Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

10 results

  • Adjuvants, Formulations, and Spraying Systems for Improvement of Mycoherbicides

  • C. Douglas Boyette, P. C. Quimby, Jr., A. J. Caesar, J. L. Birdsall, W. J. Connick, Jr., D. J. Daigle, M. A. Jackson, G. H. Egley, H. K. Abbas
  • Journal:
    Weed Technology / Volume 10 / Issue 3 / September 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 June 2017, pp. 637-644

  • Herbicides are used in the production of almost 100% of agronomic crops in the United States and in most horticultural row crops. By volume, herbicides represent nearly two-thirds of all pesticides used in crop production. However, public pressure is mounting to force industry to develop safer, more environmentally responsible approaches for controlling weeds. Biological weed control with plant pathogenic fungi used as mycoherbicides offers such an approach. But there are several biological and environmental limitations which are inherent to nearly all mycoherbicides which must be overcome before they will be widely acceptable for practical use. Recent advances in adjuvant formulation and delivery systems have been used to overcome some of these limitations, such as lengthy dew requirements, inconsistent efficacy, and limited host ranges. Examples of current research to overcome these limitations will be presented in this review.

  • Genetic utility of broadly defined bipolar schizoaffective disorder as a diagnostic concept

  • M. L. Hamshere, E. K. Green, I. R. Jones, L. Jones, V. Moskvina, G. Kirov, D. Grozeva, I. Nikolov, D. Vukcevic, S. Caesar, K. Gordon-Smith, C. Fraser, E. Russell, G. Breen, D. St Clair, D. A. Collier, A. H. Young, I. N. Ferrier, A. Farmer, P. McGuffin, P. A. Holmans, M. J. Owen, M. C. O'Donovan, N. Craddock, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium
  • Journal:
    The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 195 / Issue 1 / July 2009
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 January 2018, pp. 23-29
    Print publication:
    July 2009
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Background

    Psychiatric phenotypes are currently defined according to sets of descriptive criteria. Although many of these phenotypes are heritable, it would be useful to know whether any of the various diagnostic categories in current use identify cases that are particularly helpful for biological–genetic research.

    Aims

    To use genome-wide genetic association data to explore the relative genetic utility of seven different descriptive operational diagnostic categories relevant to bipolar illness within a large UK case–control bipolar disorder sample.

    Method

    We analysed our previously published Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) bipolar disorder genome-wide association data-set, comprising 1868 individuals with bipolar disorder and 2938 controls genotyped for 276 122 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that met stringent criteria for genotype quality. For each SNP we performed a test of association (bipolar disorder group v. control group) and used the number of associated independent SNPs statistically significant at P<0.00001 as a metric for the overall genetic signal in the sample. We next compared this metric with that obtained using each of seven diagnostic subsets of the group with bipolar disorder: Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC): bipolar I disorder; manic disorder; bipolar II disorder; schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type; DSM–IV: bipolar I disorder; bipolar II disorder; schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.

    Results

    The RDC schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (v. controls) stood out from the other diagnostic subsets as having a significant excess of independent association signals (P<0.003) compared with that expected in samples of the same size selected randomly from the total bipolar disorder group data-set. The strongest association in this subset of participants with bipolar disorder was at rs4818065 (P = 2.42 × 10–7). Biological systems implicated included gamma amniobutyric acid (GABA)A receptors. Genes having at least one associated polymorphism at P<10–4 included B3GALTS, A2BP1, GABRB1, AUTS2, BSN, PTPRG, GIRK2 and CDH12.

    Conclusions

    Our findings show that individuals with broadly defined bipolar schizoaffective features have either a particularly strong genetic contribution or that, as a group, are genetically more homogeneous than the other phenotypes tested. The results point to the importance of using diagnostic approaches that recognise this group of individuals. Our approach can be applied to similar data-sets for other psychiatric and non-psychiatric phenotypes.