Monthly Archives: August 2017

The Boom Piers: How Berlin, NH’s Islands in the Stream Came To Be – New Hampshire Public Radio

Posted on by

If you find yourself in downtown Berlin, New Hampshire, take a glance at the Androscoggin River. There, in the middle of the water, youll notice a long, straight line of small rocky islands poking through the surface.

Its almost like the Androscoggin, which was the backbone of the citys once-massive paper industry, has its own literal spine.

In this installment of NHPRsseries Surrounded: Stories from New Hampshires Islands, we dig into what these man-made structures were used for.

Listen to the broadcast version of this story.

(Editors note: We recommend listening to this story)

Barry Kelly is driving around a field of waist-high grass in Berlin, like hes a safari guide stalking a rhino.

We can go through this field, and there is a spot down there where we should be able to see some piers.

Hes hunting just east of the Androscoggin River, on the property of his family business, White Mountain Lumber Company. (Were in a red pickup truck; its vanity plate reads LOG.)

Thats one right there covered with trees. And there is another one, he says, pulling up to a clearing on the riverbank.

Kelly is pointing to one of 90 or so small rocky outposts that run up the center of the Androscoggin River: the Boom Piers.

How these islands came to be requires some explanation.

The way to get their product here was to put the wood in the water and float it down, explains Paul Poof Tardiff, a historian and columnist for the Berlin Daily Sun.

To set the scene, Tardiff says picture the banks of the Androscoggin lined with mills. Wood harvested north of Berlin would be dumped into the river, and then, during the annual spring river drive, sent down the waterway.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of cords were shipped this way.

As a matter of fact, there were so many logs in the river, you couldnt throw a line in to fish, says Tardiff.

All that wood, however, had different owners. Big players like the Brown Company and International Paper needed to access what was theirs. So they came up with a plan.

They had to divide the river cause they both had the right to use it, says Kelly. So they built these islands of rock out of hemlock framing, and divided the river.

In the 1890s, these companies started building piers: rectangles of different sizes, but generally around 10 feet wide, made of hemlock timber. They were then filled in with rocks.

It took years to complete, but when finished, these piers stood like a row of traffic cones, spaced a few hundred feet apart, depending on the depth of the river, stretching north for eight miles, where the wood was sorted in Milan.

And when they were built, they had chains hooked to big long logs from one pier to another, and those logs were called booms, explains Tardiff. So thats where we get the name Boom Piers.

Once the Boom Piers were in place, one company could now send its wood down the left lane, the other down the right lane. Other mills, like Barry Kellys own family sawmill, could also use these lanes. It was an organized highway.

But by the early 1960s, the economics of sending wood down the water shifted. Bigger trucks and better roads made autotransport more economical.

According to Poof Tardiff, the last still-floating log was pulled from the Androscoggin in November of 1964. The Boom Piers, since then, have been left to the elements--most of the hemlock surrounding them has disappeared. But the rocky centers still poke up through the water.

We got one up here that has as a nice American flag on it, makes it look good, says Tardiff.

Like vertebrae on the river, the Boom Piers still help give this city its shape.

See more here:

The Boom Piers: How Berlin, NH's Islands in the Stream Came To Be - New Hampshire Public Radio

Tree ‘islands’ nixed in latest Water Street plan – Port Townsend Leader

Posted on by

Yellow brick roads, arched entranceways and parking garages were among the ideas that members of the public suggested during an open forum for the Water Street Enhancement Project, which is to be built next year.

Dozens of people showed up at the Aug. 10 forum, hosted by the City of Port Townsend, during which members of the public wrote their ideas for the project on Post-it notes and then stuck the notes on a 30-foot-long map. The forum took place at the Cotton Building.

Paul Schutt was one of those who attended. He attached a few Post-it notes himself.

I live right on Water Street where the projects going to be, he said as he pointed to the location of his home on the map.

Its going to be a good thing. Its an extension of what we did at the other end of the street, he said.

Schutt said he liked what he called the pocket park at the beach end of Tyler Street. The plans right now call for removable bollards to be installed there to block vehicles and make the area more pedestrian-friendly.

Schutt suggested that a water fountain also be built in the pocket park.

Lack of parking is a perpetual complaint, and Schutt suggested that one or two multistory parking garages could be built one of them in the lot behind The Rose Theatre.

The posted comments are to be typed into a spreadsheet and discussed by city personnel, said city engineer Laura Parsons, who was at the event to answer questions. If the person who made the suggestion also left contact information, the city is to contact that person with a response.

The $2.65 million project spans from Taylor Street to the ferry terminal. It is to feature improved sidewalks that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, remove an old buried concrete road, replace an old water main and add a new asphalt street, among other actions. Construction is planned to begin January 2018 and be completed by June 2018.

Earlier plans for the Water Street project included a island of trees to be installed in the center of Water Street near the ferry turnoff road, but updated plans shown Aug. 10 do not include that island.

Parsons said eliminating the island from the design would make it easier for vehicles to make turns.

The street is to be designed with 12-foot-wide sidewalks on each side of it. There are to be two 7-foot-wide areas of the street for parallel parking, and two 17-foot-wide traffic lanes are to be located in the center of the street.

The existing center turn lane is to be removed so that the wider traffic lanes can provide more shared use space for bicyclists and cars.

Im a big biker myself. Its totally on my radar screen, Parsons said of bicyclists concerns.

The design also includes an approximately 4-foot-wide dooring zone so that bicyclists dont have to worry as much about having the door of a parked car fly open in front of them.

Parsons said angled parking had been considered, but the idea was rejected in favor of parallel parking.

Lighting at intersections would be provided by two kitty-corner lamps. There is also to be additional lights placed at the midpoint of each block.

This stage of the design is what is called the 30 percent design stage pretty basic, Parsons said. But the 60-90 percent design stage is to include street striping, signage and elevation information, she said.

Were doing some finer tuning at this point, Parsons said.

Read the original:

Tree 'islands' nixed in latest Water Street plan - Port Townsend Leader

Genetic disorder gets name change, but patient’s father still not happy – Retraction Watch (blog)

Posted on by

Credit: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man

The leading genetic disease database has chosen a new name for a genetic condition, following complaints from a man whose son has the condition.

On Aug. 11, 2017, two days after our coverage of the situation, the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database changed the primary name of the phenotype associated with mutations in the RPS23 gene. The new name describes a set of features: Brachycephaly, Trichomegaly, and Developmental Delay, or BTDD.

Brachycephaly describes a condition where the back of the head is abnormally flat and trichomegaly refers to extra length, curling, pigmentation, or thickness of the eyelashes.

Marc Pieterse, of the Netherlands, has a son with the rare RPS23 mutation, one of two known patients in the world. The mutation affects ribosomes, cell components involved in protein production. On Aug. 9, we reported on Pieterses crusade against OMIMs original name for the condition, which dubbed it a syndrome. He has feared that calling it a syndrome would stigmatize his sons condition and tried to get the paper underpinning the OMIM entry retracted. The American Journal of Human Genetics has said it will not retract the paper.

Pieterse told us hes only partially pleased the name has been changed hes still unhappy that the original title, MacInnes Syndrome, remains listed as an alternate one.

Initially, OMIM had named the phenotype associated with RPS23 mutations after Alyson MacInnes, a researcher at the University of Amsterdams Academic Medical Center. The name had been selected by OMIM, following a standard procedure of using the last name of the last author of the scientific paper that described the link between the mutation and the set of features.

Pieterse told Retraction Watch that he doesnt think BTDD is a great name, but he likes it much better than the previous one:

I think in the long term, its not describing well what is going on. As an intermediate solution for this naming game, I can live with it. If they want to describe it in this way, I wont be upset about it.

However, OMIM lists MacInnes Syndrome as an alternative title, which Pieterse says he will not endure:

Take out the alternative name. You dont need an alternative name anymore now

I dont think its a big deal for OMIM to leave it out.

OMIM Director Ada Hamosh, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, is on vacation, her assistant told us. When we spoke to Hamosh for our original story, she told us that the names of phenotypes can change, but the database entry is likely to continue displaying past names:

[OMIM] is a complete record of everything that happened.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time theres a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what were working on, click here.

See more here:

Genetic disorder gets name change, but patient's father still not happy - Retraction Watch (blog)

Why we should all embrace gene editing in human embryos – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

The first report of gene editing in viable human embryos performed in the United States was published. The landmark study demonstrates that gene editing technology can successfully repair faulty genes in the human germline a scientific term that refers to sperm or egg cells, zygotes, and embryos.

Correcting gene mutations in the germline is powerful because any such modifications are inherited by subsequent generations in a fixed, self-perpetuating configuration. To many, this represents the Holy Grail of modern medicine.

The ability to edit genes at the germline level brings immense prospects for human health and welfare. Clinical applications that have only ever existed in science fiction are now within the realm of reality. Scientists have developed basic tools that may soon be used to prevent a myriad of debilitating and fatal genetic diseases including Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, certain types of cancer, and hereditary forms of Parkinson's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), and Alzheimer's Disease.

Despite the vast potential for good, gene editing for clinical purposes is controversial. Jennifer Doudna, a gene editing pioneer, stated she is "uncomfortable" with the clinical applications of the technology. She and others have previously argued for a moratorium on germline editing citing unknown risks, safety, and efficacy concerns.

However, the latest germline editing report suggests that many of the concerns against future use of gene editing technologies for gene repair in human embryos may be premature and overstated. The study sought to correct a mutated version of the MYBPC3 gene, which causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a heritable disease that leads to sudden cardiac failure, often in young athletes.

The study revealed that co-injecting the CRISPRCas9 system and sperm carrying the faulty MYBPC3 into healthy donor eggs corrected the pathogenic mutation. Importantly, the researchers overcame many of the problems associated with editing of human embryos that Chinese teams have experienced since 2015.

By injecting the gene editing system before the first cell division, the researchers discovered that mosaicism a characteristic of embryos that have a mix of edited and unedited cellscould be avoided. This strategy led to highly precise and accurate editing, as evidenced by the lack of unintended off-target mutations in the embryos' genomes.

Progress aside, germline editing is not yet ready for primetime. Further research and considerable technology optimization are essential prerequisites for clinical use. Laws that prohibit clinical trials may be reconsidered, in due course, as the technology develops. That all takes time.

Researchers know this. Unfortunately, scientific progress is frequently susceptible to sensationalism.

Unjustified debates concerning germline editing often conjure up eugenics. Alluring and frivolous claims that reproductive technologies will inevitably be used to create tall, beautiful, superhuman geniuses with superb athletic abilities circulate ad nauseam. The myth of "designer babies" has become an emblem of misinformation.

Never mind that the quest to uncover specific intelligence gene(s) has proven to be an exercise in futility. Research shows that, while heritable, highly polygenic traits those determined by multiple genesare often determined by the collective contribution of hundreds of genes. For instance, hundreds of genetic variants in at least 180 genetic loci have been reported to influence height in humans.

Knowledge concerning the genetics of complex polygenic traits is vastly incomplete. The notion that scientists can tinker with a few genes let alone hundreds of them simultaneously, and know precisely how such manipulation will affect an individual is simply preposterous at this time. And it will likely remain so during our lifetimes.

That scientific fact favors gradual and thoughtful measures including legislation and policymakingto address actual concerns raised by germline editing. Entertaining dubious hypotheticals is a dangerous endeavor. And seeking to ban a technology over far-fetched contingencies is bad policy.

So be skeptical when encountering views that aver humans are entering a Brave New World. Be skeptical when scientific progress is reduced to a Frankenstein-like fable engineered to pollute thoughtful debate. The designer baby canard must be confronted.

We are indeed entering a new exciting world. One in which human ingenuity can and will be used to eradicate disease and suffering by pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

We should all embrace this momentous time in human history.

Paul Enrquez is a lawyer and scientist. His work focuses on the intersection of science and law and has been featured in legal and scientific journals. He explores gene editing as it relates to eugenics and the genetics of human intelligence in his recently published article "Genome Editing and the Jurisprudence of Scientific Empiricism."

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:

Why we should all embrace gene editing in human embryos - The Hill (blog)

Beating the Odds for Lucky Mutations – Quanta Magazine

Posted on by

In 1944, a Columbia University doctoral student in genetics named Evelyn Witkin made a fortuitous mistake. During her first experiment in a laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor, in New York, she accidentally irradiated millions of E. coli with a lethal dose of ultraviolet light. When she returned the following day to check on the samples, they were all dead except for one, in which four bacterial cells had survived and continued to grow. Somehow, those cells were resistant to UV radiation. To Witkin, it seemed like a remarkably lucky coincidence that any cells in the culture had emerged with precisely the mutation they needed to survive so much so that she questioned whether it was a coincidence at all.

For the next two decades, Witkin sought to understand how and why these mutants had emerged. Her research led her to what is now known as the SOS response, a DNA repair mechanism that bacteria employ when their genomes are damaged, during which dozens of genes become active and the rate of mutation goes up. Those extra mutations are more often detrimental than beneficial, but they enable adaptations, such as the development of resistance to UV or antibiotics.

The question that has tormented some evolutionary biologists ever since is whether nature favored this arrangement. Is the upsurge in mutations merely a secondary consequence of a repair process inherently prone to error? Or, as some researchers claim, is the increase in the mutation rate itself an evolved adaptation, one that helps bacteria evolve advantageous traits more quickly in stressful environments?

The scientific challenge has not just been to demonstrate convincingly that harsh environments cause nonrandom mutations. It has also been to find a plausible mechanism consistent with the rest of molecular biology that could make lucky mutations more likely. Waves of studies in bacteria and more complex organisms have sought those answers for decades.

The latest and perhaps best answer for explaining some kinds of mutations, anyway has emerged from studies of yeast, as reported in June in PLOS Biology. A team led by Jonathan Houseley, a specialist in molecular biology and genetics at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, proposed a mechanism that drives more mutation specifically in regions of the yeast genome where it could be most adaptive.

Its a totally new way that the environment can have an impact on the genome to allow adaptation in response to need. It is one of the most directed processes weve seen yet, said Philip Hastings, professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, who was not involved in the Houseley groups experiments. Other scientists contacted for this story also praised the work, though most cautioned that much about the controversial idea was still speculative and needed more support.

Rather than asking very broad questions like are mutations always random? I wanted to take a more mechanistic approach, Houseley said. He and his colleagues directed their attention to a specific kind of mutation called copy number variation. DNA often contains multiple copies of extended sequences of base pairs or even whole genes. The exact number can vary among individuals because, when cells are duplicating their DNA before cell division, certain mistakes can insert or delete copies of gene sequences. In humans, for instance, 5 to 10 percent of the genome shows copy number variation from person to person and some of these variations have been linked to cancer, diabetes, autism and a host of genetic disorders. Houseley suspected that in at least some cases, this variation in the number of gene copies might be a response to stresses or hazards in the environment.

In 2015, Houseley and his colleagues described a mechanism by which yeast cells seemed to be driving extra copy number variation in genes associated with ribosomes, the parts of a cell that synthesize proteins. However, they did not prove that this increase was a purposefully adaptive response to a change or constraint in the cellular environment. Nevertheless, to them it seemed that the yeast was making more copies of the ribosomal genes when nutrients were abundant and the demand for making protein might be higher.

Houseley therefore decided to test whether similar mechanisms might act on genes more directly activated by hazardous changes in the environment. In their 2017 paper, he and his team focused on CUP1, a gene that helps yeast resist the toxic effects of environmental copper. They found that when yeast was exposed to copper, the variation in the number of copies of CUP1 in the cells increased. On average, most cells had fewer copies of the gene, but the yeast cells that gained more copies about 10 percent of the total population became more resistant to copper and flourished. The small number of cells that did the right thing, Houseley said, were at such an advantage that they were able to outcompete everything else.

But that change did not in itself mean much: If the environmental copper was causing mutations, then the change in CUP1 copy number variation might have been no more than a meaningless consequence of the higher mutation rate. To rule out that possibility, the researchers cleverly re-engineered the CUP1 gene so that it would respond to a harmless, nonmutagenic sugar, galactose, instead of copper. When these altered yeast cells were exposed to galactose, the variation in their number of copies of the gene changed, too.

The cells seemed to be directing greater variation to the exact place in their genome where it would be useful. After more work, the researchers identified elements of the biological mechanism behind this phenomenon. It was already known that when cells replicatetheir DNA, the replication mechanism sometimes stalls. Usually the mechanism can restart and pick up where it left off. When it cant, the cell can go back to the beginning of the replication process, but in doing so, it sometimes accidentally deletes a gene sequence or makes extra copies of it. That is what causes normal copy number variation. But Houseley and his team made the case that a combination of factors makes these copying errors especially likely to hit genes that are actively responding to environmental stresses, which means that they are more likely to show copy number variation.

The key point is that these effects center on genes responding to the environment, and that they could give natural selection extra opportunities to fine-tune which levels of gene expression might be optimal against certain challenges. The results seem to present experimental evidence that a challenging environment could galvanize cells into controlling those genetic changes that would best improve their fitness. They may also seem reminiscent of the outmoded, pre-Darwinian ideas of the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who believed that organisms evolved by passing their environmentally acquired characteristics along to their offspring. Houseley maintains, however, that this similarity is only superficial.

What we have defined is a mechanism that has arisen entirely through Darwinian selection of random mutations to give a process that stimulates nonrandom mutations at useful sites, Houseley said. It is not Lamarckian adaptation. It just achieves some of the same ends without the problems involved with Lamarckian adaptation.

Ever since 1943, when the microbiologist Salvador Luria and the biophysicist Max Delbrck showed with Nobel prize-winning experiments that mutations in E. coli occur randomly, observations like the bacterial SOS response have made some biologists wonder whether there might be important loopholes to that rule. For example, in a controversial paper published in Nature in 1988, John Cairns of Harvard and his team found that when they placed bacteria that could not digest the milk sugar lactose in an environment where that sugar was the sole food source, the cells soonevolved the ability to convert the lactose into energy. Cairns argued that this result showed that cells had mechanisms to make certain mutations preferentially when they would be beneficial.

The rest is here:

Beating the Odds for Lucky Mutations - Quanta Magazine

A Start-Up Suggests a Fix to the Health Care Morass – New York Times

Posted on by

But perhaps the most interesting and potentially groundbreaking company created in connection with the Affordable Care Act is Aledade, a start-up founded in 2014 by Farzad Mostashari, a doctor and technologist who was the national coordinator for health information technology at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.

Aledade, which has raised about $75 million from investors, has an agenda so ambitious it sounds all but impossible: Dr. Mostashari wants to reduce the cost of health care while improving how patients are treated. He also wants to save the independent primary care doctor, whose practices have been battered by the perverse incentives of the American health care system.

And here is the most interesting part: His plan is working.

A few weeks ago, I visited two primary care practices in southeast Kansas that have worked with Aledade for more than a year. Their operations had been thoroughly remade by the company. Thanks to Aledade, the practices finances had improved and their patients were healthier. On every significant measure of health care costs, the Aledade method appeared to have reduced wasteful spending.

The whole idea is to align incentives between society and doctors and patients, Dr. Mostashari said, adding that Aledade has helped reduce hospital readmissions and decrease visits to specialists in many of its markets. Were reducing unnecessary and harmful utilization and improving quality of care.

Of course, such promises are not new at the intersection of health and technology. Many companies have made big bets and blown up among them Theranos, the lab testing start-up, which turned out to have been more puffery than product. Aledade faces its own share of hurdles, including whether its investors can ride out a long and costly expansion before it starts to realize any big paydays.

Still, its plan which mainly involves using software to achieve its goals looks promising.

The American health care system is a fragmented archipelago, with patients moving through doctors offices and hospitals that are often disconnected from one another. As a result, many primary care physicians who often see themselves as a kind of quarterback who calls the shots on a patients care have no easy way to monitor a patients meandering path through the health care system.

Aledades software addresses that by collecting patient data from a variety of sources, creating a helicopter view. Doctors can see which specialists a patient has visited, which tests have been ordered, and, crucially, how much the overall care might be costing the health care system.

More important, the software uses the data to assemble a battery of daily checklists for physicians practices. These are a set of easy steps for the practice to take call this patient, order this vaccine to keep on top of patients care, and, in time, to reduce its cost.

For example, say youre a doctor at a small practice in rural Kansas and one of your patients, a 67-year-old man with heart disease, has just gone to the emergency room.

In the past, wed only find out our patients were at the hospital maybe weeks afterward, said Dr. Bryan Dennett, who runs the Family Care Center in Winfield, Kan., with medical partner, Dr. Bryan Davis. With Aledade, Dr. Dennett is now alerted immediately, so we can call them when theyre at the emergency room and say, Hey, what are you doing there? Come back here, we can take care of you!

It is not just emergency room visits. Aledade tells doctors which of their patients is eligible for preventive care like vaccines or an annual wellness visit. The doctors said that during such visits they have discovered several conditions that would have ballooned into much bigger problems without treatment. The software lets doctors know when their patients have been discharged from the hospital, allowing them to schedule transitional care management visits.

Such visits are a gimme for the health care system they have been proved to reduce hospital readmissions (which are extremely costly), and patients say they find them valuable in navigating the health care system. And because these visits are so effective at lowering overall health care costs, Medicare pays doctors a higher rate to provide such care meaning that primary care doctors can make money by following Aledades alerts.

Yet even though Aledade thinks of itself as a technology company, its doctors said its software is the least interesting thing it does. Independent primary care doctors tend to be cautious about technology, especially if it seeks to thoroughly alter how they work. So the real battle Aledade faces is to integrate technology into doctors practices and to do so in an nonintrusive and pleasing way. The softwares instructions must also prove financially rewarding for clinics, while still somehow saving money for the overall health care system.

To do all this, Aledade which now operates in 15 states and has relationships with more than 1,200 doctors has had to become more than a software company. It has hired a battalion of field coordinators who visit practices and offer in-depth training and advice.

The company has also taken advantage of several health care ideas that were introduced or accelerated by the Affordable Care Act. One of these is known as the accountable care organization, or A.C.O., which lets groups of health care providers unite to coordinate care for a patient. Studies have shown that such a structure lowers overall medical costs; under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare encouraged the formation of these organizations by promising to share any savings it realizes with doctors. Aledade took the accountable care organization idea and made it its primary business model. (The structure was reaffirmed by a 2015 law passed overwhelmingly by Congress, so a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would not have affected its structure.)

For Aledade, the upshot is that it will only make a lot of money if it actually succeeds in reducing health care costs.

Say Medicare thinks that its going to spend $100 million next year on our patients in Kansas, Dr. Mostashari said. A lot of this is from bad stuff hospitalization, complications, you know, bad stuff. So we come in and say, if we can work with the primary care doctors to reduce bad things from happening while increasing quality, then we can save money for Medicare. Medicare says we thought we were going to spend $100 million on those patients, and we only spent $90 million. So, Medicare keeps half of the savings, and the other half of it goes to Aledade which we split with the doctors.

In addition to Medicare, Aledade has begun signing up several commercial health insurance companies under similar cost-savings plans. But given that the company gets paid only when it cuts health care costs (while improving health outcomes), Aledade and its investors are making a gamble.

In its first year of operation, for instance, Aledade managed to cut many costly procedures, yet its savings did not meet Medicares benchmark meaning it realized virtually no revenue from the savings program.

The results for its second year are due in October. This time, because Aledade said its savings grow over time, the company is likely to begin making money. Were very confident in our model, Dr. Mostashari said.

Email: farhad.manjoo@nytimes.com; Twitter: @fmanjoo

Read more:

A Start-Up Suggests a Fix to the Health Care Morass - New York Times

Health care: Without subsidies, premiums will soar – The Business Journals

Posted on by

The Business Journals
Health care: Without subsidies, premiums will soar
The Business Journals
Health care: Without subsidies, premiums will soar. Staff, The Business Journals Aug 16, 2017, 11:13am EDT. Two ways mid-size employers can reign in health care costs. malerapaso. The Trump administration is considering ending its cost-sharing ...
Trump's ObamaCare subsidy indecision triggers uncertainty over health care costsFox Business
Deficit would balloon and premiums would jump if Trump ends healthcare subsidies, budget office saysLos Angeles Times
Daily on Healthcare: Pressure builds on business leaders, including J&J CEO, to leave Trump councilWashington Examiner
New Haven Register -Newsweek -ConsumerReports.org
all 332 news articles »

Visit link:

Health care: Without subsidies, premiums will soar - The Business Journals

Health Care in New York – New York Times

Posted on by

Photo A man in Miami in 2015 directed passers-by to an insurance company where they could sign up for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Credit Joe Raedle/Getty Images

To the Editor:

Re How to Repair the Health Law (Its Tricky but Not Impossible) (front page, July 30):

The basic flaw in the Affordable Care Act is that it leaves us in the hands of insurance companies. That means rising premiums and deductibles, restricted provider networks and high out-of-network charges; huge multiple administrative bureaucracies and profits; and the costs that doctors and hospitals incur for dealing with them.

We should start with a basic principle: No American should be denied health care or suffer financially trying to pay for it. What makes that tricky and forces health policy into contortions is insisting on taking care of insurance companies and their hefty costs and finances.

The one way to provide all of us with health care and financial security that is most practical and least expensive is to take insurance companies out of the picture and enact improved Medicare for all.

Washington seems a long way from doing that. But progressive states like New York can create state universal public health coverage.

RICHARD N. GOTTFRIED, NEW YORK

The writer is chairman of the New York State Assembly Health Committee and the sponsor of the New York Health Act (A. 4738) to establish a single-payer system in New York.

Read this article:

Health Care in New York - New York Times

Pearce recounts health care bill process, praises HMS – Silver City Daily Press and Independent

Posted on by

U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce, of New Mexicos 2nd District, visited Hidalgo Medical Services on Monday to celebrate National Health Center Week and to explain Republican attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act Obamacare and his role therein.

The Republicans attempt to replace the health care act this summer was largely secretive, long foreseen and eventually unsuccessful. But it had eyes glued to screens across the world. And, according to Pearce, was as tumultuous as it seemed from afar.

Pearce explained to a group of HMS higher-ups, and local and state dignitaries what steps he took during Congress part in the process and why. He was especially vocal about why he held out against the House Republicans original bill.

If you were watching carefully, you would know that I was one of the 34, shrinking down to 25, to 24 votes of Republicans standing against the Republican bill, he said. I did that because I feel the Affordable Care Act is in the process of turning inward, and you never know if its going to collapse or not.

Pearce claimed that high costs and low penalties have led many young healthy people to bail out of the Affordable Care Act, which in turn has driven costs even higher. He also said that most health care exchanges, established on the taxpayers dime, had gone bankrupt, and lost many large insurers like Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Even so, he said the original Republican bill was even worse. So, he refused to vote in its favor, earning the ire of President Donald Trump.

There are definitely problems, but the first bill was going to be worse off, Pearce said. So I got sent to the principals office, with the principal. You know from TV, hes powerful and you dont want to be close to him in opposition.

There, too, Pearce claimed he did not fold.

So, I am sitting there and hes saying, I need your vote, the congressman began in a play-by-play. It wasnt a question of whether the bill was good or bad, it was just I need your vote. I said, Sir, Im not going to give it to you. He [Trump] said, You didnt hear me. I want your vote. I said, I have 700,000 voting for me. I represent them, not New York. You dont vote for New Mexico. He was pretty gracious right then, but then Tweeted that he was going to get someone to run against me in the primary, so he can be pretty mercurial.

He said, though, that he believes certain Republicans determination eventually taught the president humility, or at least tempered his hubris.

Hes come to the realization, I think, that he cannot give orders and it occur, Pearce said.

Pearce said this is the second time his refusal to play along with his party has gotten him the cold shoulder. He said former Republican House Speaker John Boehner told him he was not a good team player.

So, if youve ever been placed in the outer darkness of the political sphere, I can describe in detail what it looks like, Pearce said. Thats OK, because Im still there. Mr. Boehner is not.

Southern New Mexicos congressman said that the House Republicans next attempt was only modestly better than the first, but that he had trusted in the system to get the right bill once all was said and done. So, he voted with the Republican majority to pass it on to the Senate.

There, he said on Monday, he hoped that the Senate would make changes and send the bill to a committee of both houses to come up with a final, and better, version he would be happy with. But, in an 11th-hour vote, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) preceded Arizona Sen. John McCain in defeating the bill. Pearce criticized McCains actions as obstructing progress for personal reasons.

So, the vote that Mr. McCain made hes the one that later said, Lets see if he makes America great again now it appeared to be a personal vote, Pearce said. What it did was, it shut the process down. We dont have 60 votes to get it to the floor. And we have one bill a year we can take to the floor with 51 votes, its called reconciliation. It has to fit within very specific categories and this was the one bill. So when he cast the vote to stop the bill, he shut it down. You can talk about the bill for the rest of the year, you can not vote on it, but once you vote, it shuts down.

Pearce said he could not predict the repeals future.

Democrats will quietly agree in Congress that there are problems, he said. But now the process has shut down and theres no other vehicle to carry it. I dont know what will happen to it. Its just how the process works. The Founding Fathers wanted something where it was hard to pass legislation and they succeeded.

But, he attempted to calm any concerns HMS personnel had about the health center allocations he and the states other, Democratic, caucus members in Washington, D.C., have secured over the past decades.

Of all the sausage making, appropriations are the messiest, so I wont describe in detail how those are made, he said. But, know that your funding is going to be OK.

Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall could not make it to the celebration of Health Center Week on Monday, but sent along reps and videos praising the work HMS does and promising their support.

Pearce was on a break from the campaign trail for governor of New Mexico on Monday. He said that, so far, his team has focused on sowing name recognition in the two congressional districts he does not represent in the state, north of U.S. 40, which requires much travel and at least six hours on the phone per day.

Benjamin Fisher may be reached at ben@scdailypress.com.

Read more from the original source:

Pearce recounts health care bill process, praises HMS - Silver City Daily Press and Independent

What can genetic testing really tell you? – Popular Science

Posted on by

Once difficult and expensive even for the most technologically advanced labs, genetic testing is fast becoming a cheap and easy consumer product. With a little spit and 200 dollars, you can find out your risk for everything from cystic fibrosis to lactose intolerance.

But its important to remember that not all genetic tests are created equal. And even the best clinical genetic test, carried out in a medical lab under a doctor's supervision, isn't perfectgenes are important, but they don't seal your fate.

Genetic tests are diagnostic, so anyone who is curious about their health can get one done. But they're more informative if you think you might be at risk for a genetic disorder.

Heavy-duty genetic tests have been used as a clinical tool for almost half a centurylong before 23andMe and Ancestry.com began offering direct-to-consumer tests. Lets say that many women in your family have had breast cancer. You can get a genetic test to see if you may have inherited an abnormal version of the BRCA gene, known to increase your risk for breast cancer.

Heidi Rehm, associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, is the director of the Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, where patients get tested for diseases that can be traced to specific genetic roots. She says it is most common for people to get tested when they either suspect or know that they have a genetic disease; it may have affected multiple people in their family or they could show symptoms of something widely known to be genetic, like sickle cell anemia. For these people, genetic tests can provide a much-needed explanation for an illness and help doctors determine the best course of treatment. Babies are often tested for genetic diseases, either while they are still fetuses or shortly after birth.

Others get genetic tests if they and their partner both have family histories of an inherited diseaseeven if they dont have the disease themselves. For example, cystic fibrosis is linked to one particular gene, but you have to inherit the abnormal version of the gene from both your parents to get the disease. If you only inherit one copy, you may never knowyou wont display any of the symptoms. But if you and your partner both carry one copy of the faulty gene, your child could still inherit two copies. Genetic tests can forewarn you of that possibility.

But Rehm says there has been a recent trend of healthy people getting tested to predict whether theyll get certain diseases. I do think there are settings where predictive genetic testing is incredibly important and useful, Rehm says; for example, knowing that youre at risk for breast cancer gives you the opportunity for early intervention (remember when Angelina Jolie got a double mastectomy upon finding out she had a mutated BRCA gene?)

But Rehm also points out that genetic tests may not be as straightforward as they seem. For example, some genes are thought to increase risk of getting a certain disease, but it might only happen if you have specific family history, or you might be able to reduce your risk with lifestyle changes. So remember that a genetic test isnt the final verdictthere are other factors at play too.

Not entirelyits scope is limited. For starters, not all diseases are caused by genes. Plenty of conditions stem from environmental and lifestyle factors; they may interact with your genes, but the external factors are the real trigger.

But even if a disease is caused solely by faulty instructions written in your genes, you wont necessarily be able to test for it. Thats because genetic tests are mainly used for diseases that are penetrant, a term that scientists use to describe a strong connection between having a certain gene (or multiple genes) and getting a disease.

Genetic tests are surprisingly simple on the surface. All thats required of you is a small sample of cells, like a blood sample or saliva (which doesnt have DNA itself, but picks up cheek cells during its journey out of your mouth). It get sent to a lab where sequencing machines match up small pieces of synthetic DNA with your DNA to figure out the overall sequence.

Once they have your sequence, geneticists can compare it with "normal" or disease-causing sequences. In the end, they might give you a yes or no answer, or sometimes youll get a probabilitya measure of how much your genes increase your risk of developing the disease. Then, its up to your doctor to figure out what these genes (in combination with your lifestyle, family history and other risk factors) mean for your health.

With penetrant diseases, theres a very, very high ability to explain the disease, Rehm says. For example, the breast cancer-related gene BRCA1 can give you a 60 percent chance of getting breast cancer (in Jolies case, with her family history, the risk was 87 percent.)

This makes genetic tests better at detecting so-called rare diseases, says Steven Schrodi, associate research scientist at the Marshfield Clinic Research Institutes Center for Human Genetics, but theyre less useful when it comes to more common diseases, like heart disease or diabetes. Genetics can increase your likelihood of getting these disease, but scientists still dont know quite how much. Part of the problem is that there may be dozens or hundreds of genes responsible for these diseases, Schrodi says.

We have an incomplete understanding of why people get diseases, Schrodi says. A large part of it hinges on how we define diseases. Perhaps physicians have inadvertently combined multiple diseases together into a single entity.

Consumer genetic teststhe ones where you send in samples from homesometimes claim to test for these more complex traits, but be careful: Their results might not be very medically relevant, Rehm says. If they tell you that your genes make you twice as likely to develop diabetes, for example, that's a marginal increase that doesn't significantly affect your risk, especially when you take into account lifestyle factors.

Genes do seem to play a role in determining lifespan. After all, some family reunions stretch from great-great-grandparents all the way down to infants. Scientists have studied centenarianspeople who lived to be 100 years oldand found that people with certain versions of genes involved in repairing DNA tend to live longer.

This makes sense because aging leaves its mark on your DNA. Environmental factors can damage DNA, and even the routine chore of replicating cells can introduce errors as the three billion units of your DNA are copied over and over. Long-lived individuals have different sequences that seem to make their cells better at keeping DNA in mint condition.

But figuring out your expiration date is more complex than just testing for a few genes, says Jan Vijg, professor of genetics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. In theory, you could design a test that looks at specific genes that might measure your risk for developing Alzheimers Disease or other age-related diseases, or your risk for aging quickly. To some extent, yes: Biomarkers will tell you something about your chances of living a long life, Vijg says. Still, that will only work if you live a careful life. And that means no accidents, infections, or cancers.

Aging also affects the exposed ends of your DNA, called "telomeres." DNA is stored as chromosomes, those X-like structures that you may have seen in biology textbooks. The most vulnerable parts of the chromosome are the chromosomes tips, which get shorter as you age because they arent properly replicated. But while telomere length might let you compare your DNA now with your DNA from a decade ago, you cant compare your own telomeres with other peoples telomeres. Theres a lot of variation between individuals, Vijg says. Some of us are just old souls (on the genomic level, that is.)

The methylation test, which looks at how the presence of small chemical groups attached to your DNA changes as you age, might be a better bet. A study at UCLA showed that changes were slower in longer-lived people. But Vijg is hesitant: I would not put my hopes on that as a marker to predict when exactly youre going to die.

For now, just enjoy your life, because you cant predict death. And if you decide to unlock the secrets of your DNA with an at-home test, don't take those results for more than their worth.

Read this article:

What can genetic testing really tell you? - Popular Science

Active non-coding DNA might help pinpoint genetic risk for psychiatric disorders – Medical Xpress

Posted on by

August 16, 2017 by Anna Williams Northwestern Medicine scientists used induced-human neurons (pictured here in green) derived from patient stem cells. The synaptic proteins, or connections, are marked in cyan and red. Credit: Northwestern University

Northwestern Medicine scientists have demonstrated a new method of analyzing non-coding regions of DNA in neurons, which may help to pinpoint which genetic variants are most important to the development of schizophrenia and related disorders.

Peter Penzes, PhD, the Ruth and Evelyn Dunbar Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, was a lead author of the study, published in the journal Cell Stem Cell. Marc Forrest, PhD, a post-doctoral fellow in Penzes' laboratory, was the first author.

Over the last decade, large genetic studies have identified thousands of genetic variants associated with mental disorders. Most of these risk variants, however, are found within non-coding regionsparts of DNA that do not encode for proteinswhose function in disease development has been poorly understood.

"Ten years ago, there was very little known about the genetic basis of mental disorders like schizophrenia. Now the problem is the opposite: we have too many genes," Penzes said. "Studying each variation one by oneand how it contributes to actual diseaseis difficult, so methods to reduce that number can be very useful. And that's what this study did."

The scientists demonstrated that by mapping out open chromatin regions in neurons derived from human stem cells, they could identify active non-coding DNA that contain a key subset of psychiatric risk variants that are most relevant to disease.

While the model was demonstrated in schizophrenia, the same method could be applied to other mental disorders as well, such as autism spectrum disorders or bipolar disorder.

Developing such a technique is critical to help scientists in the field concentrate their efforts on investigating the most important variants.

The findings also deepen the overall understanding of how such non-coding regions affect disease.

As a case study, the scientists used the new model to analyze thousands of risk variants that have been associated with schizophrenia and narrowed it down to a small list of key variants, of which they chose one to investigate.

They then used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to alter that risk variant into a variant not associated with disease, and demonstrated that the change had an effect on the connectivity of the cell, suggesting it played a role in neurodevelopment.

"In the past, these non-coding regions have been called 'junk DNA' because there was this misconception that they had no function," Forrest said. "With this kind of technique, we're starting to understand how non-coding regions can affect disease risk, even if they have more indirect roles than the actual protein-coding regions."

In the future, the model using human neurons from induced stem cells could also serve as a valuable tool to screen potential drugs for such disorders, and discover which ones result in changes in the neuronal phenotype, Penzes said.

Explore further: Defect in non-coding DNA might trigger brain disorders such as severe language impairment

More information: Marc P. Forrest et al. Open Chromatin Profiling in hiPSC-Derived Neurons Prioritizes Functional Noncoding Psychiatric Risk Variants and Highlights Neurodevelopmental Loci, Cell Stem Cell (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.07.008

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read this article:

Active non-coding DNA might help pinpoint genetic risk for psychiatric disorders - Medical Xpress

Listening for the Public Voice – Slate Magazine

Posted on by

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

On Aug. 3, the scientific article in Nature finally gave us some facts about the much-hyped experiments that involved editing the genomes of human embryos at the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at Oregon Health and Science University. The story had broken in late July in Technology Review, spurring profuse hand-wringing and discussion. But until we saw the scientific paper, it was not clear what cells and methods were used, what genes were edited, or what the results were.

Now we know more, and while the paper demonstrates the possibility of genome editing of human embryos, it raises more questions than it answers. It is a useful demonstration of technical promise, though not an immediate prelude to the birth of a genome-edited baby. But the process by which the news emerged is also an ominous harbinger of the discombobulated way the debate about genetically altering human embryos is likely to unfold. We need open, vigorous debate that captures the many, often contradictory, moral views of Americans. Yet what we are likely to get is piecemeal, fragmented stories of breakthroughs with incomplete details, more sober publication in science journals that appear later, news commentary that lasts a few days, and very little systematic effort to think through what policy should be.

The science underlying this news cycle about human genome editing builds on a technique first developed six years ago by studying how bacteria alter DNA. CRISPR genome editing is the most recent, and most promising, way to introduce changes into DNA. It is faster, easier, and cheaper than previous methods and should eventually be more precise and controllablewhich is why it may one day be available for clinical use in people.

Though headlines about the study discussed designer babies, researchers prefer to emphasize how these techniques could help stop devastating genetic disorders. The Oregon experiments with human embryo cells corrected disease-associated DNA variants associated with heart muscle wasting that can cause heart failure. The treated embryos were alive for only a few days and were never intended to become a human baby. They were, however, human embryos deliberately created for the research.

U.S. guidance in this area is sparse and reflects the lack of societal consensus. In 1994, when the federal government was contemplating funding for research involving human embryos, the NIH Embryo Research Panel concluded that just this kind of experiment was ethically appropriate. But within hours of that reports release, then-President Bill Clinton announced he did not agree with creating embryos in order to do research on them.

The United States currently has just two policies relevant to genomic editing of human embryos. The first blocks federal funding: On April 28, 2015, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, stated, NIH will not fund any use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos. This is not embedded in statute or formal executive order, but members of Congress are fully aware of it and it is, in effect, a federal policy. NIH can (and does) fund genome editing of nonembryonic cells that might be used to treat cancer and for other possible therapeutic purposes, but not embryonic cells that would have their effect by creating humans with germline alterations.

Second, Congress has prohibited the Food and Drug Administration from reviewing research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification. This language comes from a rider to FDAs annual appropriations. Yet use of human embryonic cells for treatment should be subject to FDA regulation. So this language in effect means alterations of embryonic cells cannot be done in the United States if there is any intent to treat a human being, including implantation of an altered embryo into a womans uterus. This will remain true so long as the rider is included in FDAs annual appropriations. The federal government thus has two relevant policies, both of which take federal agencies out of the action: One removes NIH funding, and the other precludes FDA oversight of genome-edited human embryos.

This leaves privately funded research that has no direct therapeutic purpose, such as with the Oregon experiments. The funding came from OHSU itself; South Korean Basic Research Funds; the municipal government of Shenzhen, China; and several private philanthropies (Chapman, Mathers, Helmsley, and Moxie). The research complies with recommendations to study the basic cellular processes of genome editing, keeping an eye on possible future clinical use but only so long as the work does not attempt to create a human pregnancy.

By coincidence, on the same day the Nature paper came out, the American Journal of Human Genetics also published a thoughtful 10-page position statement about germline genome editing from the American Society for Human Genetics endorsed by many other genetic and reproductive medicine organizations from all over the world. It reviews recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, several international and U.S.-based organizations and commissions, and makes several recommendations of its own, concluding it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy, but also there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications. Indeed, the statement argues for public funding. Finally, it urges research to proceed only with compelling medical rationale, strong oversight, and a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

So is there a problem here? It is truly wonderful that medical and scientific organizations have addressed genome editing. It is, however, far from sufficient. Reports and scientific consensus statements inform the policy debate but cannot resolve it. All of the reports on genome editing call for robust public debate, but the simple fact is that embryo research has proven highly divisive and resistant to consensus, and it is far from clear how to know when there is enough thoughtful deliberation to make policy choices. Its significant that none of the reports have emerged from a process that embodied such engagement. The Catholic Church, evangelical Christians, and concerned civic action groups who view embryo research as immoral are not likely to turn to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the American Society for Human Genetics, the Hinxton Group, the Nuffield Council on Bioetics, or other scientific and medical organizations for their primary counsel. They may well listen to scientists, but religious and moral doctrine will get greater weight. Yet religious groups highly critical of embryo research are part of the political systemand whether we embrace this sort of genome editing in the United States is a political question, not a purely technical one.

Reports and scientific consensus statements inform the policy debate but cannot resolveit.

Addressing the political questions will be extremely difficult. The U.S. government is poorly positioned to mediate the policy debate in a way that recognizes and addresses our complex moral pluralism. NIH and FDA are two of the most crucial agencies, but current policies remove them from line authority, and with good reason, given that engaging in this debate could actually endanger the agencies other vital missions. International consensus about genome editing of human embryos remains no more likely than about embryo research in general: Some countries ban it while others actively promote and fund it. Private foundations dont have the mandate or incentive to mediate political debate about a controversial technology that rouses the politics of abortion. What private philanthropic organization would willingly take on such a thankless and politically perilous task, and what organization would be credible to the full range of constituencies?

So who can carry out the public engagement that everyone seems to agree we need? The likely answer is no one. This problem occurs with all debate about fraught scientific and technical innovations, but its particularly acute when it touches on highly ossified abortion politics.

The debate about genomic editing of human embryos is unlikely to follow the recommendations for systematic forethought proposed by illustrious research bodies and reports. Given the reactions weve seen to human embryonic stem-cell research in the past two decades, we have ample reason for pessimism. Rather, debate is more likely to progress by reaction to events as researchers make newsoften with the same lack of information we lived with for the last week of July, based on incomplete media accounts and quotes from disparate experts who lacked access to the details. Most of the debate will be quote-to-quote combat in the public media, leavened by news and analysis in scientific and medical journals, but surrounded by controversy in religious and political media. It is not what anyone designing a system would want. But the recommendations for robust public engagement and debate feel a bit vacuous and vague, aspirations untethered to a concrete framework.

Our divisive political system seems fated to make decisions about genomic editing of human embryos mainly amidst conflict, with experts dueling in the public media rather than through a thoughtful and well-informed debate conducted in a credible framework. As the furor over the Oregon experiments begins to dissipate, we await the event that will cause the next flare-up. And so it will continue, skipping from news cycle to news cycle.

History shows that sometimes technical advances settle the issues, at least for most people and in defined contexts. Furor about in vitro fertilization after Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, was born in 1978 gave way to acceptance as grateful parents gave birth to more and more healthy babies and welcomed them into their families. Initial revulsion at heart transplants gave way in the face of success. Anger about prospects for human embryonic stem-cell research might similarly attenuate if practical applications emerge.

Such historical examples show precisely why reflective deliberation remains essential, despite its unlikely success. Momentum tends to carry the research forward. Yet at times we should stop, learn more, and decide actively rather than passively whether to proceed, when, how, and with what outcomes in mind. In the case of genome editing of human embryos, however, it seems likely that technology will make the next move.

This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Read the original:

Listening for the Public Voice - Slate Magazine

Achromatopsia: Gene Therapy Cures Eye Disease? – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Posted on by

Imagine only being able to see the things in front of you in soft focus, and just in black and white. For people with the genetic eye condition achromatopsia those are just some of the side effects. But, researchers are testing a new treatment designed to cure the condition by fixing the gene responsible.

Each time Tara Cataldo prepares to leave her house, she has to make sure her face is completely shielded from the sun.

I need to have very dark, very tinted sunglasses to feel comfortable outside and to see really well. Cataldo said.

Cataldo has achromatopsia, a genetic condition that makes her eyes incredibly sensitive to light. She is also very nearsighted; even while wearing glasses or contacts, she can only see clearly at a very short distance.

I cannot drive a car so I rely on public transportation and my bike to get around. Cataldo explained.

"There are currently no approved and no effective treatments for achromatopsia, said University of Florida surgical ophthalmologist Christine Kay.

Kay is working to change that. She is one of a handful of experts testing a gene therapy.

For achromatopsia the cells we have to target are cone cells responsible for decreased vision and color vision and those are cells at the very bottom layer of the retina, Kay explained.

Using a tiny cannula, surgeons deliver a normal copy of one of two mutated genes; the CNGA3 or CNGB3 gene, directly into the eye - restoring vision.

Cataldos myopia is so severe that her risk of retinal detachment from any retinal surgery is high, which rules her out for the current trial. In the meantime, Cataldo says shes learned to adapt to achromatopsia and live without limitations.

And I hope all young achromats learn the same thing, Cataldo said.

Kay says if the gene could eventually be delivered to the surface of the retina; additional patients, like Cataldo, could be treated. Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation, the biotech company that developed the therapies, and several U.S. universities have successfully tested this therapy in dogs and sheep.

Published 2 hours ago

Excerpt from:

Achromatopsia: Gene Therapy Cures Eye Disease? - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Cancer Gene Therapy Market – Forecasts and Opportunity Assessment by Technavio – Business Wire (press release)

Posted on by

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--According to the latest market study released by Technavio, the global cancer gene therapy market is expected to grow at a CAGR of almost 21% during the forecast period.

This research report titled Global Cancer Gene Therapy Market 2017-2021 provides an in-depth analysis of the market in terms of revenue and emerging market trends. This market research report also includes up to date analysis and forecasts for various market segments and all geographical regions.

The rising prevalence rate of cancer has been a huge challenge for the global economies as the disease leads to high rate of mortality and economic losses. The current treatment options available come with many drawbacks such as severe side effects and relapse of cancer. These factors have led to high investment in the R&D for development of various novel therapies with cancer gene therapy being one of the major ones of them. The therapy mainly uses three types of treatment options namely oncolytic virotherapy, gene transfer therapy, and gene-induced immunotherapy.

This report is available at a USD 1,000 discount for a limited time only: View market snapshot before purchasing

Buy 1 Technavio report and get the second for 50% off. Buy 2 Technavio reports and get the third for free.

Technavios healthcare and life sciences research analysts categorize the global cancer gene therapy market into the following segments by therapy. They are:

Looking for more information on this market? Request a free sample report

Technavios sample reports are free of charge and contain multiple sections of the report including the market size and forecast, drivers, challenges, trends, and more.

Oncolytic virotherapy

Oncolytic virotherapy is one of the fastest growing treatment modality. In this therapy, the anti-cancer cells specifically destroy the cancer cells without causing harm to the normal cells. Each virus has a specific cellular tropism that determines which tissue will be preferentially infected by the virus and thus will further lead to the disease.

According to Sapna Jha, a lead oncology research analyst from Technavio, The oncolytic virotherapy has shown encouraging results in the pre-clinical studies. The novel treatment option holds great opportunity to make a significant effect on quality and length of the life of the individual. Adenovirus is the most commonly used virus in oncolytic virotherapy.

Gene transfer

Gene transfer or gene insertion is one of the most exciting and emerging cancer treatment methods. The therapy is expected to be the fastest growing type of therapy in the cancer gene therapy market. This is a radical new treatment method that involves the introduction of a new gene into the cancer cell or the surrounding tissues.

Genes with different functions have been proposed for this therapy; some of them include antiangiogenesis genes, cellular stasis genes, and suicide genes. Many different viral vectors are used to deliver these genes, Adenovirus being most common of them. Other than viral vectors, certain non-viral methods are also studied in the various clinical trial, which includes oligodendromer DNA coatings and naked DNA transfer, adds Sapna.

Gene-induced immunotherapy

Immunotherapy works on the concept of boosting the immune system of the individual to target and destroy cancer cells. However, traditional immunotherapy has shown limited success rate in the field. Various gene therapy techniques are being used to overcome this limitation.

The next-generation gene-induced immunotherapy vaccines are already in clinical trial. Gene-induced immunotherapy is a type of gene therapy where genetically engineered genes are used to generate an immune response against cancer. Growing knowledge and understanding of mechanisms regulating the initiation and maintenance of cytotoxic immune response has led to the designing of several genetic immunization strategies.

The top vendors highlighted by Technavios research analysts in this report are:

Browse Related Reports:

About Technavio

Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focuses on emerging market trends and provides actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions.

With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavios report library consists of more than 10,000 reports and counting, covering 800 technologies, spanning across 50 countries. Their client base consists of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavios comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios.

If you are interested in more information, please contact our media team at media@technavio.com.

Link:

Cancer Gene Therapy Market - Forecasts and Opportunity Assessment by Technavio - Business Wire (press release)

Abeona Therapeutics Announces Pivotal Expansion of ABO-102 Gene Therapy Clinical Trials in Sanfilippo Syndrome … – GlobeNewswire (press release)

Posted on by

August 16, 2017 09:25 ET | Source: Abeona Therapeutics Inc

NEW YORK andCLEVELAND, Aug. 16, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Abeona Therapeutics Inc.(Nasdaq:ABEO), a leading clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel gene therapies for life-threatening rare diseases, today announced the pivotal expansion of its gene therapy clinical trials for patients with MPS IIIA in the USA, Europe and Australia.

We have completed the necessary regulatory and ethical committee approvals and site initiations in Europe and Australia in order to accelerate enrollment, stated Juan Ruiz, M.D., Ph.D., Abeonas Chief Medical Officer. We remain very encouraged by the improvements observed in clinically relevant biomarkers post-dosing of ABO-102, including durable reductions in heparan sulfate measured in the CNS, reduction of organ disease pathology, and signals of CNS improvement or stabilization at one-year follow-up in Cohort 1 subjects, and look forward to providing a more fulsome clinical update at important clinical conferences, including ESGCT, this fall, he continued.

The planned expansion will enroll an additional eight to ten MPS IIIA subjects, with total enrollment of fourteen to sixteen subjects to be completed by 1Q2018. Per the design of the clinical trial, subjects will receive a single, intravenous injection of ABO-102 to deliver the AAV viral vector systemically throughout the body to introduce a corrective copy of the gene that underlies the cause of the MPS IIIA disease. Subjects are evaluated at multiple time points post-injection for safety assessments and initial signals of biopotency and clinical activity, which suggest that ABO-102 successfully reached target tissues throughout the body, including the central nervous system.

Sanfilippo syndromes (or mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) type III): a group of four inherited genetic diseases each caused by a single gene defect, described as type A, B, C or D, which cause enzyme deficiencies that result in the abnormal accumulation of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs, or sugars) in body tissues. MPS III is a lysosomal storage disease, a group of rare inborn errors of metabolism resulting from deficiency in normal lysosomal function. The incidence of MPS III (all four types combined) is estimated to be 1 in 70,000 births. Mucopolysaccharides are long chains of sugar molecule used in the building of connective tissues in the body. There is a continuous process in the body of replacing used materials and breaking them down for disposal. Children with MPS III are missing an enzyme which is essential in breaking down the used mucopolysaccharides called heparan sulfate. The partially broken down mucopolysaccharides remain stored in cells in the body causing progressive damage. In MPS III, the predominant symptoms occur due to accumulation within the central nervous system (CNS), including the brain and spinal cord, resulting in cognitive decline, motor dysfunction, and eventual death. Importantly, there is no cure for MPS III and treatments are largely supportive care.

About Abeona: Abeona Therapeutics Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing gene therapies for life-threatening rare genetic diseases. Abeona's lead programs include ABO-102 (AAV-SGSH), an adeno-associated virus (AAV) based gene therapy for Sanfilippo syndrome type A (MPS IIIA) and EB-101 (gene-corrected skin grafts) for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). Abeona is also developing ABO-101 (AAV-NAGLU) for Sanfilippo syndrome type B (MPS IIIB), ABO-201 (AAV-CLN3) gene therapy for juvenile Batten disease (JNCL), ABO-202 (AAV-CLN1) for treatment of infantile Batten disease (INCL), EB-201 for epidermolysis bullosa (EB), ABO-301 (AAV-FANCC) for Fanconi anemia (FA) disorder and ABO-302 using a novel CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing approach to gene therapy for rare blood diseases. In addition, Abeona has a proprietary vector platform, AIM, for next generation product candidates. For more information, visit http://www.abeonatherapeutics.com.

Investor Contact: Christine Silverstein Vice President, Investor Relations Abeona Therapeutics Inc. +1 (212)786-6212 csilverstein@abeonatherapeutics.com

Media Contact: Andrea Lucca Vice President, Communications & Operations Abeona Therapeutics Inc. +1 (212)786-6208 alucca@abeonatherapeutics.com

This press release contains certain statements that are forward-looking within the meaning of Section 27a of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements include, without limitation, our plans for continued development and internationalization of our clinical programs, that patients will continue to be identified, enrolled, treated and monitored in the EB-101 clinical trial, and that studies will continue to indicate that EB-101 is well-tolerated and may offer significant improvements in wound healing; the addition of two additional global clinical sites will accelerate our ability to enroll and evaluate ABO-102 as a potential treatment for patients with Sanfilippo syndrome type A, or MPS IIIA. Such statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to continued interest in our rare disease portfolio, our ability to enroll patients in clinical trials, the impact of competition; the ability to secure licenses for any technology that may be necessary to commercialize our products; the ability to achieve or obtain necessary regulatory approvals; the impact of changes in the financial markets and global economic conditions; our belief that initial signals of biopotency and clinical activity, which suggest that ABO-102 successfully reached target tissues throughout the body, including the central nervous system and the increased reductions in CNS GAG support our approach for intravenous delivery for subjects with Sanfilippo syndromes, and other risks as may be detailed from time to time in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other reports filed by the Company with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. The Company undertakes no obligations to make any revisions to the forward-looking statements contained in this release or to update them to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this release, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

See original here:

Abeona Therapeutics Announces Pivotal Expansion of ABO-102 Gene Therapy Clinical Trials in Sanfilippo Syndrome ... - GlobeNewswire (press release)

Batten Disease Clinical Trials Enrolling Patients to Evaluate Gene Therapies – Batten Disease News

Posted on by

Gene therapies for children with Batten disease are being evaluated in two clinical trials one in New York and the other in Ohio. The trials are testing ways to treat two types Batten disease by correcting the genetic defect that causes it.

One study is a Phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT01414985) taking place at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York thats assessing the safety and effectiveness of using the AAVRh.10 virus to deliver a corrected CLN2 gene to children with late infantile Batten disease, also known as Late Infantile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (LINCL).

This type of Batten disease, a lysosomal storage disorder, can be caused by a mutation in the CLN2 gene. The damage disrupts the ability of brain cells to recycle proteins, killing nerve cells within the brain and leading to progressive neurological and brain damage. The onset of symptoms, a mix of vision and motor problems, are usually evident in children between 2 and 4 years old.

The trial, which is recruiting eight patients ages 3 to 18 with a definite diagnosis of LINCL, will deliver a healthy CLN2 gene using the AAVRh.10 virus a primate-derived virus known to be safe in people as the gene transfer vector. Two study arms are planned: one, involving two patients, will receive a higher dose of gene copies, and the other, composed of six patients, will be given a lower dose.

According to a Weill Cornell document on file with the National Institutes of Health, studies in CLN2 knockout mice showed the virus to be an effective gene delivery system and the treatment to have the potential to slow down the progression of the disease.

Treatment effectiveness will be determined at months 1, 6, 12, and 18 using the Weill Cornell LINCL scale, a 12-point measure of central nervous system response through changes in feeding, gait, and motor and language skills. Secondary measures will be judged using MRI scans and questionnaires.

This study expects to conclude in December 2020, and will be led by Dr. Ronald Crystal of Weill Medical College. More information, including enrollment contacts, is available on its clinical trials.gov webpage.

In an earlier trial, the same Weill team used the AAV2 virus to deliver a corrected CLN2 gene, and reported that it showed both safety and small but significant benefit in treated patients. Researchers believe the AAVRh.10 virus is a more effective delivery system than AAV2, the NIH document states.

In the second trial, NCT02725580, the adeno-associated virus 9 (AAV9) will be used to carry a corrected CLN6 gene to patients with the variant late infantile Batten CLN6 disease. This open label and first-in-human trial, taking place at Nationwide Childrens Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, will enroll at least six people, ages 1 year or older, with a mutation in that gene. The treatment will be delivered once directly into the spinal cord through a lumbar puncture.

Safety and toxicity is this studys primary objective, but secondary measures of treatment efficacy will be made using MRI scans and cognitive, vision and language testing.

The Gray Foundation, established in 2015 by the parents of Charlotte and Gwenyth Gray, both of whom have this variant of Batten disease with a mutation in the CLN6 gene, is funding and collaborating in this study.

Its principal investigator is Dr. Jerry Mendell with the Center for Gene Therapy at Nationwide Childrens Hospital.

Trial enrollment and other information is available on the studys clinical trials.gov webpage.

Continued here:

Batten Disease Clinical Trials Enrolling Patients to Evaluate Gene Therapies - Batten Disease News

Engineers Are Building the World’s Largest Single-Tower Solar Thermal Plant – Futurism

Posted on by

In BriefSouth Australia has announced plans to construct the world'slargest single-tower solar thermal power plant in Port Augusta. Theplant will use technology developed by SolarReserve to store energyin molten salt, giving it the ability to operate 24 hours a day. Sun and Salt

The government of South Australia has announced plans to construct the worlds largest single-tower solar thermal power plant in Port Augusta. California-based solar tech company SolarReserve will be responsible for both the build and upkeep of the facility.

The Aurora Solar Energy Project is based on plans that weredeveloped as part of the Rice Solar Energy Project in California, which stalled as a result of changes to tax credits related to renewable energy.

Once built, arrays of heliostats will focus solar energy onto a central tower, which uses molten salt technology to store that energy as heat. These molten salts will provide 1,100 megawatts of energy storage capacity, which equates to eight hours of full load storage. This will allow the facility to generate electricity during the night as well as during the day when sunlight is shining down.

Aurora is projected to have an output of 150 megawatts and an ability to generate 495 gigawatt hours of electricity each year. The station will be able to service 90,000 homes and is expected to be able to cater to around five percent of South Australias total energy needs. Construction on the $650 million plantwill begin next year, with the expectation that Aurora will be producing electricity by 2020.

The Aurora Solar Energy Project wont be the first major renewable energy project for South Australia. In July, the local government inked a deal with Tesla to install a Powerpack system that will work alongside the Hornsdale Wind Farm.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been very clear about the potential for solar to help the U.S. meet its own energy needs,assertingthat the entire nation could be powered by an area measuring 25,600 square kilometers (10,000 square miles) filled with solar panels.

Despite these claims and the assertions of other experts, however, U.S. President Donald Trump appears determined to try to revive the coal industry.

That hasnt slowed the adoption of renewable energy in other parts of the world, though. Morocco is currently building the worlds largest traditional solar plant, Chinas massive floating solar power plant just went online, and Indias record-holding solar farm can power 150,000 homes.

Despite a lack of federal support, individual states and cities within the U.S. are committing to fossil fuel alternatives as well just this month, Orlando, Florida, became the fortieth city in the country to make a commitment to completely transition to renewables within the next several decades.

A primary contributor to this increased adoption is cost. For a long time, a mainargument against renewable energy sources has been their high cost when compared to fossil fuels.

Now, the solar panels that weve become accustomed to seeing atop residential homes have dropped in price significantly, and building a new commercial solar plant is also cheaper than building a plant thats powered by fossil fuels. Experts are predicting that solar energy will actually be cheaper than coalwithin the next four years.

This increased affordability will no doubt lead to the creation of more projects like the one in Port Augusta, and that will go a long way toward helping the world meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and stem the damage weve done to the planet through the use of fossil fuels.

See the rest here:

Engineers Are Building the World's Largest Single-Tower Solar Thermal Plant - Futurism

We Just Figured out How to Activate Stem Cells to Treat Baldness – Futurism

Posted on by

In BriefResearchers from UCLA have found a way to successfullyreactivate stem cells in dormant hair follicles to promote hairgrowth in mice. Through this research, they've developed two drugsthat could help millions of people worldwide treat conditions thatlead to abnormal hair growth and retention. External Problem. Internal Solution.

Researchers have already explored ways to use stem cells totreat everything from diabetes toaging, and now, ateam from UCLAthinks they could potentially offer some relief for people suffering from baldness.

During their study, which has beenpublished in Nature, the researchers noticedthat stem cells found in hair follicles undergo a different metabolic process than normal skin cells. After turning glucose into a molecule known as pyruvate, these hair follicle cells then do one of two things: send the pyruvateto the cells mitochondria to be used as energy or convert it into another metabolite known as lactate.

Based on these findings, the researchers decided to see if inactive hair follicles behaved differently depending on the path of the pyruvate.

To that end, the UCLA team compared mice that had been genetically engineered so that they wouldnt produce lactate with mice that had been engineered to produce more lactate than normal. Obstructing lactate production stopped the stem cells in the follicles from being activated, while more hair growth was observed on the animals who were producing more of the metabolite.

No one knew that increasing or decreasing the lactate would have an effect on hair follicle stem cells, co-lead on the study and professor of molecular, cell, and developmental biology William Lowry explained in a UCLA press release. Once we saw how altering lactate production in the mice influenced hair growth, it led us to look for potential drugs that could be applied to the skin and have the same effect.

Based on their study, the researchers were able to discovertwo different drugs that could potentially help humans jumpstart the stem cells in their hair follicles to increase lactate production.

The first is called RCGD423, and it works by establishing a JAK/STAT signalling pathway between the exterior of a cell and its nucleus. This puts the stems cells in an active state and contributes to lactate production, encouraging hair growth.

The other drug, UK5099, takes the opposite approach. It stops pyruvate from being converted into energy by the cells mitochondria, which leaves the molecules with no choice but to take the alternate path of creating lactate, which, in turn, promotes hair growth.

Both of the drugs have yet to be tested on humans, but hopes are high that if tests are successful, they could provide relief for the estimated 56 million people in the U.S. alonesuffering from a range of conditions that affect normal hair growth and retention, including alopecia, hormone imbalances, stress-related hair loss, and even old age.

However, as undoubtedly pleased as many of those people would be to stimulate their hair growth, the potential relevance of this research stretches far beyond hair loss. The new knowledge gained regarding stem cells, specifically their relation to the metabolism of the human body, provides a very promising basis for future study in other realms.

I think weve only just begun to understand the critical role metabolism plays in hair growth and stem cells in general, noted Aimee Flores, first author of the study and a predoctoral trainee in Lowrys lab. Im looking forward to the potential application of these new findings for hair loss and beyond.

See original here:

We Just Figured out How to Activate Stem Cells to Treat Baldness - Futurism

Tesla Just Made A Futuristic Tiny House – Futurism

Posted on by

In Brief Tesla's putting a "Tiny House" on tour today in Australia, as it unveiled a project that would demonstrate its solar roof panels and Powerwall home energy storage batteries. Tesla wants to demonstrate how a sustainable energy home could work.

Australia enjoys a healthy does of sunshine for most of the yearin fact, it has the highest average solar radiation persquare meter than any other continent on Earth, according to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. This makes the Land Down Under an ideal place for solar energy farms and home solar products.

However, while public demand for renewables are up, the Australian government has kept energy prices low to maintain reliance on coal. This has created a troublesome energy situation throughout most of the continent. Realizing, perhaps, that Australia needs to be more at home with solar energy, Tesla decided to put up what it calls the Tesla Tiny House and its going to tour some of the major cities in the continent.

Tesla is hitting the road across Australia in a tiny house powered by 100% renewable energy, the company says on its website, as well as in a press release after launching the Tiny House on Sunday. Pulled by a Model X, the house features a Tesla mobile design studio so visitors can check out and learn how to set up their own Tesla solar and energy storage system.

The Tiny House is powered by solar energy using a six-panel 2kW solar system attached to a Powerwall battery, where energy can be stored throughout the day and night, Tesla said, according to Electrek. This energy cycle can be controlled and monitored through the Tesla mobile app. Oh, and its also built from locally sourced timber thats chemical free, just to complete that sustainable touch. In short, its a renewable ecosystem on wheels.

This renewable ecosystem is what Tesla hopes to build into homes throughout Australia, where over two million households already have rooftop solar. While Tesla has yet to offer rooftop solar installations, it has already partnered with a local home builder to include the Powerwall as a standard feature. Establishing solar as a standardcould provide a sustainable source of clean energy, and would greatly lessen dependence on coal-generated electricity.

Teslas also working on large-scale energy projects in Australia, building a Powerpack system for a wind farm in South Australia which would be the worlds largest and most powerful lithium-ion battery storage system. Teslas also installing Powerpacks in various sites in New South Wales.

The Tesla Tiny House, which is parked at the Melbournes Federation Square until 15 August, will soon begin a tour of eastern Australian cities, with the option for Australians to actually book it to visit their town.

See the original post:

Tesla Just Made A Futuristic Tiny House - Futurism

China angered at US criticism of religious freedom, says US not perfect – Reuters

Posted on by

BEIJING (Reuters) - China hit back on Wednesday at criticism by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of its record on religious freedom, saying the United States was not perfect and should be looking after its own affairs rather than making baseless accusations.

Tillerson, speaking at the State Department while introducing the agency's annual report on religious freedom, said the Chinese government tortures and imprisons thousands for their religious beliefs, citing the targeting of Falun Gong members, Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China fully respected and protected freedom of religion and belief.

"The so-called U.S. report ignores the facts, confuses right and wrong and makes wanton criticism of China's religious freedom situation," she told a daily news briefing.

"China is resolutely opposed to this and has lodged solemn representations with the U.S. side."

The United States would do better to look at its own problems, Hua added.

"Everyone has seen that the facts prove the United States is not totally perfect," she said, without providing any examples.

"We urge the United States to respect the facts and properly manage its own affairs, and stop using the wrong means of the so-called religious freedom issue to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries."

State news agency Xinhua said in an English-language commentary the violence at a weekend rally by white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, meant the United States should reflect on its own problems before pointing the finger at China.

"Against the backdrop of the recent clash between white supremacists and their opponents, the U.S. accusations against China simply lay bare the double standard it employs," it said.

"The violence highlighted the danger of racism, which is a serious problem in a still divided U.S. society," Xinhua added."Despite its self-proclaimed role as the world's human rights champion, the fact is the world's sole superpower is far from becoming a respected role model in this regard."

The violence erupted on Saturday after white nationalists converged in Charlottesville for a "Unite the Right" rally to protest against plans to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War.

Many of the rally participants were seen carrying firearms, sticks and shields. Some also wore helmets. Counter-protesters likewise came equipped with sticks, helmets and shields.

The two sides clashed in scattered street brawls before a car plowed into the rally opponents, killing a woman and injuring 19. A 20-year-old Ohio man, James Fields, said to have harbored Nazi sympathies, was charged with murder.

Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Robert Birsel

See the rest here:

China angered at US criticism of religious freedom, says US not perfect - Reuters