This guest editorial describes the importance of converging genetics and psychosocial epidemiology research methods to understand the biopsychosocial etiology of psychiatric phenotypes.

Over the past two decades there has been a rapid expansion in our understanding of how human genetic variability impacts susceptibility and severity of disease. Through applications of genome-wide association studies, genome and exome sequencing, researchers have made thousands of discoveries of genetic variants that impact risk of common and rare disorders affecting millions of people. Although these techniques have been primarily applied to highly prevalent chronic disorders such as diabetes1 and cardiovascular disease2, infectious diseases have proven to not be immune to genome-wide association, with studies of Tuberculosis3, HIV4 and SARS-CoV25, to name but a few, identifying host susceptibility loci across the genome. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases have the unique element of impacting not only the affected the host, but those who may be most vulnerable to acquiring the infection. Thus, genetic variants that impact one individual’s susceptibility to and severity of an infection may also have broader implications to public health, as was brought into keen focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, as we begin to apply the knowledge gained from genomic studies in the clinic or into policy, there are unique ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) at the intersection of infectious diseases and human genomics. In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Jose et al attempt to address this need by proposing a research agenda for ELSI studies at what they term the “blurred boundaries” of infectious and genetic diseases.6

The interplay between genetic and environmental factors plays a significant role in interindividual variation in immune and inflammatory responses. The availability of high-throughput low-cost genotyping and next-generation sequencing has revolutionized our ability to identify human genetic variation and understand how this varies within and between populations, and the relationship with disease. In this review, we explore the potential of genomics for patient benefit, specifically in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of inflammatory and immune-related diseases. We summarize the knowledge arising from genetic and functional genomic approaches, and the opportunity for personalized medicine. The review covers applications in infectious diseases, rare immunodeficiencies and autoimmune diseases, illustrating advances in diagnosis and understanding risk including use of polygenic risk scores. We further explore the application for patient stratification and drug target prioritization. The review highlights a key challenge to the field arising from the lack of sufficient representation of genetically diverse populations in genomic studies. This currently limits the clinical utility of genetic-based diagnostic and risk-based applications in non-Caucasian populations. We highlight current genome projects, initiatives and biobanks from diverse populations and how this is being used to improve healthcare globally by improving our understanding of genetic susceptibility to diseases and regional pathogens such as malaria and tuberculosis. Future directions and opportunities for personalized medicine and wider application of genomics in health care are described, for the benefit of individual patients and populations worldwide.

Waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer] is one of the most troublesome weeds in the United States. An A. tuberculatus population (CHR) was identified in Illinois, USA, as resistant to herbicides from six different site-of-action groups. Recently, the same population was also recognized as dicamba resistant. This study aimed to identify key resistance genes and the putative dicamba resistance mechanism in A. tuberculatus via transcriptomics analysis. Multiple differentially expressed (DE) genes and co-expression gene modules were identified as associated with dicamba resistance. Specifically, genes encoding glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), ATP-binding cassette transporters, peroxidases, and uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glycosyltransferases (UGTs) were identified. Results indicated enhanced oxidative stress tolerance as the primary mechanism for reducing dicamba toxicity. Results also point to potential glycosylation via UGTs and conjugation via GSTs of dicamba and its by-products. This is the first transcriptomics characterization of dicamba resistance in A. tuberculatus. Multiple non-target-site resistance genes were identified, indicating a cross-resistance pattern in the CHR population leading to a putative-enhanced oxidative stress response. Regions of multiple DE genes (i.e., genomic hot spots) across the A. tuberculatus genome corroborate previous results and potentially add to the complexity of non-target-site resistance traits.

Since the emergence of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2021, a number of sub-lineages have arisen and circulated internationally. Little is known about the relative severity of Omicron sub-lineages BA.2.75, BA.4.6, and BQ.1. We undertook a case–control analysis to determine the clinical severity of these lineages relative to BA.5, using whole genome sequenced, PCR-confirmed infections, between 1 August 2022 and 27 November 2022, among those who presented to emergency care in England 14 days after and up to one day prior to the positive specimen. A total of 10,375 episodes were included in the analysis; of which, 5,207 (50.2%) were admitted to the hospital or died. Multivariable conditional regression analyses found no evidence of greater odds of hospital admission or death among those with BA.2.75 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84–1.09) and BA.4.6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88– 1.17) or BQ.1 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94–1.13) compared to BA.5. Future lineages may not follow the same trend and there remains a need for continued surveillance of COVID-19 variants and their clinical outcomes to inform the public health response.

Precision oncology is a rapidly evolving concept that holds great promise in cancer treatment. However, a cancer complexity attributed to genomic and acquired tumour heterogeneity limits treatment effectiveness and increases toxicity. These limitations refer to both systemic therapies and radiotherapy, which are two mainstays of non-invasive cancer treatment. By understanding cancer heterogeneity and utilising advanced tools to personalise treatment strategies, precision oncology has the potential to revolutionise cancer care. In this article, we review the current status of precision oncology in solid tumours, specifically focusing on the impact of tumour heterogeneity and genomic patient features on systemic therapies and radiation. We also discuss the implementation of novel tools, such as next-generation sequencing and liquid biopsies, to overcome this problem.

Trauma exposure is prevalent globally and is a defining event for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), characterised by intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviours, hypervigilance and negative alterations in cognition and mood. Exposure to trauma elicits a range of physiological responses which can interact with environmental factors to confer relative risk or resilience for PTSD. This systematic review summarises the findings of longitudinal studies examining biological correlates predictive of PTSD symptomology. Databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science) were systematically searched using relevant keywords for studies published between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. English language studies were included if they were original research manuscripts or meta-analyses of cohort investigations that assessed longitudinal relationships between one or more molecular-level measures and either PTSD status or symptoms. Eighteen of the 1,042 records identified were included. Studies primarily included military veterans/personnel, individuals admitted to hospitals after acute traumatic injury, and women exposed to interpersonal violence or rape. Genomic, inflammation and endocrine measures were the most commonly assessed molecular markers and highlighted processes related to inflammation, stress responding, and learning and memory. Quality assessments were done using the Systematic Appraisal of Quality in Observational Research, and the majority of studies were rated as being of high quality, with the remainder of moderate quality. Studies were predominantly conducted in upper-income countries. Those performed in low- and middle-income countries were not broadly representative in terms of demographic, trauma type and geographic profiles, with three out of the four studies conducted assessing only female participants, rape exposure and South Africa, respectively. They also did not generate multimodal data or use machine learning or multilevel modelling, potentially reflecting greater resource limitations in LMICs. Research examining molecular contributions to PTSD does not adequately reflect the global burden of the disorder.

This article aims to explore the ethical issues arising from attempts to diversify genomic data and include individuals from underserved groups in studies exploring the relationship between genomics and health. We employed a qualitative synthesis design, combining data from three sources: 1) a rapid review of empirical articles published between 2000 and 2022 with a primary or secondary focus on diversifying genomic data, or the inclusion of underserved groups and ethical issues arising from this, 2) an expert workshop and 3) a narrative review. Using these three sources we found that ethical issues are interconnected across structural factors and research practices. Structural issues include failing to engage with the politics of knowledge production, existing inequities, and their effects on how harms and benefits of genomics are distributed. Issues related to research practices include a lack of reflexivity, exploitative dynamics and the failure to prioritise meaningful co-production. Ethical issues arise from both the structure and the practice of research, which can inhibit researcher and participant opportunities to diversify data in an ethical way. Diverse data are not ethical in and of themselves, and without being attentive to the social, historical and political contexts that shape the lives of potential participants, endeavours to diversify genomic data run the risk of worsening existing inequities. Efforts to construct more representative genomic datasets need to develop ethical approaches that are situated within wider attempts to make the enterprise of genomics more equitable.

In today’s globalized and flat world, a patient can access and seek multiple health and disease management options. A digitally enabled participatory framework that allows an evidence-based informed choice is likely to assume an immense importance in the future. In India, traditional knowledge systems, like Ayurveda, coexist with modern medicine. However, due to limited crosstalk between the clinicians of both disciplines, a patient attempts integrative medicine by seeking both options independently with limited understanding and evidence. There is a need for an integrative medicine platform with a formalized approach, which allows practitioners from the two diverse systems to crosstalk, coexist, and coevolve for an informed cross-referral that benefits the patients. To be successful, this needs frameworks that enable the bridging of disciplines through a common interface with shared ontologies. Ayurgenomics is an emerging discipline that explores the principles and practices of Ayurveda combined with genomics approaches for mainstream integration. The present review highlights how in conjunction with different disciplines and technologies this has provided frameworks for (1) the discovery of molecular correlates to build ontological links between the two systems, (2) the discovery of biomarkers and targets for early actionable interventions, (3) understanding molecular mechanisms of drug action from its usage perspective in Ayurveda with applications in repurposing, (4) understanding the network and P4 medicine perspective of Ayurveda through a common organizing principle, (5) non-invasive stratification of healthy and diseased individuals using a compendium of system-level phenotypes, and (6) developing evidence-based solutions for practice in integrative medicine settings. The concordance between the two contrasting streams has been built through extensive explorations and iterations of the concepts of Ayurveda and genomic observations using state-of-the-art technologies, computational approaches, and model system studies. These highlight the enormous potential of a trans-disciplinary approach in evolving solutions for personalized interventions in integrative medicine settings.

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research, and the growing market for direct-to-consumer genomic testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry led standard that was updated in 2019 to introduce a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting for policies <AU$500K. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia has updated its position statement on genetic testing and life insurance to account for these changes and to increase the scope of the statement to include a wider range of personally-rated insurance products, such as life, critical care, and income protection products. Recommendations include that: providers of professional education involving genetics should include ethical, legal, and social aspects of insurance discrimination in their curricula; the Australian Government take a more active role in regulating use of genetic information in personal insurance; that information obtained in the course of a research project be excluded; insurers seek expert advice when making underwriting decisions regarding genetic testing; and engagement between the insurance industry, regulators, and the genetics profession be improved.