Search

Previous studies have shown that there is considerable population structure in cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare Lo), with the strongest structure corresponding to differences in row number and growth habit. U.S. barley breeding programs include six-row and two-row types and winter and spring types in all combinations. To facilitate mapping of complex traits in breeding germplasm, 1816 barley lines from 10 U.S. breeding programs were scored with 1536 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping assays. The number of SNPs segregating within breeding programs varied from 854 to 1398. Model-based analysis of population structure showed the expected clustering by row type and growth habit; however, there was additional structure, some of which corresponded to the breeding programs. The model that fit the data best had seven populations: three two-row spring, two six-row spring, and two six-row winter. Average linkage disequilibrium (LD) within populations decayed over a distance of 20 to 30 cM, but some populations showed long-range LD suggestive of admixture. Genetic distance (allele-sharing) between populations varied from 0.11 (six-row spring vs. six-row spring) to 0.45 (two-row spring vs. six-row spring). Analyses of pairwise LD revealed that the phase of allelic associations was not well correlated between populations, particularly when their allele-sharing distance was >0.2. These results suggest that pooling divergent barley populations for purposes of association mapping may be inadvisable. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2009.04.0198

Abstract Background As part of an assessment of quality of life in lung cancer patients an investigation was carried out to examine whether the knowledge of their diagnosis affected their quality of life. Methods Every patient in a defined geographical area with a potential diagnosis of lung cancer was interviewed at first consultation and after a definitive treatment has been given. Quality of life was assessed using three standard measures: the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer supplementary questionnaire (QLQ-LC13). Comparison was made in quality of life scores between patients who knew their cancer diagnosis and those who did not. Results In all, 129 lung cancer patients were interviewed. Of these, 30 patients (23%) knew and 99 (78%) did not know their cancer diagnosis at the time of baseline assessment. The patient groups were similar in their characteristics except for age (P = 0.04) and cell type (P < 0.0001). Overall, there were no significant differences between these two groups with regard to their scores on the three instruments used. A major finding was that both group scored almost the same on emotional reactions (P = 0.8) and social isolation (P = 1.0) as measured by the NHP, and emotional (P = 0.7) and social functioning (P = 1.0) as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. In addition there were no significant differences in patients' symptom scores between those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not, nor did any consistent pattern emerge. The only significant difference was for sleep difficulties (P = 0.02). Conclusion The findings suggest that the knowledge of cancer diagnosis does not affect the way in which patients respond to quality of life questionnaires.

Abstract Background As part of a prospective study on quality of life in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients an investigation was carried out to examine whether there were differences among patients' quality of life scores and their socioeconomic status. Methods Quality of life was measured at two points in time (baseline and three months after initial treatment) using three standard instruments; the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the European Organization for Research and Cancer Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer supplement (QLQ-LC13). Socioeconomic status for each individual patient was derived using Carstairs and Morris Deprivation Category ranging from 1 (least deprived) to 7 (most deprived) on the basis of the postcode sector of their address. Results In all, 129 lung cancer patients entered into the study. Of these data for 82 patients were complete (at baseline and follow-up). 57% of patients were of lower socioeconomic status and they had more health problems, less functioning, and more symptoms as compared to affluent patients. Of these, physical mobility (P = 0.05), energy (P = 0.01), role functioning (P = 0.04), physical functioning (P = 0.03), and breathlessness (P = 0.02) were significant at baseline. However, at follow-up assessment there was no significant difference between patient groups nor did any consistent pattern emerge. Conclusion At baseline assessment patients of lower socioeconomic status showed lower health related quality of life. Since there was no clear trend at follow-up assessment this suggests that patients from different socioeconomic status responded to treatment similarly. In general, the findings suggest that quality of life is not only the outcome of the disease and its treatment, but is also highly dependent on each patients' socioeconomic characteristics.