Evaluación de poblaciones f2 de maíz de alta calidad de proteína en los llanos orientales de colombia

Doscientas cincuenta y tres familias F2 de alta calidad de proteína (ACP) provenientes del CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo) fueron evaluadas en dos ensayos diferentes en Menegua, una localidad ubicada en el departamento del Meta de los Llanos Orientales de Colombia. El diseño experimental utilizado fue de alpha lattice con 2 repeticiones y en cada ensayo se incluyó testigos ACP y normales. Los datos fueron analizados siguiendo el método REML (Restricted máximum Likelihood Method) del procedimiento GLM de SAS 9.1.3. Los criterios principales de selección fueron rendimiento de grano y textura de grano. Se seleccionaron 44 F2s con rendimiento superior al del testigo ACP y comparable al rendimiento de los testigos normales. La textura de grano de las familias seleccionadas fue semi-cristalino con buena dosis de genes modificadores lo que indica que el gen o2 está presente. El paso siguiente será seguir el proceso de autofecundación de las familias F2 hasta llegar a F5 en que se hará los cruzamientos con probadores a fin de identificar líneas deseables para la formación de híbridos y sintéticos

Conservation and Use of Latin American Maize Diversity: Pillar of Nutrition Security and Cultural Heritage of Humanity

Latin America is the center of domestication and diversity of maize, the second most cultivated crop worldwide. In this region, maize landraces are fundamental for food security, livelihoods, and culture. Nevertheless, genetic erosion (i.e., the loss of genetic diversity and variation in a crop) threatens the continued cultivation and in situ conservation of landrace diversity that is crucial to climate change adaptation and diverse uses of maize. We provide an overview of maize diversity in Latin America before discussing factors associated with persistence of large in situ maize diversity, causes for maize landrace abandonment by farmers, and strategies to enhance the cultivation of landraces. Among other factors, maize diversity is linked with: (1) small-holder farming, (2) the production of traditional food products, (3) traditional cropping systems, (4) cultivation in marginal areas, and (5) retention of control over the production system by the farmers. On the other hand, genetic erosion is associated with substitution of landraces with hybrid varieties or cash crops, and partial (off-farm labor) or complete migration to urban areas. Continued cultivation, and therefore on-farm conservation of genetic diversity held in maize landraces, can be encouraged by creating or strengthening market opportunities that make the cultivation of landraces and open pollinated varieties (OPVs) more profitable for farmers, supporting breeding programs that prioritize improvement of landraces and their special traits, and increasing the access to quality germplasm of landraces and landrace-derived OPVs

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used