Growth performance and plasma metabolites of grazing beef cattle backgrounded on Buffel or Buffel-Desmanthus mixed pastures

Dietary crude protein and dry matter digestibility are among the major factors limiting feed intake and weight gain of cattle grazing native and improved pastures in the subtropics of Northern Australia during the dry season. Incorporating a suitable legume into grasses improves pasture quality and cattle weight gain, but only a limited number of legume pastures can establish and persist in cracking clay soils. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Desmanthusinclusion in buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) pastures on the plasma metabolite profile and growth performance of grazing beef cattle during the dry season. We hypothesised that backgrounding steers on buffel grass-Desmanthusmixed pastures would elicit significant changes in plasma glucose, bilirubin, creatinine, non-esterified fatty acids and β-hydroxybutyrate, resulting in higher liveweight gains than in steers on buffel grass only pastures. Four hundred tropical composite steers were assigned to buffel grass only (n = 200) or buffel grass oversown with Desmanthus(11.5% initial sward dry matter) pastures (n = 200) and grazed for 147 days during the dry season. Desmanthusaccounted for 6.2% sward dry matter at the end of grazing period. Plasma metabolites results showed thatchanges in β-hydroxybutyrate, creatinine, bilirubin, glucose and non-esterified fatty acids were within the expected normal range for all the steers, indicating that with or withoutDesmanthusinclusion in the diet of grazing steers, animal health status was not compromised. It was also evident that Desmanthusinclusion in buffel grass pastures had no impact on the plasma metabolite profile, liveweight and daily weight gain of grazing steers. Therefore, our tested hypothesis of higher changes in plasma metabolite profile and higher liveweight gains due to backgrounding on low-level buffel grass-Desmanthus mixed pastures does not hold

From Select Agent to an Established Pathogen: The Response to \u3ci\u3ePhakopsora pachyrhizi\u3c/i\u3e (Soybean Rust) in North America

The pathogen causing soybean rust, Phakopsora pachyrhizi, was first described in Japan in 1902. The disease was important in the Eastern Hemisphere for many decades before the fungus was reported in Hawaii in 1994, which was followed by reports from countries in Africa and South America. In 2004, P. pachyrhizi was confirmed in Louisiana, making it the first report in the continental United States. Based on yield losses from countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, it was clear that this pathogen could have a major economic impact on the yield of 30 million ha of soybean in the United States. The response by agencies within the United States Department of Agriculture, industry, soybean check-off boards, and universities was immediate and complex. The impacts of some of these activities are detailed in this review. The net result has been that the once dreaded disease, which caused substantial losses in other parts of the world, is now better understood and effectively managed in the United States. The disease continues to be monitored yearly for changes in spatial and temporal distribution so that soybean growers can continue to benefit by knowing where soybean rust is occurring during the growing season

The politicisation of science in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia:discussion of ‘Scientific integrity, public policy and water governance’

Many water scientists aim for their work to inform water policy and management, and in pursuit of this objective, they often work alongside government water agencies to ensure their research is relevant, timely and communicated effectively. A paper in this issue, examining 'Science integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’, suggests that a large group of scientists, who work on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) including the Basin Plan, have been subject to possible ‘administrative capture'. Specifically, it is suggested that they have advocated for policies favoured by government agencies with the objective of gaining personal benefit, such as increased research funding. We examine evidence for this claim and conclude that it is not justified. The efforts of scientists working alongside government water agencies appear to have been misinterpreted as possible administrative capture. Although unsubstantiated, this claim does indicate that the science used in basin water planning is increasingly caught up in the politics of water management. We suggest actions to improve science-policy engagement in basin planning, to promote constructive debate over contested views and avoid the over-politicisation of basin science

Hippobosca longipennis - a potential intermediate host of a species of Acanthocheilonema in dogs in northern India

Background Hippobosca longipennis (the 'dog louse fly') is a blood sucking ectoparasite found on wild carnivores such as cheetahs and lions and domesticated and feral dogs in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, including China. Known as an intermediate host for Acanthocheilonema dracunculoides and a transport host for Cheyletiella yasguri, it has also been suggested that H. longipennis may be a vector for other pathogens, including Acanthocheilonema sp.? nov., which was recently reported to infect up to 48% of dogs in northern India where this species of fly is known to commonly infest dogs. To test this hypothesis, hippoboscid flies feeding on dogs in Ladakh in northern India were collected and subjected to microscopic dissection. Results A total of 12 infective larvae were found in 10 out of 65 flies dissected; 9 from the head, 2 from the thorax and 1 from the abdomen. The larvae averaged 2, 900 (± 60) μm in length and 34 (± 5) μm in width and possessed morphological features characteristic of the family Onchocercidae. Genetic analysis and comparison of the 18S, ITS-2, 12S and cox-1 genes confirmed the identity of the larvae as the Acanthocheilonema sp.? nov. reported in dogs in Ladakh. Conclusion This study provides evidence for a potential intermediate host-parasite relationship between H. longipennis and the canine Acanthocheilonema sp.? nov. in northern India

At the Biological Modeling and Simulation Frontier

We provide a rationale for and describe examples of synthetic modeling and simulation (M&S) of biological systems. We explain how synthetic methods are distinct from familiar inductive methods. Synthetic M&S is a means to better understand the mechanisms that generate normal and disease-related phenomena observed in research, and how compounds of interest interact with them to alter phenomena. An objective is to build better, working hypotheses of plausible mechanisms. A synthetic model is an extant hypothesis: execution produces an observable mechanism and phenomena. Mobile objects representing compounds carry information enabling components to distinguish between them and react accordingly when different compounds are studied simultaneously. We argue that the familiar inductive approaches contribute to the general inefficiencies being experienced by pharmaceutical R&D, and that use of synthetic approaches accelerates and improves R&D decision-making and thus the drug development process. A reason is that synthetic models encourage and facilitate abductive scientific reasoning, a primary means of knowledge creation and creative cognition. When synthetic models are executed, we observe different aspects of knowledge in action from different perspectives. These models can be tuned to reflect differences in experimental conditions and individuals, making translational research more concrete while moving us closer to personalized medicine

The Predatory Ecology of Deinonychus and the Origin of Flapping in Birds

Most non-avian theropod dinosaurs are characterized by fearsome serrated teeth and sharp recurved claws. Interpretation of theropod predatory ecology is typically based on functional morphological analysis of these and other physical features. The notorious hypertrophied ‘killing claw’ on pedal digit (D) II of the maniraptoran theropod Deinonychus (Paraves: Dromaeosauridae) is hypothesized to have been a predatory adaptation for slashing or climbing, leading to the suggestion that Deinonychus and other dromaeosaurids were cursorial predators specialized for actively attacking and killing prey several times larger than themselves. However, this hypothesis is problematic as extant animals that possess similarly hypertrophied claws do not use them to slash or climb up prey. Here we offer an alternative interpretation: that the hypertrophied D-II claw of dromaeosaurids was functionally analogous to the enlarged talon also found on D-II of extant Accipitridae (hawks and eagles; one family of the birds commonly known as “raptors”). Here, the talon is used to maintain grip on prey of subequal body size to the predator, while the victim is pinned down by the body weight of the raptor and dismembered by the beak. The foot of Deinonychus exhibits morphology consistent with a grasping function, supportive of the prey immobilisation behavior model. Opposite morphological trends within Deinonychosauria (Dromaeosauridae + Troodontidae) are indicative of ecological separation. Placed in context of avian evolution, the grasping foot of Deinonychus and other terrestrial predatory paravians is hypothesized to have been an exaptation for the grasping foot of arboreal perching birds. Here we also describe “stability flapping”, a novel behaviour executed for positioning and stability during the initial stages of prey immobilisation, which may have been pivotal to the evolution of the flapping stroke. These findings overhaul our perception of predatory dinosaurs and highlight the role of exaptation in the evolution of novel structures and behaviours

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

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO$_2$ emissions (E$_{FOS}$) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E$_{LUC}$), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G$_{ATM}$) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO$_2$ sink (S$_{OCEAN}$) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO$_2$ sink (S$_{LAND}$) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B$_{IM}$), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, E$_{FOS}$ increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E$_{LUC}$ was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr$^{−1}$, for a total anthropogenic CO$_2$ emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO$_2$). Also, for 2021, G$_{ATM}$ was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr$^{−1}$), S$_{OCEAN}$ was 2.9  ± 0.4 GtC yr$^{−1}$, and S$_{LAND}$ was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr$^{−1}$, with a B$_{IM}$ of −0.6 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E$_{FOS}$ relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr$^{−1}$ persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO$_2$ fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO$_2$ flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b)

Identification of a BRCA2-Specific modifier locus at 6p24 related to breast cancer risk

Common genetic variants contribute to the observed variation in breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers; those known to date have all been found through population-based genome-wide association studies (GWAS). To comprehensively identify breast cancer risk modifying loci for BRCA2 mutation carriers, we conducted a deep replication of an ongoing GWAS discovery study. Using the ranked P-values of the breast cancer associations with the imputed genotype of 1.4 M SNPs, 19,029 SNPs were selected and designed for inclusion on a custom Illumina array that included a total of 211,155 SNPs as part of a multi-consortial project. DNA samples from 3,881 breast cancer affected and 4,330 unaffected BRCA2 mutation carriers from 47 studies belonging to the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 were genotyped and available for analysis. We replicated previously reported breast cancer susceptibility alleles in these BRCA2 mutation carriers and for several regions (including FGFR2, MAP3K1, CDKN2A/B, and PTHLH) identified SNPs that have stronger evidence of association than those previously published. We also identified a novel susceptibility allele at 6p24 that was inversely associated with risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers (rs9348512; per allele HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90, P = 3.9×10−8). This SNP was not associated with breast cancer risk either in the general population or in BRCA1 mutation carriers. The locus lies within a region containing TFAP2A, which encodes a transcriptional activation protein that interacts with several tumor suppressor genes. This report identifies the first breast cancer risk locus specific to a BRCA2 mutation background. This comprehensive update of novel and previously reported breast cancer susceptibility loci contributes to the establishment of a panel of SNPs that modify breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers. This panel may have clinical utility for women with BRCA2 mutations weighing options for medical prevention of breast cancer

Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability