Population genomics of sub-Saharan Drosophila melanogaster: African diversity and non-African admixture

(ABRIDGED) We report the genome sequencing of 139 wild-derived strains of D. melanogaster, representing 22 population samples from the sub-Saharan ancestral range of this species, along with one European population. Most genomes were sequenced above 25X depth from haploid embryos. Results indicated a pervasive influence of non-African admixture in many African populations, motivating the development and application of a novel admixture detection method. Admixture proportions varied among populations, with greater admixture in urban locations. Admixture levels also varied across the genome, with localized peaks and valleys suggestive of a non-neutral introgression process. Genomes from the same location differed starkly in ancestry, suggesting that isolation mechanisms may exist within African populations. After removing putatively admixed genomic segments, the greatest genetic diversity was observed in southern Africa (e.g. Zambia), while diversity in other populations was largely consistent with a geographic expansion from this potentially ancestral region. The European population showed different levels of diversity reduction on each chromosome arm, and some African populations displayed chromosome arm-specific diversity reductions. Inversions in the European sample were associated with strong elevations in diversity across chromosome arms. Genomic scans were conducted to identify loci that may represent targets of positive selection. A disproportionate number of candidate selective sweep regions were located near genes with varied roles in gene regulation. Outliers for Europe-Africa FST were found to be enriched in genomic regions of locally elevated cosmopolitan admixture, possibly reflecting a role for some of these loci in driving the introgression of non-African alleles into African populations

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

IT\u27S ELECTRIC! QUANTIFYING ENERGY EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGULAR PEDAL BICYCLES AND ELECTRIC-ASSIST BIKE-SHARE BICYCLES

Jennifer Sella1, S. Morgan Hughey1, J D. Adams1, Sarah Porto1, Daniel Bornstein2, Dimitra Michalaka2, Kweku Brown2, William J. Davis2, Safae Amahrir3, Kari Watkins3.1College of Charleston, Charleston, SC. 2The Citadel, Charleston, SC. 3Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. BACKGROUND: With over half of American adults not meeting national physical activity guidelines, one way to promote regular activity is through bike share systems. A growing trend among bike-share systems is offering electric-assist pedal bikes (e-bikes). This study 1) quantified the differences in energy expenditure between regular bikes and e-bikes, and 2) examined differences in perceptions of difficulty and enjoyment between regular and e-bikes. METHODS: Fifteen participants from Charleston, SC completed the study, all of whom were 18-40 years old, had no underlying health conditions, and met physical activity guidelines. First, participants completed a bicycle maximal fitness test and body composition in the laboratory. Then, on separate days, participants completed two, hour-long steady-state bicycle rides at a local park, one on a regular bike and one on an e-bike, the order of which was randomly selected. During each bicycle ride, continuous heart rate and speed (kilometers per hour) were measured with a Polar H7 Bluetooth heart rate monitor. Using the Borg scale, participants reported perceived exertion at four intervals of each ride. Similarly, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree), participants reported perceived enjoyment, difficulty, and tiredness at the end of each ride. Paired t-tests were used to assess differences between the e-bike and regular bike rides. RESULTS: Participants (n=15) were mostly female (66.7%), with an average age of 27.1 and an average body mass index of 22.9. Participants exerted more energy at a greater percentage of maximum heart rate on the regular bike (mean=66.4%) compared to the e-bike (mean=58.3%, p=0.006). Participants also rode at significantly greater speed on the e-bike (mean=20.9km/h) compared to the regular bike ride (mean=14.7; p=0.000). Enjoyment was higher on the e-bike (mean=1.4) than the regular bike (mean=2.2; p=0.009). Perceived exertion, difficulty, and tiredness were lower on the e-bike (mean= 9.6, 4.0, 3.6, respectively) compared to the regular bike ride (mean= 12.0, 2.9, 2.3, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: E-bike rides resulted in lower energy expenditure than regular bikes, though both modes could still have health benefits since they fell within the moderate-intensity physical activity category. E-bikes may be attractive for integrating activity in daily routines since participants reported less difficulty and more enjoyment. Grant or funding information: This work was supported by 1) the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Program at the College of Charleston, and 2) the Southeastern Transportation Research, Innovation, Development and Education Center (STRIDE), a Regional University Transportation Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation\u27s University Transportation Centers Program