Successful definitive radiation treatment of refractory canine oral papillomatosis.

This case report describes a three-year-old male intact border collie diagnosed with canine papillomavirus type 1 (CPV-1+) oral papillomas resistant to standard-of-care. With time, he developed lesions consistent with squamous cell carcinoma. Malignant tumors were incompletely excised and treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (45 Gy, 3 Gy × 15 daily). The remaining oral cavity received 27 Gy (1.8 Gy x 15 daily) to treat the disseminated oral papillomatosis. A temporary treatment delay of 2 weeks was instituted due to grade 3 mucositis. The patient remained in complete remission after 10 months from radiotherapy. No tumor recurrences were noted by the owners after >1 year from treatment.

Sex-specific plasticity and the nutritional geometry of insulin-signaling gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster.

BACKGROUND: Sexual-size dimorphism (SSD) is replete among animals, but while the selective pressures that drive the evolution of SSD have been well studied, the developmental mechanisms upon which these pressures act are poorly understood. Ours and others' research has shown that SSD in D. melanogaster reflects elevated levels of nutritional plasticity in females versus males, such that SSD increases with dietary intake and body size, a phenomenon called sex-specific plasticity (SSP). Additional data indicate that while body size in both sexes responds to variation in protein level, only female body size is sensitive to variation in carbohydrate level. Here, we explore whether these difference in sensitivity at the morphological level are reflected by differences in how the insulin/IGF-signaling (IIS) and TOR-signaling pathways respond to changes in carbohydrates and proteins in females versus males, using a nutritional geometry approach. RESULTS: The IIS-regulated transcripts of 4E-BP and InR most strongly correlated with body size in females and males, respectively, but neither responded to carbohydrate level and so could not explain the sex-specific response to body size to dietary carbohydrate. Transcripts regulated by TOR-signaling did, however, respond to dietary carbohydrate in a sex-specific manner. In females, expression of dILP5 positively correlated with body size, while expression of dILP2,3 and 8, was elevated on diets with a low concentration of both carbohydrate and protein. In contrast, we detected lower levels of dILP2 and 5 protein in the brains of females fed on low concentration diets. We could not detect any effect of diet on dILP expression in males. CONCLUSION: Although females and males show sex-specific transcriptional responses to changes in protein and carbohydrate, the patterns of expression do not support a simple model of the regulation of body-size SSP by either insulin- or TOR-signaling. The data also indicate a complex relationship between carbohydrate and protein level, dILP expression and dILP peptide levels in the brain. In general, diet quality and sex both affect the transcriptional response to changes in diet quantity, and so should be considered in future studies that explore the effect of nutrition on body size.

The sex-specific effects of diet quality versus quantity on morphology in Drosophila melanogaster.

Variation in the quality and quantity of nutrition is a major contributor to phenotypic variation in animal populations. Although we know much of how dietary restriction impacts phenotype, and of the molecular-genetic and physiological mechanisms that underlie this response, we know much less of the effects of dietary imbalance. Specifically, although dietary imbalance and restriction both reduce overall body size, it is unclear whether both have the same effect on the size of individual traits. Here, we use the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster to explore the effect of dietary food versus protein-to-carbohydrate ratio on body proportion and trait size. Our results indicate that body proportion and trait size respond differently to changes in diet quantity (food concentration) versus diet quality (protein-to-carbohydrate ratio), and that these effects are sex specific. While these differences suggest that Drosophila use at least partially distinct developmental mechanisms to respond to diet quality versus quantity, further analysis indicates that the responses can be largely explained by the independent and contrasting effects of protein and carbohydrate concentration on trait size. Our data highlight the importance of considering macronutrient composition when elucidating the effect of nutrition on trait size, at the levels of both morphology and developmental physiology.