The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world.

The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is a widely used resource that comprehensively organizes and defines the phenotypic features of human disease, enabling computational inference and supporting genomic and phenotypic analyses through semantic similarity and machine learning algorithms. The HPO has widespread applications in clinical diagnostics and translational research, including genomic diagnostics, gene-disease discovery, and cohort analytics. In recent years, groups around the world have developed translations of the HPO from English to other languages, and the HPO browser has been internationalized, allowing users to view HPO term labels and in many cases synonyms and definitions in ten languages in addition to English. Since our last report, a total of 2239 new HPO terms and 49235 new HPO annotations were developed, many in collaboration with external groups in the fields of psychiatry, arthrogryposis, immunology and cardiology. The Medical Action Ontology (MAxO) is a new effort to model treatments and other measures taken for clinical management. Finally, the HPO consortium is contributing to efforts to integrate the HPO and the GA4GH Phenopacket Schema into electronic health records (EHRs) with the goal of more standardized and computable integration of rare disease data in EHRs

Effects of different irrigation regimes on a super-high-density olive grove cv. “Arbequina”: vegetative growth, productivity and polyphenol content of the oil

The effects of multiple irrigation regimes on the relationships among tree water status, vegetative growth and productivity within a super-high-density (SHD) “Arbequina” olive grove (1950 tree/ha) were studied for three seasons (2008–2010). Five different irrigation levels calculated as percentage of crop irrigation requirement using FAO procedures (Allen et al. in Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 1998) were imposed during the growing season. Periodically during the growing season, daytime stem water potential (ΨSTEM), inflorescences per branch, fruits per inflorescence and shoot absolute growth rate were measured. Crop yield, fruit average fresh weight and oil polyphenol content were measured after harvest. The midday ΨSTEM ranged from −7 to −1.5 MPa and correlated well enough with yield efficiency, crop density and fruit fresh weight to demonstrate its utility as a precise method for determining water status in SHD olive orchards. The relationships between midday ΨSTEM and the horticultural parameters suggest maintaining ΨSTEM values between −3.5 and −2.5 MPa is optimal for moderate annual yields of good quality oil. Values below −3.5 MPa reduced current season productivity, while values over −2.5 MPa were less effective in increasing productivity, reduced oil quality and produced excessive crop set that strongly affected vegetative growth and fruit production the following season. On the basis of the result given here, irrigation scheduling in the new SHD orchards should be planned on a 2-year basis and corrected annually based on crop load. Collectively, these results suggest that deficit irrigation management is a viable strategy for SHD olive orchards

Embracing Chance: Post-Modern Meditations on Punishment

Since the modern era, the discourse of punishment has cycled through three sets of questions. The first, born of the Enlightenment itself, asked: On what ground does the sovereign have the right to punish? Nietzsche most forcefully, but others as well, argued that the question itself begged its own answer. The right to punish, they suggested, is what defines sovereignty, and as such, can never serve to limit sovereign power. With the birth of the social sciences, this skepticism gave rise to a second set of questions: What then is the true function of punishment? What is it that we do when we punish? From Durkheim to the Frankfurt School to Michel Foucault, 20th century moderns explored social organization, economic production, political legitimacy, and the construction of the self – turning punishment practices upside down, dissecting not only their repressive functions but more importantly their role in constructing society and the contemporary subject. A series of further critiques – of meta-narratives, of functionalism, of scientific objectivity – softened this second line of inquiry and helped shape a third set of questions: What does punishment tell us about ourselves and our culture? What is the cultural meaning of our punishment practices? These three sets of questions set the contours of our modern discourse on crime and punishment. What happens now – now that we have seen what lies around the cultural bend and realize that the same critiques apply with equal force to any interpretation of social meaning that we could possibly read into our contemporary punishment practices? Should we continue to labor on this third and final set of questions, return to an earlier set, or, as all our predecessors did, craft a new line of inquiry? What question shall we – children of the 21st century – pose of our punishment practices and institutions? In this essay, I argue that we should abandon the misguided project of modernity, recognize once and for all the limits of reason, and turn instead to randomization and chance. In all the modern texts, there always came this moment when the empirical facts ran out or the deductions of principle reached their limit – or both – and yet the reasoning continued. There was always this moment, ironically, when the moderns took a leap of faith. And it was always there, at that precise moment, that we learned the most: that we could read from the text and decipher a vision of just punishment that was never entirely rational, never purely empirical, and never fully determined by the theoretical premises of the author. In each and every case, the modern text let slip a leap of faith – an ethical choice about how to resolve a gap, an ambiguity, an indeterminacy in an argument of principle or fact. Rather than continue to take these leaps of faith, I urge us to recognize the critical limits of reason and, whenever we reach them, to rely instead on randomization. Where our facts run out, where our principles no longer guide us, we should leave the decision-making to the coin toss, the roll of the dice, the lottery draw – in sum, to chance. This essay begins to explore what that would mean in the field of crime and punishment