Reconciling the biogeography of an invader through recent and historic genetic patterns: the case of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva

© 2018 The Author(s) The genetic variability and population structure of introduced species in their native range are potentially important determinants of their invasion success, yet data on native populations are often poorly represented in relevant studies. Consequently, to determine the contribution of genetic structuring in the native range of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva to their high invasion success in Europe, we used a dataset comprising of 19 native and 11 non-native populations. A total of 666 samples were analysed at 9 polymorphic microsatellite loci and sequenced for 597 bp of mitochondrial DNA. The analysis revealed three distinct lineages in the native range, of which two haplogroups were prevalent in China (100%), with a general split around the Qinling Mountains. Dating of both haplogroups closely matched past geological events. More recently, its distribution has been influenced by fish movements in aquaculture, resulting in gene flow between previously separated populations in Northern and Southern China. Their phylogeography in Europe indicate as few as two introductions events and two dispersal routes. Microsatellite data revealed native populations had higher genetic diversity than those in the invasive range, a contrast to previous studies on P. parva. This study confirms the importance of extensive sampling in both the native and non-native range of invasive species in evaluating the influence of genetic variability on invasion success

Malunion after midshaft clavicle fractures in adults: The current view on clavicular malunion in the literature

This is an overview of the current literature on malunion after midshaft clavicle fracture. Anatomy, trauma mechanism, classification, incidence, symptoms, prevention, and treatment options are all discussed. The conclusion is that clavicle malunion is a distinct clinical entity that can be treated successfully

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

The relationship between organisational characteristics and the effects of clinical guidelines on medical performance in hospitals, a meta-analysis

We are grateful to our colleagues involved in the systematic review of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies across all settings especially Cynthia Fraser, Graeme MacLennan, Craig Ramsay, Paula Whitty, Martin Eccles, Lloyd Matowe, Liz Shirran. The systematic review of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies across all settings was funded by the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Program. Dr Ruth Thomas is funded by a Wellcome Training Fellowship in Health Services Research. (Grant number GR063790MA). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Executive Department of Health. Dr Jeremy Grimshaw holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. However the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts

Listeria monocytogenes Internalin B Activates Junctional Endocytosis to Accelerate Intestinal Invasion

Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) uses InlA to invade the tips of the intestinal villi, a location at which cell extrusion generates a transient defect in epithelial polarity that exposes the receptor for InlA, E-cadherin, on the cell surface. As the dying cell is removed from the epithelium, the surrounding cells reorganize to form a multicellular junction (MCJ) that Lm exploits to find its basolateral receptor and invade. By examining individual infected villi using 3D-confocal imaging, we uncovered a novel role for the second major invasin, InlB, during invasion of the intestine. We infected mice intragastrically with isogenic strains of Lm that express or lack InlB and that have a modified InlA capable of binding murine E-cadherin and found that Lm lacking InlB invade the same number of villi but have decreased numbers of bacteria within each infected villus tip. We studied the mechanism of InlB action at the MCJs of polarized MDCK monolayers and find that InlB does not act as an adhesin, but instead accelerates bacterial internalization after attachment. InlB locally activates its receptor, c-Met, and increases endocytosis of junctional components, including E-cadherin. We show that MCJs are naturally more endocytic than other sites of the apical membrane, that endocytosis and Lm invasion of MCJs depends on functional dynamin, and that c-Met activation by soluble InlB or hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) increases MCJ endocytosis. Also, in vivo, InlB applied through the intestinal lumen increases endocytosis at the villus tips. Our findings demonstrate a two-step mechanism of synergy between Lm's invasins: InlA provides the specificity of Lm adhesion to MCJs at the villus tips and InlB locally activates c-Met to accelerate junctional endocytosis and bacterial invasion of the intestine

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species