Search

Abstract Conventional pre-genomics breeding methodologies have significantly improved crop yields since the mid-twentieth century. Genomics provides breeders with advanced tools for whole-genome study, enabling a direct genotype–phenotype analysis. This shift has led to precise and efficient crop development through genomics-based approaches, including molecular markers, genomic selection, and genome editing. Molecular markers, such as SNPs, are crucial for identifying genomic regions linked to important traits, enhancing breeding accuracy and efficiency. Genomic resources viz. genetic markers, reference genomes, sequence and protein databases, transcriptomes, and gene expression profiles, are vital in plant breeding and aid in the identification of key traits, understanding genetic diversity, assist in genomic mapping, support marker-assisted selection and speeding up breeding programs. Advanced techniques like CRISPR/Cas9 allow precise gene modification, accelerating breeding processes. Key techniques like Genome-Wide Association study (GWAS), Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS), and Genomic Selection (GS) enable precise trait selection and prediction of breeding outcomes, improving crop yield, disease resistance, and stress tolerance. These tools are handy for complex traits influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors. This paper explores new genomic technologies like molecular markers, genomic selection, and genome editing for plant breeding showcasing their impact on developing new plant varieties.

Background Itolizumab downregulates the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines and adhesion molecules by inhibiting CD6 leading to lower levels of interferon-γ, interleukin-6, and tumor necrotic factor-α and reduced T-cell infiltration at inflammatory sites. This study aims to compare the effects of tocilizumab and itolizumab in the management of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The study population was adults (>18 years) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit receiving either tocilizumab or itolizumab during their stay. The primary outcome was clinical improvement (CI), defined as a two-point reduction on a seven-point ordinal scale in the status of the patient from initiating the drug or live discharge. The secondary outcomes were time until CI, improvement in PO2/FiO2 ratio, best PO2/FiO2 ratio, need for mechanical ventilation after administration of study drugs, time to discharge, and survival days. Results Of the 126 patients included in the study, 92 received tocilizumab and 34 received itolizumab. CI was seen in 46.7% and 61.7% of the patients in the tocilizumab and itolizumab groups, respectively and was not statistically significant (P=0.134). The PO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly better with itolizumab compared to tocilizumab (median [interquartile range]: 315 [200–380] vs. 250 [150–350], P=0.043). The incidence of serious adverse events due to the study drugs was significantly higher with itolizumab compared to tocilizumab (14.7% vs. 3.3%, P=0.032). Conclusions The CI with itolizumab is similar to tocilizumab. Better oxygenation can be achieved with itolizumab and it can be a substitute for tocilizumab in managing severe COVID-19.