239 research outputs found

    Seagrass restoration is possible:Insights and lessons from Australia and New Zealand

    Get PDF
    Seagrasses are important marine ecosystems situated throughout the world’s coastlines. They are facing declines around the world due to global and local threats such as rising ocean temperatures, coastal development and pollution from sewage outfalls and agriculture. Efforts have been made to reduce seagrass loss through reducing local and regional stressors, and through active restoration. Seagrass restoration is a rapidly maturing discipline, but improved restoration practices are needed to enhance the success of future programs. Major gaps in knowledge remain, however, prior research efforts have provided valuable insights into factors influencing the outcomes of restoration and there are now several examples of successful large-scale restoration programs. A variety of tools and techniques have recently been developed that will improve the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and scalability of restoration programs. This review describes several restoration successes in Australia and New Zealand, with a focus on emerging techniques for restoration, key considerations for future programs, and highlights the benefits of increased collaboration, Traditional Owner (First Nation) and stakeholder engagement. Combined, these lessons and emerging approaches show that seagrass restoration is possible, and efforts should be directed at upscaling seagrass restoration into the future. This is critical for the future conservation of this important ecosystem and the ecological and coastal communities they support

    Seagrass restoration is possible: insights and lessons from Australia and New Zealand

    Get PDF
    Seagrasses are important marine ecosystems situated throughout the world's coastlines. They are facing declines around the world due to global and local threats such as rising ocean temperatures, coastal development and pollution from sewage outfalls and agriculture. Efforts have been made to reduce seagrass loss through reducing local and regional stressors, and through active restoration. Seagrass restoration is a rapidly maturing discipline, but improved restoration practices are needed to enhance the success of future programs. Major gaps in knowledge remain, however, prior research efforts have provided valuable insights into factors influencing the outcomes of restoration and there are now several examples of successful large-scale restoration programs. A variety of tools and techniques have recently been developed that will improve the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and scalability of restoration programs. This review describes several restoration successes in Australia and New Zealand, with a focus on emerging techniques for restoration, key considerations for future programs, and highlights the benefits of increased collaboration, Traditional Owner (First Nation) and stakeholder engagement. Combined, these lessons and emerging approaches show that seagrass restoration is possible, and efforts should be directed at upscaling seagrass restoration into the future. This is critical for the future conservation of this important ecosystem and the ecological and coastal communities they support

    Broadening the horizon – level 2.5 of the HUPO-PSI format for molecular interactions

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Molecular interaction Information is a key resource in modern biomedical research. Publicly available data have previously been provided in a broad array of diverse formats, making access to this very difficult. The publication and wide implementation of the Human Proteome Organisation Proteomics Standards Initiative Molecular Interactions (HUPO PSI-MI) format in 2004 was a major step towards the establishment of a single, unified format by which molecular interactions should be presented, but focused purely on protein-protein interactions. RESULTS: The HUPO-PSI has further developed the PSI-MI XML schema to enable the description of interactions between a wider range of molecular types, for example nucleic acids, chemical entities, and molecular complexes. Extensive details about each supported molecular interaction can now be captured, including the biological role of each molecule within that interaction, detailed description of interacting domains, and the kinetic parameters of the interaction. The format is supported by data management and analysis tools and has been adopted by major interaction data providers. Additionally, a simpler, tab-delimited format MITAB2.5 has been developed for the benefit of users who require only minimal information in an easy to access configuration. CONCLUSION: The PSI-MI XML2.5 and MITAB2.5 formats have been jointly developed by interaction data producers and providers from both the academic and commercial sector, and are already widely implemented and well supported by an active development community. PSI-MI XML2.5 enables the description of highly detailed molecular interaction data and facilitates data exchange between databases and users without loss of information. MITAB2.5 is a simpler format appropriate for fast Perl parsing or loading into Microsoft Excel

    Development and Validation of the Gene Expression Predictor of High-grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Molecular SubTYPE (PrOTYPE).

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: Gene expression-based molecular subtypes of high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrated across multiple studies, may provide improved stratification for molecularly targeted trials. However, evaluation of clinical utility has been hindered by nonstandardized methods, which are not applicable in a clinical setting. We sought to generate a clinical grade minimal gene set assay for classification of individual tumor specimens into HGSOC subtypes and confirm previously reported subtype-associated features. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adopting two independent approaches, we derived and internally validated algorithms for subtype prediction using published gene expression data from 1,650 tumors. We applied resulting models to NanoString data on 3,829 HGSOCs from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We further developed, confirmed, and validated a reduced, minimal gene set predictor, with methods suitable for a single-patient setting. RESULTS: Gene expression data were used to derive the predictor of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma molecular subtype (PrOTYPE) assay. We established a de facto standard as a consensus of two parallel approaches. PrOTYPE subtypes are significantly associated with age, stage, residual disease, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and outcome. The locked-down clinical grade PrOTYPE test includes a model with 55 genes that predicted gene expression subtype with >95% accuracy that was maintained in all analytic and biological validations. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the PrOTYPE assay following the Institute of Medicine guidelines for the development of omics-based tests. This fully defined and locked-down clinical grade assay will enable trial design with molecular subtype stratification and allow for objective assessment of the predictive value of HGSOC molecular subtypes in precision medicine applications.See related commentary by McMullen et al., p. 5271.Core funding for this project was provided by the National Institutes of Health (R01-CA172404, PI: S.J. Ramus; and R01-CA168758, PIs: J.A. Doherty and M.A.Rossing), the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Proof-of-Principle I program, PIs: D.G.Huntsman and M.S. Anglesio), the United States Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OC110433, PI: D.D. Bowtell). A. Talhouk is funded through a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award. M.S. Anglesio is funded through a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award and the Janet D. Cottrelle Foundation Scholars program managed by the BC Cancer Foundation. J. George was partially supported by the NIH/National Cancer Institute award number P30CA034196. C. Wang was a Career Enhancement Awardee of the Mayo Clinic SPORE in Ovarian Cancer (P50 CA136393). D.G. Huntsman receives support from the Dr. Chew Wei Memorial Professorship in Gynecologic Oncology, and the Canada Research Chairs program (Research Chair in Molecular and Genomic Pathology). M. Widschwendter receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 European Research Council Programme, H2020 BRCA-ERC under Grant Agreement No. 742432 as well as the charity, The Eve Appeal (https://eveappeal.org.uk/), and support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre. G.E. Konecny is supported by the Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Medical Research Foundation. B.Y. Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. H.R. Harris is 20 supported by the NIH/National Cancer Institute award number K22 CA193860. OVCARE (including the VAN study) receives support through the BC Cancer Foundation and The VGH+UBC Hospital Foundation (authors AT, BG, DGH, and MSA). The AOV study is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP86727). The Gynaecological Oncology Biobank at Westmead, a member of the Australasian Biospecimen Network-Oncology group, was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903 and the Cancer Institute NSW Grants ID 12/RIG/1-17 & 15/RIG/1-16. The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under DAMD17-01-1-0729, The Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, The Cancer Council New South Wales, The Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Council Tasmania and The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Applications 191, 211 and 182) and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; ID199600; ID400413 and ID400281). BriTROC-1 was funded by Ovarian Cancer Action (to IAM and JDB, grant number 006) and supported by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers A15973, A15601, A18072, A17197, A19274 and A19694) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge and Imperial Biomedical Research Centres. Samples from the Mayo Clinic were collected and provided with support of P50 CA136393 (E.L.G., G.L.K, S.H.K, M.E.S.)
    corecore