Analogue model of rift linkage and inversion with application to the Western Alps

Along-strike segmentation of orogens raises questions because its causes may predate orogeny in relation to structural inheritance. Here we focus on rift/margin linkage domains and their inversion by using analogue models with image analysis to extract the 3D strain field. Extensional models document, depending on the strike-perpendicular offset and the brittle-crust thickness, three types of rift linkage modes: (1) oblique linkage with early T-fault, (2) strongly-oblique linkage with R-fault network and, (3) transfer-linkage with late Y-strike-slip fault. Analogue model of inverted rift basins is used to analyse the misunderstood tectonic evolution of transition zones in the segmented Western Alpine belt

Genome-wide survey and analysis of microsatellites in nematodes, with a focus on the plant-parasitic species Meloidogyne incognita

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Microsatellites are the most popular source of molecular markers for studying population genetic variation in eukaryotes. However, few data are currently available about their genomic distribution and abundance across the phylum Nematoda. The recent completion of the genomes of several nematode species, including <it>Meloidogyne incognita</it>, a major agricultural pest worldwide, now opens the way for a comparative survey and analysis of microsatellites in these organisms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using MsatFinder, the total numbers of 1-6 bp perfect microsatellites detected in the complete genomes of five nematode species (<it>Brugia malayi</it>, <it>Caenorhabditis elegans</it>, <it>M. hapla</it>, <it>M. incognita</it>, <it>Pristionchus pacificus</it>) ranged from 2,842 to 61,547, and covered from 0.09 to 1.20% of the nematode genomes. Under our search criteria, the most common repeat motifs for each length class varied according to the different nematode species considered, with no obvious relation to the AT-richness of their genomes. Overall, (AT)_<it>n</it>, (AG)_{<it>n </it>}and (CT)_{<it>n </it>}were the three most frequent dinucleotide microsatellite motifs found in the five genomes considered. Except for two motifs in <it>P. pacificus</it>, all the most frequent trinucleotide motifs were AT-rich, with (AAT)_{<it>n </it>}and (ATT)_{<it>n </it>}being the only common to the five nematode species. A particular attention was paid to the microsatellite content of the plant-parasitic species <it>M. incognita</it>. In this species, a repertoire of 4,880 microsatellite loci was identified, from which 2,183 appeared suitable to design markers for population genetic studies. Interestingly, 1,094 microsatellites were identified in 801 predicted protein-coding regions, 99% of them being trinucleotides. When compared against the InterPro domain database, 497 of these CDS were successfully annotated, and further assigned to Gene Ontology terms.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Contrasted patterns of microsatellite abundance and diversity were characterized in five nematode genomes, even in the case of two closely related <it>Meloidogyne </it>species. 2,245 di- to hexanucleotide loci were identified in the genome of <it>M. incognita</it>, providing adequate material for the future development of a wide range of microsatellite markers in this major plant parasite.</p

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