on a previously unimaginable scale. To this end, a number of approaches for estimating telomere length from whole-genome sequencing data have been proposed. Here we present Telomerecat, a novel approach to the estimation of telomere length. Previous methods have been dependent on the number of telomeres present in a cell being known, which may be problematic when analysing aneuploid cancer data and non-human samples. Telomerecat is designed to be agnostic to the number of telomeres present, making it suited for the purpose of estimating telomere length in cancer studies. Telomerecat also accounts for interstitial telomeric reads and presents a novel approach to dealing with sequencing errors. We show that Telomerecat performs well at telomere length estimation when compared to leading experimental and computational methods. Furthermore, we show that it detects expected patterns in longitudinal data, repeated measurements, and cross-species comparisons. We also apply the method to a cancer cell data, uncovering an interesting relationship with the underlying telomerase genotype

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding in the community: a prospective household cohort study (COVID-LIV) in the UK

Background SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. Methods In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. Results A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4–43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. Conclusions Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2