Rapid growth of an intact human liver transplanted into a recipient larger than the donor

Two individuals undergoing orthotopic hepatic transplantation received livers from donors who were on average 10 kg smaller than themselves based on recipient ideal body weight. As a result, the donor livers in these 2 cases were 29%-59% smaller than would be expected had the donor liver and recipient been matched ideally. The liver grafts in the recipients steadily increased in size, as determined by serial computed tomography scanning, to achieve new volumes consistent with those that would have been expected in a normal individual of the recipient's size, sex, and age. Fasting plasma levels of amino acids, glucagon, insulin, and standard liver injury tests were monitored to determine which measure best reflected the changes observed in the size of the grafts over time. No relationship between the changes observed in any of these parameters and hepatic growth was apparent. In both cases, the liver increased in volume at a rate of ~70 ml/day. These data demonstrate that a small-for-size liver transplanted into a larger recipient increases in size at a rate of ~70 ml/day until it achieves a liver volume consistent with that expected given the recipient's size, age, and sex. © 1987

Data from: Delimiting Species Using DNA and Morphological Variation and Discordant Species Limits in Spiny Lizards (Sceloporus)

Haplotype phylogenies based on DNA sequence data are increasingly being used to test traditional species-level taxonomies based on morphology. However, few studies have critically compared species limits based on morphological and DNA data, and the methods used to delimit species using either type of data are only rarely explained. In this paper, we review three approaches for species delimitation (tree-based with DNA data and tree-based and character-based with morphological data) and propose explicit protocols for each. We then compare species limits inferred from these approaches, using morphological and mtDNA data for the Yarrow's spiny lizard (Sceloporus jarrovii), a traditionally polytypic species from the southwestern United States and Mexico. All three approaches support division of S. jarrovii into five species, but only two species are the same among the three approaches. We find the greatest support for the five species that are delimited based on mtDNA data, and we argue that mtDNA data may have important (and previously unappreciated) advantages for species delimitation. Because different data and approaches can disagree so extensively, our results demonstrate that the methodology of species delimitation is a critical issue in systematics

Data from: Delimiting Species Using DNA and Morphological Variation and Discordant Species Limits in Spiny Lizards (Sceloporus)

Haplotype phylogenies based on DNA sequence data are increasingly being used to test traditional species-level taxonomies based on morphology. However, few studies have critically compared species limits based on morphological and DNA data, and the methods used to delimit species using either type of data are only rarely explained. In this paper, we review three approaches for species delimitation (tree-based with DNA data and tree-based and character-based with morphological data) and propose explicit protocols for each. We then compare species limits inferred from these approaches, using morphological and mtDNA data for the Yarrow's spiny lizard (Sceloporus jarrovii), a traditionally polytypic species from the southwestern United States and Mexico. All three approaches support division of S. jarrovii into five species, but only two species are the same among the three approaches. We find the greatest support for the five species that are delimited based on mtDNA data, and we argue that mtDNA data may have important (and previously unappreciated) advantages for species delimitation. Because different data and approaches can disagree so extensively, our results demonstrate that the methodology of species delimitation is a critical issue in systematics

Appendix 3-6

Appendix 3-

Appendix 3-4

Appendix 3-

Appendix 2-2

Appendix 2-

Appendix 3-2

Appendix 3-

Appendix 3-1

Appendix 3-