Genetic Modification of Disease Resistance: Fungal and Oomycete Pathogens

Development of recombinant DNA technology allowed scientists to manipulate plant genomes, making it possible to study genes and exploit them to modify novel agronomic traits. Here, we review the current and future potential of genetic modification (GM) strategies used to increase the resistance of plants to oomycete and fungal pathogens. Numerous resistance genes (R-genes) have been cloned, and under laboratory conditions, transgenic plants have given promising results against some important plant pathogens. However, only a few have so far been deployed as commercial crop plants.GMof plants to disrupt pathogenicity, such as by inhibiting or degrading pathogenicity factors, especially by necrotrophic pathogens, has also been exploited. The potential to engineer plants for the production of antimicrobial peptides or to modify defense-signaling pathways have been successfully demonstrated under laboratory conditions. The most promising current technology is genome editing, which allows researchers to edit DNA sequences directly in their endogenous environment. The potential of this approach is discussed in detail and examples where broad-spectrum resistance has been achieved are given.

Genome-wide Association Study Identifies SESTD1 as a Novel Risk Gene for Lithium Responsive Bipolar Disorder

Lithium is the mainstay prophylactic treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), but treatment response varies considerably across individuals. Patients who respond well to lithium treatment might represent a relatively homogeneous subtype of this genetically and phenotypically diverse disorder. Here, we performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify (i) specific genetic variations influencing lithium response and (ii) genetic variants associated with risk for lithium-responsive BD. Patients with BD and controls were recruited from Sweden and the United Kingdom. GWAS were performed on 2698 patients with subjectively defined (self-reported) lithium response and 1176 patients with objectively defined (clinically documented) lithium response. We next conducted GWAS comparing lithium responders with healthy controls (1639 subjective responders and 8899 controls; 323 objective responders and 6684 controls). Meta-analyses of Swedish and UK results revealed no significant associations with lithium response within the bipolar subjects. However, when comparing lithium-responsive patients with controls, two imputed markers attained genome-wide significant associations, among which one was validated in confirmatory genotyping (rs116323614, P=2.74 × 10-8). It is an intronic single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on chromosome 2q31.2 in the gene SEC14 and spectrin domains 1 (SESTD1), which encodes a protein involved in regulation of phospholipids. Phospholipids have been strongly implicated as lithium treatment targets. Furthermore, we estimated the proportion of variance for lithium-responsive BD explained by common variants ('SNP heritability') as 0.25 and 0.29 using two definitions of lithium response. Our results revealed a genetic variant in SESTD1 associated with risk for lithium-responsive BD, suggesting that the understanding of BD etiology could be furthered by focusing on this subtype of BD.