TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

Comparison of the validity of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for embryo chromosomal anomalies by fluorescence in situ hybridization on one or two blastomeres.

Is it necessary to analyze two blastomeres in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or is one blastomere enough, as suggested by some teams? We analyzed the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), and the efficiency (Eff) of FISH performed on one (Group I) or two (Group II) blastomeres. Ninety embryos were analyzed (day 3), 19 blastocysts were replaced (day 5), 64 embryos were reanalyzed (day 5), (Group I = 23; Group II = 41). No differences were observed between the two groups for all of the parameters considered, but one false negative was observed in Group I. Furthermore, two embryos from Group II, which had a discordant diagnosis at PGD (one blastomere being normal and one abnormal), were read as abnormal after reanalysis. The accidental biopsy of the normal blastomere could have lead to the selection of these 2 embryos for transfer, causing a misdiagnosis rate of 4.8%. We conclude that embryo reanalysis is a useful tool to test the reliability of PGD in each laboratory: that PGD on two blastomeres is safer because the practice of PGD on one blastomere can result in a false-negative misdiagnosis.Journal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Development of the human dispermic embryo

10.1093/humupd/5.5.553Human Reproduction Update55553-560HRUP