Lessons learned from organizing and teaching virtual phylogenetics workshops

No abstract available

Genome of the Avirulent Human-Infective Trypanosome—Trypanosoma rangeli

Background: Trypanosoma rangeli is a hemoflagellate protozoan parasite infecting humans and other wild and domestic mammals across Central and South America. It does not cause human disease, but it can be mistaken for the etiologic agent of Chagas disease, Trypanosoma cruzi. We have sequenced the T. rangeli genome to provide new tools for elucidating the distinct and intriguing biology of this species and the key pathways related to interaction with its arthropod and mammalian hosts.  Methodology/Principal Findings: The T. rangeli haploid genome is ,24 Mb in length, and is the smallest and least repetitive trypanosomatid genome sequenced thus far. This parasite genome has shorter subtelomeric sequences compared to those of T. cruzi and T. brucei; displays intraspecific karyotype variability and lacks minichromosomes. Of the predicted 7,613 protein coding sequences, functional annotations could be determined for 2,415, while 5,043 are hypothetical proteins, some with evidence of protein expression. 7,101 genes (93%) are shared with other trypanosomatids that infect humans. An ortholog of the dcl2 gene involved in the T. brucei RNAi pathway was found in T. rangeli, but the RNAi machinery is non-functional since the other genes in this pathway are pseudogenized. T. rangeli is highly susceptible to oxidative stress, a phenotype that may be explained by a smaller number of anti-oxidant defense enzymes and heatshock proteins.  Conclusions/Significance: Phylogenetic comparison of nuclear and mitochondrial genes indicates that T. rangeli and T. cruzi are equidistant from T. brucei. In addition to revealing new aspects of trypanosome co-evolution within the vertebrate and invertebrate hosts, comparative genomic analysis with pathogenic trypanosomatids provides valuable new information that can be further explored with the aim of developing better diagnostic tools and/or therapeutic targets

BEAST 2.5:An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis

Elaboration of Bayesian phylogenetic inference methods has continued at pace in recent years with major new advances in nearly all aspects of the joint modelling of evolutionary data. It is increasingly appreciated that some evolutionary questions can only be adequately answered by combining evidence from multiple independent sources of data, including genome sequences, sampling dates, phenotypic data, radiocarbon dates, fossil occurrences, and biogeographic range information among others. Including all relevant data into a single joint model is very challenging both conceptually and computationally. Advanced computational software packages that allow robust development of compatible (sub-)models which can be composed into a full model hierarchy have played a key role in these developments. Developing such software frameworks is increasingly a major scientific activity in its own right, and comes with specific challenges, from practical software design, development and engineering challenges to statistical and conceptual modelling challenges. BEAST 2 is one such computational software platform, and was first announced over 4 years ago. Here we describe a series of major new developments in the BEAST 2 core platform and model hierarchy that have occurred since the first release of the software, culminating in the recent 2.5 release

Para que servem os inventários de fauna?

Inventários de fauna acessam diretamente a diversidade de uma localidade, em um determinado espaço e tempo. Os dados primários gerados pelos inventários compõem uma das ferramentas mais importantes na tomada de decisões a respeito do manejo de áreas naturais. Entretanto, vários problemas têm sido observados em diversos níveis relacionados aos inventários de fauna no Brasil e vão desde a formação de recursos humanos até a ausência de padronização, de desenho experimental e de seleção de métodos inadequados. São apresentados estudos de caso com mamíferos, répteis, anfíbios e peixes, nos quais são discutidos problemas como variabilidade temporal e métodos para detecção de fauna terrestre, sugerindo que tanto os inventários quanto os programas de monitoramento devam se estender por prazos maiores e que os inventários devem incluir diferentes metodologias para que os seus objetivos sejam plenamente alcançados.Inventories of fauna directly access the diversity of a locality in a certain period of time. The primary data generated by these inventories comprise one of the most important steps in decisions making regarding the management of natural areas. However, several problems have been observed at different levels related to inventories of fauna in Brazil, and range from the training of humans to the lack of standardization of experimental design and selection of inappropriate methods. We present case studies of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fishes, where they discussed issues such temporal variability and methods for detection of terrestrial fauna, suggesting that both inventories and monitoring programs should be extended for longer terms and that inventories should include different methodologies to ensure that their goals are fully achieved

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016