Tucson, AZ, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Laland K.N.,Center for Biological Diversity
Trends in Ecology and Evolution | Year: 2017

November 7-9, 2016 witnessed a joint discussion meeting of the Royal Society and the British Academy (the UK national academies for the sciences and social sciences, respectively) entitled 'New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Science Perspectives'. The meeting, anticipated with a mix of feverish enthusiasm and dread, sold out months in advance, the eager audience perhaps expecting radical and traditional evolutionists to go toe to toe, rather than the constructive dialogue among biologists, social scientists, and researchers in the humanities that the academies advertised. One issue under discussion was whether or not the explanatory core of evolutionary biology requires updating in the light on recent advances in evo-devo, epigenetics, ecosystem ecology, and elsewhere. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd.


News Article | May 9, 2017
Site: www.intrafish.com

US District Judge Amit Mehta made a decision Monday allowing the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers (ABSC) to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit filed by the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and several US seafood firms despite the plaintiffs opposing ABSC's joining. The NFI and the companies filed a lawsuit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other federal regulators alleging federal agencies violated several laws in rushing to pass a new seafood traceability rule before US President Donald Trump took office. The claims of ABSC President Kale Garcia were submitted as reasons why the crabber association should intervene. Garcia claims that the traceability rule would benefit ABSC members. “If plaintiffs succeed in vacating the [the rule], the financial benefits to ABSC’s members in excluding illegally caught Russian crab from the US market will be lost, and ABSC’s members will continue to face unfair competition and attendant economic losses from imports of illegally harvested crab," said Garcia, according to court documents. Plaintiffs allege the measure would allegedly increase processing costs from a low of $520 million (€489.6 million) per year to a high of more than $1 billion (€941.1 million) per year. Although Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council,and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion to join the lawsuit, the judge denied their motion. For more seafood news and updates, follow us on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our daily newsletter.


News Article | May 13, 2017
Site: www.theguardian.com

Over the past few years, evidence has been mounting that synthetic textiles such as polyester and acrylic, which make up much of our clothing, are a major source of pollution in the world’s oceans. That’s because washing those clothes causes tiny plastic fibers to shed and travel through wastewater treatment plants into public waterways. These microfibers are sometimes inadvertently gobbled up by aquatic organisms, including the fish that end up on our plate. The apparel industry is largely responsible for stopping microfiber pollution, yet it has been slow to respond, according to a report released Tuesday by Mermaids, a three-year, €1.2m project by a consortium of European textile experts and researchers. The report recommended changes in manufacturing synthetic textiles, including using coatings designed to reduce fiber loss. Maria Westerbos, director of the Plastic Soup Foundation, an Amsterdam-based nonprofit and Mermaids’ public outreach partner, urges the apparel makers and sellers to apply the report’s recommendations. “So far we have hardly seen any effort from the clothing industry to tackle the problem at the source,” she said. The Mermaids report is the latest research effort to quantify the environmental and health impact of microfiber pollution and offer potential solutions. Researchers studying plastic pollution started discovering microfibers in the early 2000s but it was not until a 2011 study, by ecologist Anthony Browne, that microfibers were linked to the apparel industry. He sought research funding from the apparel industry but received little support. In recent years, additional studies revealed the enormity of the problem. It is estimated that a single fleece jacket can release a million fibers in a single washing. Numbers like that stunned the public, but only a few brands have launched or completed studies to determine how many fibers their products shed, or whether fibers found in the environment can be traced back to their products. None have announced design-based solutions that would result in products that shed fewer synthetic fibers, something that The Story of Stuff, an environmental group, called for in a short film earlier this year. Canadian retailer MEC and outdoor apparel brand Arc’teryx recently commissioned researchers at the Vancouver Aquarium to develop a protocol for tracking synthetic fibers from the source – their apparel – to the ocean. The firms hope the protocol will become an industry standard that other brands will use as well. Last year, Patagonia released findings from a lab-based study to quantify fibers shed from its products in the wash. However, the tests did not use detergent, which multiple studies have shown significantly increases fiber loss, so the results do not reflect real-world conditions. Meanwhile, stopgap measures are emerging. A German company recently created Guppy Friend, a fiber-catching mesh bag for holding synthetic clothes while washing them. The inventors of another device, Cora Ball, recently raised just over $353,000 through Kickstarter when they sought only $10,000 to bring the product to the market. Cora Ball, tossed into the washer with the clothes, attracts and entangles fibers. But it’s impossible to know at the moment how successful these new devices will be. Mermaids’ report also suggested new formulas for laundry detergents to help minimize fiber shedding. It also advised consumers to stay away from powder detergent, especially those with added oxidizing agents to remove tough stain because they produce the highest fiber loss during washing. Short, gentle wash cycles in cool water are best, and fabric softener helps reduce shedding, too. Last year, Mermaids launched a public awareness campaign to get the word out. The contamination is getting worse. Just this week, an advocacy group, Center for Biological Diversity, called on the California State Water Board to rule that plastic pollution is a significant problem in its coastal water, a determination that could prompt new policies to regulate companies selling plastic, says Blake Kopcho, the group’s ocean campaigner. The group points to the findings of a 2016 study by the San Francisco Estuary Institute that estimates that wastewater treatment facilities discharge 56 million microplastic particles, nearly all microfibers, into the San Francisco Bay each day. Researchers launched Mermaids in 2015 and set an ambitious goal to cut the amount of microfiber shedding during washing by 70%. The Italian National Research Council led the research, with help from Polysistec, a maker of textile coatings, and Leitat, a Spanish research council. The Mermaids researchers pinpointed factors in the manufacturing of polyester and acrylic textiles that influences the amount of fibers that could be shed from a finished product while it is being laundered, or even during normal wear. They then recommended changes, such as lowering the melting temperature during yarn production to improve it tensile strength and reduce the likelihood of breakage. There are tradeoffs to changing manufacturing processes, however, and some could lead to slower production rates. The researchers also evaluated a range of coatings, or chemical treatments, for their ability to inhibit fiber loss. The coatings that are already used by textile makers, such as silicone and acrylic finishes, produced mixed results, ranging from zero reduction to cutting fiber loss by as much as 40%. One of two bio-based finishes, chitosan, which is derived from crustacean shells, reduced fiber loss by up to 50% compared to no coating. While the Mermaids report offers recommendations, it doesn’t spell out the financial and technical difficulties of implementing manufacturing changes. Textile and apparel makers so far seem unconvinced that they should invest in those changes. MEC and Patagonia declined to comment on the Mermaids findings, and representatives from both companies said they would not be bringing the Mermaids recommendations to their textile partners in the short term. Instead, they called for more study. Further research remains necessary to have a deeper understanding of the environmental and health impact of microfiber pollution, scientists say. For example, while research has shown that small organizations such as plankton can get sick from ingesting fibers, there isn’t enough data to determine large-scale, ecosystem-wide impacts from microfiber contamination or whether they threaten human health. Knowing the extent of microplastic contamination is crucial for coming up with effective ideas and regulations to tackle it, says Natalia Ivleva, a professor at the Institute of Hydrochemistry at the Technical University of Munich. Ivleva and her colleagues dug into highly publicized research that purported to find microfibers in 24 different brands of German beer, and found that the means by which researchers identified contaminants was unreliable. “Chemists, analysts, polymer scientists all need to come together” to advance thorough, highly vetted research, she says. Meanwhile, she says, ecologists face “a huge job” in determining the extent to which all types of microplastics are impacting aquatic organisms and, ultimately, us.


News Article | May 19, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

May 19 is Endangered Species Day, and Love A Slug, a new brand with the mission of raising money for the hard-working, critically important species not usually in the spotlight, launches loveaslug.com. 10% of net profits of Love A Slug products go to wildlife organizations, such as Endangered Species International and the Center for Biological Diversity, that focus on biodiversity and the “little guys” of our ecosystem. Because they all matter. Why a slug? Humans have created an interesting phenomena in the conservation world. We like cute. We like furry. We like animals with kind eyes. So that’s who we tend to protect. That’s where our conservation dollars go. Let’s call it “survival of the cutest.” If you are an animal, you, and your habitat’s chances of being saved, are higher the cuter you are. According to National Geographic, most of the nearly $1 billion raised annually for animal conservation goes to a handful of species, with apes, elephants, big cats, rhinos, and pandas being the top five recipients. So, what about the little guys? Enter Love a Slug--created to remind us that we all matter. In the coming weeks, the brand will continue to roll out new designs, highlighting other forgotten species that are still critical to our ecosystem. They need our love, and our conservation dollars, too! http://www.loveaslug.com


News Article | April 20, 2017
Site: www.chromatographytechniques.com

Dow Chemical is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species. Lawyers representing Dow, whose CEO also heads a White House manufacturing working group, and two other makers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them "to set aside" the results of government studies the companies contend are fundamentally flawed. The letters, dated April 13, were obtained by The Associated Press. Dow Chemical chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to President Donald Trump. The company wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump's inaugural festivities. Over the last four years, government scientists have compiled an official record running more than 10,000 pages showing the three pesticides under review — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies, which share responsibilities for enforcing the Endangered Species Act, are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used. The industry's request comes after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced last month he was reversing an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children's brains. In his prior job as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt often aligned himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations who supported his state campaigns. He filed more than one dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulations he is now charged with enforcing. Pruitt declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday as he toured a polluted Superfund site in Indiana. A spokesman for the agency later told AP that Pruitt won't "prejudge" any potential rule-making decisions as "we are trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA's work." "We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policymaking," said J.P. Freire, EPA's associate administrator for public affairs. "The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA's regulations, while also reviewing past decisions." The office of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Natural Marine Fisheries Service, did not respond to emailed questions. A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, referred questions back to EPA. As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrifos, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies showing the risks posed to endangered species by organophosphates. The EPA's recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found the pesticide is "likely to adversely affect" 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon. In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA's biological assessment to be withdrawn because its "scientific basis was not reliable." "Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species," the statement said. "These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrate that commitment." FMC Corp., which sells malathion, said the withdrawal of the EPA studies will allow the necessary time for the "best available" scientific data to be compiled. "Malathion is a critical tool in protecting agriculture from damaging pests," the company said. Diazinon maker Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc., which does business under the name Adama, did not respond to emails seeking comment. Environmental advocates were not surprised the companies might seek to forestall new regulations that might hurt their profits, but said Wednesday that criticism of the government's scientists was unfounded. The methods used to conduct EPA's biological evaluations were developed by the National Academy of Sciences. Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Dow's experts were trying to hold EPA scientists to an unrealistic standard of data collection that could only be achieved under "perfect laboratory conditions." "You can't just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data," Hartl said. "It's wrong morally, and it's illegal." Originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany, chlorpyrifos has been sprayed on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops for decades. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with Dow selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year. As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos. In 2005, the Bush administration ordered an end to residential use of diazinon to kill yard pests such as ants and grub worms after determining that it poses a human health risk, particularly to children. However it is still approved for use by farmers, who spray it on fruits and vegetables. Malathion is widely sprayed to control mosquitoes and fruit flies. It is also an active ingredient in some shampoos prescribed to children for treating lice. A coalition of environmental groups has fought in court for years to spur EPA to more closely examine the risk posed to humans and endangered species by pesticides, especially organophosphates. "Endangered species are the canary in the coal mine," Hartl said. Since many of the threatened species are aquatic, he said they are often the first to show the effects of long-term chemical contamination in rivers and lakes used as sources of drinking water by humans. Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation's capital. There is no indication the chemical giant's influence has waned. When Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, Dow's chief executive was at Trump's side. "Andrew, I would like to thank you for initially getting the group together and for the fantastic job you've done," Trump said as he signed the order during an Oval Office ceremony. The president then handed his pen to Liveris to keep as a souvenir. Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the company's $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions made by the new administration is "completely off the mark." "Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws," Schikorra said. "Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity."


News Article | April 20, 2017
Site: www.biosciencetechnology.com

Dow Chemical is pushing a Trump administration open to scrapping regulations to ignore the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species. Lawyers representing Dow, whose CEO is a close adviser to Trump, and two other manufacturers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three of Trump's Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them "to set aside" the results of government studies the companies contend are fundamentally flawed. Dow Chemical wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump's inaugural festivities, and its chairman and CEO, Andrew Liveris, heads a White House manufacturing working group. The industry's request comes after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced last month he was reversing an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children's brains. In his prior job as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt often aligned himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations who supported his state campaigns. He filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulations he is now charged with enforcing. Pruitt declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday as he toured a polluted Superfund site in Indiana. A spokesman for the agency later told AP that Pruitt won't "prejudge" any potential rule-making decisions as "we are trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA's work." The letters to Cabinet heads, dated April 13, were obtained by The Associated Press. As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrifos, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies. Over the past four years, government scientists have compiled an official record running more than 10,000 pages indicating the three pesticides under review - chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion - pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies, which share responsibilities for enforcing the Endangered Species Act, are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used. "We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policymaking," said J.P. Freire, EPA's associate administrator for public affairs. "The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA's regulations, while also reviewing past decisions." The office of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Natural Marine Fisheries Service, did not respond to emailed questions. A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, referred questions back to EPA. The EPA's recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found the pesticide is "likely to adversely affect" 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon. In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA's biological assessment to be withdrawn because its "scientific basis was not reliable." "Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species," the statement said. "These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrate that commitment." FMC Corp., which sells malathion, said the withdrawal of the EPA studies would allow the necessary time for the "best available" scientific data to be compiled. "Malathion is a critical tool in protecting agriculture from damaging pests," the company said. Diazinon maker Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc., which does business under the name Adama, did not respond to emails seeking comment. Environmental advocates said Wednesday that criticism of the government's scientists was unfounded. The methods used to conduct EPA's biological evaluations were developed by the National Academy of Sciences. Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Dow's experts were trying to hold EPA scientists to an unrealistic standard of data collection that could only be achieved under "perfect laboratory conditions." "You can't just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data," Hartl said. "It's wrong morally, and it's illegal." Organophosphorus gas was originally developed as a chemical weapon by Nazi Germany. Dow has been selling Chlorpyrifos for spraying on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops since the 1960s. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with Dow selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year. As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos. In 2005, the Bush administration ordered an end to residential use of diazinon to kill yard pests such as ants and grub worms after determining that it poses a human health risk, particularly to children. However it is still approved for use by farmers, who spray it on fruits and vegetables. Malathion is widely sprayed to control mosquitoes and fruit flies. It is also an active ingredient in some shampoos prescribed to children for treating lice. A coalition of environmental groups has fought in court for years to spur EPA to more closely examine the risk posed to humans and endangered species by pesticides, especially organophosphates. "Endangered species are the canary in the coal mine," Hartl said. Since many of the threatened species are aquatic, he said they are often the first to show the effects of long-term chemical contamination in rivers and lakes used as sources of drinking water by humans. Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation's capital. There is no indication the chemical giant's influence has waned. When Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, Dow's chief executive was at Trump's side. "Andrew, I would like to thank you for initially getting the group together and for the fantastic job you've done," Trump said as he signed the order during an Oval Office ceremony. The president then handed his pen to Liveris to keep as a souvenir. Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the company's $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions is "completely off the mark." "Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws," Schikorra said. "Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity."


News Article | April 21, 2017
Site: news.yahoo.com

After becoming the first group to legally challenge President Donald Trump's proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration Thursday for repealing protections for wolves, bears and other predatory animals that live on Alaska’s national preserves. By filing the lawsuit, the group challenged the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act, which the Republican-controlled Congress used in February to dismantle a rule made by the administration of the former President Barack Obama. The rule limited the hunting of animals such as wolves, bears and other wildlife in Alaska’s national wildlife refuges. Trump is not new to litigations because when he was a businessman he has had as many as 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades against him. And after he took office, he had been named in more than 50 lawsuits in just over two weeks, according to reports. In January, the city of San Francisco, became the first city in the U.S. to file a lawsuit over Trump's executive order targeting sanctuary cities. They claimed that Trump’s executive order restricting federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants is unconstitutional, according to CNN. Following the travel ban executive order of Trump, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed multiple lawsuits around the country with different plaintiffs who were affected by the travel ban, reports said. The Council on American-Islamic Relations announced January it has filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order on refugees. They claimed the travel ban is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds because it creates "favored and disfavored groups based on their faith." In January, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit against Trump for violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments. The foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution prohibits Trump from receiving any financial support from foreign governments, including foreign government-owned businesses, without the approval of Congress.


Evans D.,Center for Biological Diversity
Nature Conservation | Year: 2012

In the second half of the 20th Century there was a growing awareness of environmental problems, including the loss of species and habitats, resulting in many national and international initiatives, including the creation of organisations, such as the IUCN, treaties and conventions, such as Ramsar and the Berne Convention, and the establishment of networks of protected areas. Natura 2000 is a network of sites in the European Union for selected species and habitats listed in the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. Under the Habitats Directive a series of seminars and other meetings have been held with agreed criteria to ensure a coherent network. Despite both scientific and political difficulties the network is now nearing completion. © 2015 Copyright Douglas Evans.


Bailey N.W.,Center for Biological Diversity
Trends in Ecology and Evolution | Year: 2012

A variety of theoretical models incorporate phenotypes expressed in the external environment, but a core question is whether such traits generate dynamics that alter evolution. This has proven to be a challenging and controversial proposition. However, several recent modelling frameworks provide insight: indirect genetic effect (IGE) models, niche construction models, and evolutionary feedback models. These distinct approaches converge upon the observation that gene action at a distance generates feedback that expands the range of trait values and evolutionary rates that we should expect to observe in empirical studies. Such conceptual replication provides solid evidence that traits with extended effects have important evolutionary consequences, but more empirical work is needed to evaluate the predictive power of different modelling approaches. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.


Bailey N.W.,Center for Biological Diversity
G3 (Bethesda, Md.) | Year: 2013

Field crickets (family Gryllidae) frequently are used in studies of behavioral genetics, sexual selection, and sexual conflict, but there have been no studies of transcriptomic differences among different tissue types. We evaluated transcriptome variation among testis, accessory gland, and the remaining whole-body preparations from males of the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Non-normalized cDNA libraries from each tissue were sequenced on the Roche 454 platform, and a master assembly was constructed using testis, accessory gland, and whole-body preparations. A total of 940,200 reads were assembled into 41,962 contigs, to which 36,856 singletons (reads not assembled into a contig) were added to provide a total of 78,818 sequences used in annotation analysis. A total of 59,072 sequences (75%) were unique to one of the three tissues. Testis tissue had the greatest proportion of tissue-specific sequences (62.6%), followed by general body (56.43%) and accessory gland tissue (44.16%). We tested the hypothesis that tissues expressing gene products expected to evolve rapidly as a result of sexual selection--testis and accessory gland--would yield a smaller proportion of BLASTx matches to homologous genes in the model organism Drosophila melanogaster compared with whole-body tissue. Uniquely expressed sequences in both testis and accessory gland showed a significantly lower rate of matching to annotated D. melanogaster genes compared with those from general body tissue. These results correspond with empirical evidence that genes expressed in testis and accessory gland tissue are rapidly evolving targets of selection.

Loading Center for Biological Diversity collaborators
Loading Center for Biological Diversity collaborators