Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
02 August 2022 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Alistair Naidoo, second-year master’s student in Conservation Genetics and full-time technician in the Department of Genetics; Prof Paul Grobler, Head of the Department of Genetics; Prof Gordon Luikart; and Hannah Janse van Vuuren, third-year master’s student in Conservation Genetics.

It is an important and exciting time to be doing research in conservation genetics. This is according to Prof Gordon Luikart, Professor of Conservation Ecology and Genetics at the Flathead Lake Bio Station at the University of Montana in the United States. 

Prof Luikart, whose primary research focus is the application of genetics to the conservation of natural and managed populations, recently delivered a lecture, The Expanding Role of Genetics/omics in Wildlife Research and Conservation, on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). The lecture, hosted by the Department of Genetics, was attended by a group of students and lecturers in conservation and a number of related fields. 

He is one of the leading scientists in the field of conservation genetics, including integration of genomics in conservation projects. He is also co-author of the textbook Conservation and the Genomics of populations – the current prescribed textbook for GENE3744.

Species threatened with extinction

In 2008, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) stated that approximately 10-20% of all vertebrate and plant species are threatened with extinction over the next few decades. In 1984, American biologist Edward O Wilson also said that it will take millions of years to correct the ongoing loss of genetics and species diversity caused by the destruction of natural habitats. “This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”

Prof Luikart is of the opinion that genetics has enormous potential to help manage wildlife and prevent extirpation. “My research works to realise this potential and help wildlife managers conserve populations and ecosystems,” he says. 

Conservation managers and biologists have understood the risks of inbreeding for more than 100 years. In his lecture, one of the aspects of genetic conservation he focused on, was the negative effects of inbreeding and how this can be reversed using genetic rescue. 

With the genetic rescue study, they found that the gene flow into recently isolated populations can increase individual fitness and population growth. He proposed that conservation managers should consider genetic principles and rescue as practical and important tools. 

Prof Luikart also provided a list of information that can be retrieved from molecular genetic data to help conservation managers. This includes intel on census and effective population size, gene flow and dispersal, local adaptation and selection, forensics, genetic identification and law enforcement, and disease ecology and transmission. 

Non-invasive genetic monitoring

In terms of detecting gene flow, he focused on a study about non-invasive genetic monitoring that was conducted in the Yellowstone Park. Prof Luikart and a group of students collected the shed hair and faeces of the grizzly bear, obtained from trees and hair traps, which were used as a source of DNA. 

They established, for instance, that inbreeding depression is more common and stronger than previously thought in natural populations. Genetic monitoring, using non-invasive methods as described, has been found to be an effective tool that conservation managers should consider for detecting inbreeding and loss of genome-wide variation.

His research on the bighorn sheep, the alpine ibex, and the black bear informed most of the findings he discussed during his lecture.

News Archive

To tan or not to tan: a burning issue
2009-12-08

 Prof. Werner Sinclair

“Some evidence exists which implies that sunscreens could indeed be responsible for the dramatic rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past three decades, the period during which the use of sunscreens became very popular,” says Prof. Werner Sinclair, Head of the Department of Dermatology at the University of the Free State. His inaugural lecture was on the topic Sunscreens – Curse or Blessing?

Prof. Sinclair says the use of sunscreen preparations is widely advocated as a measure to prevent acute sunburn, chronic sun damage and resultant premature skin aging as well as skin malignancies, including malignant melanoma. There is inconclusive evidence to prove that these preparations do indeed achieve all of these claims. The question is whether these preparations are doing more harm than good?

He says the incidence of skin cancer is rising dramatically and these tumours are induced mostly by the ultra-violet rays.

Of the UV light that reaches the earth 90-95% belongs to the UVA fraction. UVC is normally filtered out by the ozone layer. UVB leads to sunburn while UVA leads to pigmentation (tanning). Because frequent sunburn was often associated with skin cancer, UVB was assumed, naively, to be the culprit, he says.

Exposure to sunlight induces a sense of well-being, increases the libido, reduces appetite and induces the synthesis of large amounts of vitamin D, an essential nutritional factor. The use of sunscreen creams reduces vitamin D levels and low levels of vitamin D have been associated with breast and colon cancer. Prof. Sinclair says the 17% increase in breast cancer from 1981 to 1991 parallels the vigorous use of sunscreens over the same period.

Among the risk factors for the development of tumours are a family history, tendency to freckle, more than three episodes of severe sunburn during childhood, and the use of artificial UV light tanning booths. He says it remains a question whether to tan or not. It was earlier believed that the main carcinogenic rays were UVB and that UVA merely induced a tan. The increase in UVA exposure could have severe consequences.

Prof. Sinclair says the UV light used in artificial tanning booths consists mainly of pure UVA which are highly dangerous rays. It has been estimated that six per cent of all melanoma deaths in the UK can be directly attributed to the use of artificial tanning lights. The use of an artificial tanning booth will double the melanoma risk of a person. “UVA is solely responsible for solar skin aging and it is ironical that tanning addicts, who want to look beautiful, are inflicting accelerated ageing in the process,” he says.

On the use of sunscreens he says it can prevent painful sunburn, but UVA-induced damage continues unnoticed. UVB blockers decrease vitamin D synthesis, which is a particular problem in the elderly. It also prevents the sunburn warning and therefore increases the UVA dosage that an individual receives. It creates a false sense of security which is the biggest problem associated with sunscreens.

Evidence obtained from the state of Queensland in Australia, where the heaviest and longest use of sunscreens occurred, boasted the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. A huge study in Norway has shown a 350% increase in melanoma for men and 440% for women. This paralleled the increase in the use of UVB blocking sunscreens while there was no change in the ozone layer. It did however, occur during that time when tanning became fashionable in Norway and there was an increase especially in artificial tanning.

Prof. Sinclair says: “We believe that sunscreen use does not directly lead to melanoma, but UVA exposure does. The Melanoma Epidemic is a reality. Sunscreen preparations are not the magical answer in the fight against melanoma and the irresponsible use of these preparations can worsen the problem.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 December 2009

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept