Systematic prey preference by introduced mice exhausts the ecosystem on Antipodes Island

For assistance collecting samples in the field the authors thank David Thompson, Erica Sommer, David Boyle and Mark Fraser in summer 2011, Helen Nathan, Terry Greene and Graeme Elliott in winter 2013, Fin Cox in autumn 2016 and Jose Luis Herrera in winter 2016. Thanks to the Department of Conservation, Murihiku, for logistical support, and Hank Haazen and crew of the Tiama for transport. Funding was provided for the summer 2011 expedition by NIWA and winter 2013 expedition by the National Geographic Society (Grant No. 9322-13). Thanks to Stephen Thorpe, Robert Hoare, and John Marris for taxonomic identification of invertebrate samples. Thanks to Surrya Khanam for laboratory sorting, Julie Brown and Anna Kilimnik for stable isotope laboratory analyses and Wendy Nelson for macroalgae identification. JCR is currently funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (Grant No. RDF-UOA1404). TWB is currently funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship (Grant No. 747120). Thanks to Katherine Russell and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on the manuscript. This research was conducted under DOC entry (SO-29716-LND 1011/35) and research (SO-29140-FAU 1011/20) permits, and University of Auckland Animal Ethics Committee approval (R845).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The Grizzly, October 13, 1992

Homecoming 1992 • A Question of Queens • U.C.\u27s Past Meets its Present • AFAC Dampens Coffee House Plans • U.C. Alum to Speak on Venusian Voyage • Philadelphia Renaissance Wind Band to Perform at Ursinus • Conversations with The Dead • Photographs From Total Silence • Movie Reviews: Singles; Bob Roberts • Cafferty Band Tickets on Sale • Jam Sessions Sparked By Chartreuse Walrus • TV or no TV • Question the Pain and Suffering • Letters to the Editor • Dean Kane on Homecoming • Field Hockey Has Up-and-Down Week • Arroliga Wins McIntyre Award • V-Ballers Beat All Opponents • Football Falls in Final Seconds • Soccer Wins Two Straighthttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1301/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, September 22, 1992

It\u27s That Time Again: 1992 Sorority Pledging Gets Under Way at Ursinus • Dean Kane: On Alcohol Policy • The Axe Falls on Underage Drinking at Ursinus • Koester Named Head of SAC • Freshman Officers Elected • Freshman Facts • Rushing Views • Author Victor Hernandez Cruz to Read and Speak at Ursinus • Ursinus Radio WVOU • Jazz Great Dazzles Ursinus • Christ on Campus • Movie Review: Sneakers • Letters to the Editor • Lady Bears Play Tough • Volleyball Team Working to Improve • Intramurals • Youthful Soccer Squad Struggles • Grizzlies Split: Defense Shines • U.C. on the Sea • X-Country Runs Awayhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1298/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, November 17, 1992

Ann Landers at Founder\u27s Day • Dr. Clayton Speaks on Education • An Active MSU • Elliot Speaks on Racism • Dinosaurs and Meteors • What Wismer Can Do For You • Greeks Grow With Chi Rho Psi • Top Ten Reasons Ursinus Needs a Coffeehouse • Catch of the Week • Shoulder Dancing to Depeche Mode • Voyages to Freedom Exhibit and the Jewish Experience in America • Messiah • In Their Own Words • Let\u27s See How They Like It • Concert and Jazz Bands to Perform • A Push for Physically Challenged Accessibility • Who\u27s on First? • Letters to the Editor • The Editorial Mission: Our Relationship to The Grizzly • UC Men\u27s Basketball For \u2792-\u2793 • Senior Billitto Glad He Transferred to UC • Field Hockey \u2792: A Look Back • Football Ends Tough Yearhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1305/thumbnail.jp

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms.This work was supported as a Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program funding 2021–22 (project team: A.J.M., L.J.C., D.M.B., C.K.K., J.S.S. and L.S.). Support was also provided (to J.D.S, E.L.J., S.A.R., J.S.S., M.I.S., J.M.S., N.G.W.) from Australian Research Council SRIEAS grant SR200100005. P.C. and K.A.H. are supported by NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office, respectively. L.R.P. and M.G. are supported by Biodiversa ASICS funding

An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : FIGURE S1. Map of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean including year-round Australian stations. Sourced from the Australian Antarctic Data Centre (https://data.aad.gov.au/map-catalogue/map/14159) under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. TABLE S1. Ranked list of marine species that represent the greatest perceived risk of arrival, establishment, and impact via the Australian Antarctic Program. TABLE S2. Ranked list of terrestrial invertebrate species that represent the greatest perceived risk of arrival, establishment, and impact via the Australian Antarctic Program. TABLE S3. Ranked list of terrestrial plant species that represent the greatest perceived risk of arrival, establishment, and impact via the Australian Antarctic Program. TABLE S4. Genetic resources currently available for priority species, including species-specific real-time PCR assays, and reference sequences for DNA barcoding genes or mitochondrial/chloroplast genomes.Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by- consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms.A Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program; Australian Research Council; NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office; and Biodiversa ASICS funding.http://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/Default.aspxhj2024Plant Production and Soil ScienceSDG-14:Life below wate

Pravastatin for early-onset pre-eclampsia:a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Objective: Women with pre-eclampsia have elevated circulating levels of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1). Statins can reduce sFlt-1 from cultured cells and improve pregnancy outcome in animals with a pre-eclampsia-like syndrome. We investigated the effect of pravastatin on plasma sFlt-1 levels during pre-eclampsia. Design: Blinded (clinician and participant), proof of principle, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Fifteen UK maternity units. Population: We used a minimisation algorithm to assign 62 women with early-onset pre-eclampsia (24 +0–31 +6 weeks of gestation) to receive pravastatin 40 mg daily (n = 30) or matched placebo (n = 32), from randomisation to childbirth. Primary outcome: Difference in mean plasma sFlt-1 levels over the first 3 days following randomisation. Results: The difference in the mean maternal plasma sFlt-1 levels over the first 3 days after randomisation between the pravastatin (n = 27) and placebo (n = 29) groups was 292 pg/ml (95% CI −1175 to 592; P = 0.5), and over days 1–14 was 48 pg/ml (95% CI −1009 to 913; P = 0.9). Women who received pravastatin had a similar length of pregnancy following randomisation compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.50–1.40; P = 0.6). The median time from randomisation to childbirth was 9 days [interquartile range (IQR) 5–14 days] for the pravastatin group and 7 days (IQR 4–11 days) for the placebo group. There were three perinatal deaths in the placebo-treated group and no deaths or serious adverse events attributable to pravastatin. Conclusions: We found no evidence that pravastatin lowered maternal plasma sFlt-1 levels once early-onset pre-eclampsia had developed. Pravastatin appears to have no adverse perinatal effects. Tweetable abstract: Pravastatin does not improve maternal plasma sFlt-1 or placental growth factor levels following a diagnosis of early preterm pre-eclampsia #clinicaltrial finds

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