Duetting Patterns of Titi Monkeys (Primates, Pitheciidae: Callicebinae) and Relationships with Phylogeny

Long-range vocal communication in socially monogamous titi monkeys is mediated by the production of loud, advertising calls in the form of solos, duets, and choruses. We conducted a power spectral analysis of duets and choruses (simply “duets” hereafter) followed by linear discriminant analysis using three acoustic parameters—dominant frequency of the combined signal, duet sequence duration, and pant call rate—comparing the coordinated vocalizations recorded from 36 family groups at 18 sites in Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. Our analysis identified four distinct duetting patterns: (1) a donacophilus pattern, sensu stricto, characteristic of P. donacophilus, P. pallescens, P. olallae, and P. modestus; (2) a moloch pattern comprising P. discolor, P. toppini, P. aureipalatii, and P. urubambensis; (3) a torquatus pattern exemplified by the duet of Cheracebus lucifer; and (4) the distinctive duet of P. oenanthe, a putative member of the donacophilus group, which is characterized by a mix of broadband and narrowband syllables, many of which are unique to this species. We also document a sex-related difference in the bellow-pant phrase combination among the three taxa sampled from the moloch lineage. Our data reveal a presumptive taxonomic incoherence illustrated by the distinctive loud calls of both P. urubambensis and P. oenanthe within the donacophilus lineage, sensu largo. The results are discussed in light of recent reassessments of the callicebine phylogeny, based on a suite of genetic studies, and the potential contribution of environmental influences, including habitat acoustics and social learning. A better knowledge of callicebine loud calls may also impact the conservation of critically endangered populations, such as the vocally distinctive Peruvian endemic, the San Martin titi, P. oenanthe

Gemcitabine plus sirolimus for relapsed and progressing osteosarcoma patients after standard chemotherapy: a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial of Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS)

[Background] Patients with relapsed unresectable osteosarcoma represents an unmet need, so active and safe systemic treatments are required. Fas cell surface death receptor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways are implicated in progressing osteosarcoma, and we had preclinical and clinical experience with a scheme that targets both pathways. Therefore, we designed a phase II trial with gemcitabine plus rapamycin, to determine the efficacy and safety, in this subset of patients.[Patients and methods] A multicenter, single-arm phase II trial was sponsored by the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma. Osteosarcoma patients, relapsed or progressing after standard chemotherapy and unsuitable for metastasectomy received gemcitabine and rapamycin p.o. 5 mg/day except for the same day of gemcitabine administration, and the day before. The main end point was 4-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR), with the assumption that rates higher than 40% would be considered as an active regimen. Translational research aimed to correlate biomarkers with the clinical outcome.[Results] Thirty-five patients were enrolled and received at least one cycle. PFSR at 4 months was 44%, and after central radiologic assessment, 2 partial responses and 14 stabilizations (48.5%) were reported from 33 assessable patients. The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were: neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (20%), anemia (23%), and fatigue (15%); however, only three patients had febrile neutropenia. Positive protein expression of RRM1 significantly correlated with worse PFS and overall survival, while positivity of P-ERK1/2 was correlated with significant better overall survival.[Conclusion] Gemcitabine plus sirolimus exhibits satisfactory antitumor activity and safety in this osteosarcoma population, exceeding the prespecified 40% of 4-month PFSR. The significant correlation of biomarkers with clinical outcome encourages further prospective investigation.This work was funded by the Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality of Spain, through a public competitive call (project reference EC11-444) and by the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS), which sponsored the trial (no grant numbers apply).Peer reviewe