19 research outputs found

    Developing User‐Friendly Habitat Suitability Tools from Regional Stream Fish Survey Data

    Full text link
    We developed user‐friendly fish habitat suitability tools (plots) for fishery managers in Michigan; these tools are based on driving habitat variables and fish population estimates for several hundred stream sites throughout the state. We generated contour plots to show patterns in fish biomass for over 60 common species (and for 120 species grouped at the family level) in relation to axes of catchment area and low‐flow yield (90% exceedance flow divided by catchment area) and also in relation to axes of mean and weekly range of July temperatures. The plots showed distinct patterns in fish habitat suitability at each level of biological organization studied and were useful for quantitatively comparing river sites. We demonstrate how these plots can be used to support stream management, and we provide examples pertaining to resource assessment, trout stocking, angling regulations, chemical reclamation of marginal trout streams, indicator species, instream flow protection, and habitat restoration. These straightforward and effective tools are electronically available so that managers can easily access and incorporate them into decision protocols and presentations.Received April 9, 2010; accepted November 8, 2010Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141005/1/nafm0041.pd

    Genome-wide loss of heterozygosity analysis ofWT1-wild-type andWT1-mutant Wilms tumors

    No full text
    International audienceWilms tumor (WT) is genetically heterogeneous, and the one known WT gene, WT1 at 11p13, is altered in only a subset of WTs. Previous loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analyses have revealed the existence of additional putative WT genes at 11p15, 16q, and 1p, but these analyses examined only one or a handful of chromosomes or looked at LOH at only a few markers per chromosome. We conducted a genome-wide scan for LOH in WT by using 420 markers spaced at an average of 10 cM throughout the genome and analyzed the data for two genetically defined subsets of WTs: those with mutations in WT1 and those with no detectable WT1 alteration. Our findings indicated that the incidence of LOH throughout the genome was significantly lower in our group of WTs with WT1 mutations. In WT1–wild-type tumors, we observed the expected LOH at 11p, 16q, and 1p, and, in addition, we localized a previously unobserved region of LOH at 9q. Using additional 9q markers within this region of interest, we ublocalized the region of 9q LOH to the 12.2 Mb between D9S283 and a simple tandem repeat in BAC RP11-177I8, a region containing several potential tumor-suppressor genes. As a result, we have established for the first time that WT1-mutant and WT1–wild-type WTs differ significantly in their patterns of LOH throughout the genome, suggesting that the genomic regions showing LOH in WT1–wild-type tumors harbor genes whose expression is regulated by the pleiotropic effects of WT1. Our results implicate 9q22.2–q31.1 as a region containing such a gene
    corecore