Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?

Invasive species can reach high abundances and dominate native environments. One of the most impressive examples of ecological invasions is the spread of the African subspecies of the honey bee throughout the Americas, starting from its introduction in a single locality in Brazil. The invasive honey bee is expected to more negatively impact bee community abundance and diversity than native dominant species, but this has not been tested previously. We developed a comprehensive and systematic bee sampling scheme, using a protocol deploying 11,520 pan traps across regions and crops for three years in Brazil. We found that invasive honey bees are now the single most dominant bee species. Such dominance has not only negative consequences for abundance and species richness of native bees but also for overall bee abundance (i.e., strong "numerical" effects of honey bees). Contrary to expectations, honey bees did not have stronger negative impacts than other native bees achieving similar levels of dominance (i.e., lack of negative "identity" effects of honey bees). These effects were markedly consistent across crop species, seasons and years, and were independent from land-use effects. Dominance could be a proxy of bee community degradation and more generally of the severity of ecological invasions.

XAF1 mRNA expression improves progression-free and overall survival for patients with advanced bladder cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether mRNA expression of the apoptosis-associated genes, XAF1 and XIAP, in bladder cancer patients correlates with response to neoadjuvant treatment. METHODS: Gene expression was analyzed by a real-time quantitative PCR method in paired samples from 14 bladder cancer patients treated with a combination of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin. The prognostic significance of XAF1 and XIAP mRNA expression as well as the correlation with several clinical and pathological findings were evaluated. RESULTS: The clinical response in the XAF1-high subset (n = 5) was remarkably higher compared with the XAF1-low subset (n = 9) (100% vs. 44.4%; P = 0.038). These results translated into a notably improvement of progression-free survival (PFS) in the XAF1-high subset (log-rank P = 0.012). In addition, patients in the XAF1-high subset had a 3.9-fold decreased chance of dying from the disease (hazard ratio for death (HR), 0.257; (CI 95%), 0.043-1.536, P = 0.036). When we evaluated the expression of XIAP, although an inverse correlation was found between expression and pathological response, there were no statistically significant associations with the clinical response, the length of PFS, and OS. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the few studies to address the role of XAF1 in a clinical setting. The data presented here identify XAF1 as a novel predictive and prognostic factor in bladder cancer patients. Furthermore, our observations are in line with previous studies, which point towards XAF1 as a tumor-suppressor gene. Nonetheless, additional studies, both mechanistic and translational, are warranted and may help not only in corroborating the role of XAF1 as a prognostic marker, but also as a potential target for anticancer therapy.