Repeat-sequence turnover shifts fundamentally in species with large genomes

Given the 2,400-fold range of genome sizes (0.06–148.9 Gbp (gigabase pair)) of seed plants (angiosperms and gymnosperms) with a broadly similar gene content (amounting to approximately 0.03 Gbp), the repeat-sequence content of the genome might be expected to increase with genome size, resulting in the largest genomes consisting almost entirely of repetitive sequences. Here we test this prediction, using the same bioinformatic approach for 101 species to ensure consistency in what constitutes a repeat. We reveal a fundamental change in repeat turnover in genomes above around 10 Gbp, such that species with the largest genomes are only about 55% repetitive. Given that genome size influences many plant traits, habits and life strategies, this fundamental shift in repeat dynamics is likely to affect the evolutionary trajectory of species lineages.We thank Natural Environment Research Council (NE/G020256/1), the Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO:60077344) and Ramón y Cajal Fellowship (RYC-2017-2274) funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Gobierno de España) for support. We also thank Natural Environment Research Council for funding a studentship to S.D. and the China Scholarship Council for funding W.W.Abstract Main Methods Data availability Code availability References Acknowledgements Author information Ethics declarations Additional information Extended data Supplementary information Rights and permissions About this article Further readin

Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that financial incentive interventions, which include both financial rewards and also penalties, are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours. However, concerns about the acceptability of such interventions remain. We report on focus groups with a cross-section of adults from North East England exploring their acceptance of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviours amongst adults. Such information should help guide the design and development of acceptable, and effective, financial incentive interventions. METHODS: Eight focus groups with a total of 74 adults were conducted between November 2013 and January 2014 in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Focus groups lasted approximately 60 minutes and explored factors that made financial incentives acceptable and unacceptable to participants, together with discussions on preferred formats for financial incentives. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded and analysed in Nvivo 10. RESULTS: Participants largely distrusted health promoting financial incentives, with a concern that individuals may abuse such schemes. There was, however, evidence that health promoting financial incentives may be more acceptable if they are fair to all recipients and members of the public; if they are closely monitored and evaluated; if they are shown to be effective and cost-effective; and if clear health education is provided alongside health promoting financial incentives. There was also a preference for positive rewards rather than negative penalties, and for shopping vouchers rather than cash incentives. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative empirical research has highlighted clear suggestions on how to design health promoting financial incentives to maximise acceptability to the general public. It will also be important to determine the acceptability of health promoting financial incentives in a range of stakeholders, and in particular, those who fund such schemes, and policy-makers who are likely to be involved with the design, implementation and evaluation of health promoting financial incentive schemes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1409-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users