Chromosome-level genome assembly of a high-altitude-adapted frog (Rana kukunoris) from the Tibetan plateau provides insight into amphibian genome evolution and adaptation

Background The high-altitude-adapted frog Rana kukunoris, occurring on the Tibetan plateau, is an excellent model to study life history evolution and adaptation to harsh high-altitude environments. However, genomic resources for this species are still underdeveloped constraining attempts to investigate the underpinnings of adaptation. Results The R. kukunoris genome was assembled to a size of 4.83 Gb and the contig N50 was 1.80 Mb. The 6555 contigs were clustered and ordered into 12 pseudo-chromosomes covering similar to 93.07% of the assembled genome. In total, 32,304 genes were functionally annotated. Synteny analysis between the genomes of R. kukunoris and a low latitude species Rana temporaria showed a high degree of chromosome level synteny with one fusion event between chr11 and chr13 forming pseudo-chromosome 11 in R. kukunoris. Characterization of features of the R. kukunoris genome identified that 61.5% consisted of transposable elements and expansions of gene families related to cell nucleus structure and taste sense were identified. Ninety-five single-copy orthologous genes were identified as being under positive selection and had functions associated with the positive regulation of proteins in the catabolic process and negative regulation of developmental growth. These gene family expansions and positively selected genes indicate regions for further interrogation to understand adaptation to high altitude. Conclusions Here, we reported a high-quality chromosome-level genome assembly of a high-altitude amphibian species using a combination of Illumina, PacBio and Hi-C sequencing technologies. This genome assembly provides a valuable resource for subsequent research on R. kukunoris genomics and amphibian genome evolution in general.Peer reviewe

Data from: Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in ESRD patients: complications and outcomes

Background: Several studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients. Methods: In this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups. Results: Our study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate. Conclusion: In an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis

relevant data

Relevant data underlying the results

Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients: Complications and Outcomes

<div><p>Background</p><p>Several studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.</p><p>Methods</p><p>In this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.</p><p>Results</p><p>Our study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>In an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.</p></div

Patient survival curves for study groups.

<p>No difference between PD and HD groups in patient survival (log rank, 0.004; p = 0.947). PD: peritoneal dialysis; HD: hemodialysis.</p

Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of the Study Patients.

<p>Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of the Study Patients.</p

Dialysis-related Complications in the Study Groups during a 30-day Period.

<p>Dialysis-related Complications in the Study Groups during a 30-day Period.</p

Baseline Laboratory Characteristics of the Study Patients.

<p>Baseline Laboratory Characteristics of the Study Patients.</p

Predictors of Patient Survival by Logistic Regression Analysis.

<p>Predictors of Patient Survival by Logistic Regression Analysis.</p