Select Page ::

Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Present at the ROTH Capital Healthcare Event "COVID-19 Therapeutics in Development" – PRNewswire

Posted on October 28, 2020 by Danzig

SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 27, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARDS), a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of novel anti-infective therapies to treat life-threatening infections, today announced the Company will present at theROTH Capital Healthcare Event "COVID-19 Therapeutics in Development"on Wednesday, October 28, 2020. Dr. Hasan Jafri, Chief Medical Officer of Aridis Pharmaceuticals, will be a speaker on a panel entitled "Direct Antivirals and Other Agents Against SARS-CoV2 Virus."

Panel:Direct Antivirals and Other Agents Against SARS-CoV2 VirusDate: Wednesday, October 28, 2020Time:10:30AM-11:50AM ET

Dr. Jafri will present a summary of the Company's recently published preclinical data of its COVID-19 inhaled mAb (AR-711). He will address the preclinical performance of AR-711, the advantages of direct lung delivery using nebulized aerosols, and the COVID-19 clinical program.

About AR-711

AR-711 is a fully human immunoglobulin 1, or IgG1, monoclonal antibody discovered from screening the antibody secreting B-cells of convalescent COVID-19 patients. AR-711 exhibits high affinity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, approximately 10-fold or higher than mAb candidates currently in late stage clinical testing. AR-711 was previously shown to be effective in prophylactic as well as therapeutic treatment modes in a SARS-CoV-2 viral challenge study. AR-711 is currently being developed as an inhaled, self-administered treatment for non-hospitalized patients suffering from mild to moderate COVID-19. AR-711 is also one the two mAbs in the company's AR-701 mAb cocktail, which is a separate program being developed as an intravenous treatment of moderate to severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

About Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. discovers and develops anti-infectives to be used as add-on treatments to standard-of-care antibiotics. The Company is utilizing its proprietary PEXTM and MabIgX technology platforms to rapidly identify rare, potent antibody-producing B-cells from patients who have successfully overcome an infection, and to rapidly manufacture monoclonal antibody (mAbs) for therapeutic treatment of critical infections. These mAbs are already of human origin and functionally optimized for high potency by the donor's immune system; hence, they technically do not require genetic engineering or further optimization to achieve full functionality.

The Company has generated multiple clinical stage mAbs targeting bacteria that cause life-threatening infections such as ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) and hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP), in addition topreclinical stage antiviral mAbs. The use of mAbs as anti-infective treatments represents an innovative therapeutic approach that harnesses the human immune system to fight infections and is designed to overcome the deficiencies associated with the current standard of care which is broad spectrum antibiotics. Such deficiencies include, but are not limited to, increasing drug resistance, short duration of efficacy, disruption of the normal flora of the human microbiome and lack of differentiation among current treatments. The mAb portfolio is complemented by a non-antibiotic novel mechanism small molecule anti-infective candidate being developed to treat lung infections in cystic fibrosis patients. The Company's pipeline is highlighted below:

Aridis'Pipeline

AR-301(VAP).AR-301 is a fully human IgG1 mAb currently in Phase 3 clinical development targeting gram-positiveStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureus)alpha-toxin in VAPpatients.

AR-101(HAP).AR-101 is a fully human immunoglobulin M, or IgM, mAb in Phase 2 clinical development targetingPseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa)liposaccharides serotype O11, which accounts for approximately 22% of allP. aeruginosahospital acquired pneumonia cases worldwide.

AR-501(cystic fibrosis).AR-501 is an inhaled formulation of gallium citrate with broad-spectrum anti-infective activity being developed to treat chronic lung infections in cystic fibrosis patients. This program is currently in a Phase 1/2a clinical study in healthy volunteers and CF patients.

AR-401(blood stream infections).AR-401 is a fully human mAb preclinical program aimed at treating infections caused by gram-negativeAcinetobacter baumannii.

AR-701(COVID-19). AR-701 is a cocktail of fully human mAbs discovered from convalescent COVID-19 patients that are directed at multiple envelope proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

AR-711(COVID-19). AR-711 is an in-licensed mAb that is directed against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-Cov 2 virus. The agent has the potential to be delivered both intravenously and by inhalation using a nebulizer.

AR-201(RSV infection). AR-201 is a fully human IgG1 mAb out-licensed preclinical program aimed at neutralizing diverse clinical isolates of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

For additional information on Aridis Pharmaceuticals, please visithttps://aridispharma.com/.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These statements may be identified by the use of words such as "anticipate," "believe," "forecast," "estimated" and "intend" or other similar terms or expressions that concern Aridis' expectations, strategy, plans or intentions. These forward-looking statements are based on Aridis' current expectations and actual results could differ materially. There are a number of factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the need for additional financing, the timing of regulatory submissions, Aridis' ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of its existing product candidates and any other product candidates it may develop, approvals for clinical trials may be delayed or withheld by regulatory agencies, risks relating to the timing and costs of clinical trials, risks associated with obtaining funding from third parties, management and employee operations and execution risks, loss of key personnel, competition, risks related to market acceptance of products, intellectual property risks, risks related to business interruptions, including the outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus, which could seriously harm ourfinancial condition and increase our costs and expenses, risks associated with the uncertainty of future financial results, Aridis' ability to attract collaborators and partners and risks associated with Aridis' reliance on third party organizations. While the list of factors presented here is considered representative, no such list should be considered to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. Unlisted factors may present significant additional obstacles to the realization of forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those described or implied by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including, without limitation, market conditions and the factors described under the caption "Risk Factors" in Aridis' 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 and Aridis' other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission.Forward-looking statements included herein are made as of the date hereof, and Aridis does not undertake any obligation to update publicly such statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.

Contact:

Investor RelationsJason WongBlueprint Life Science Group[emailprotected](415) 375-3340 Ext. 4

SOURCE Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Home

Gene-edited crops and animals: Best-kept secrets in the fight against climate change – Genetic Literacy Project

Posted on October 28, 2020 by Danzig

Advances in gene editing over the past decade have given scientists new tools to tailor the biochemistry of nearly any living thing with great precision. Because the biosphereincluding trees, crops, livestock, and every other organismsis a major source and sink for greenhouse gases (GHGs), these tools have profound implications for climate change. Gene editing is unlocking new ways to enhance natural and agricultural carbon sinks, limit emissions from agriculture and other major GHG-emitting sectors, and improve biofuels. Congress should act now to open this new frontier for climate innovation.

Gene editing uses enzymesCRISPR Cas9 is the most well-knownto identify, remove, and replace segments of an organisms DNA, much like using a word processor to edit a document. These tools originated as defense mechanisms so that bacteria could remove foreign DNA inserted by predatory viruses. Researchers have adapted this cellular machinery to introduce beneficial traits into plants and animals. The techniques are new, but they build on nearly a half century of experience with conventional genetic engineering and hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

Zooming out from the microscopic level, gene editing offers novel solutions to a diverse set of emissions-related problems.

The Trillion Trees initiative recognizes plants unique ability: using photosynthesis to capture carbon. Yet the process is surprisingly inefficient.Scientistshave moved swiftly to use their new toolkit to try to improve it, and several breakthroughs have already been reported. Further progress might enableproductivity gainsof 50 percent in major crops, slashing emissions radically, raising output per acre, and bolstering farmers incomes.

The decomposition and transport of wasted food accounts for the single largest portion of agricultural GHG emissions. Companies are already selling gene-editedsoybean oilwith a longer shelf life andpotatoesthat resist bruising, both of which reduce waste.

Next-generation biofuels from switchgrass, which grows easily on otherwise non-arable land, could power sustainable, low-carbon transport. The hitch has been that this plants key ingredient, cellulose, is hard to break down. Gene editing may open up this abundant resource by optimizing microbes that can efficiently process cellulose, yielding low-cost biofuels and spurring rural development.

The worlds 1.4 billion cattle account for about6 percentof global agriculture GHG emissions, in large part because of methane in their burps. Some cattle emit far less methane than others because of specific microbial populations in their digestive tracts. Gene editing could allow this trait to spread across herds,reducing emissions.

Gene editings enormous promise for solving societal problems, including climate change, has been slowed by concerns that it is neither natural nor safe. These concerns are misplaced. Humans have used breeding to shape the genomes of crops and livestock since the dawn of agriculture. Our new gene editing toolkit has been used by nature for hundreds of millions of years. Most important, in eleven major studies over the past four decades, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences hasfoundno new hazards in gene edited or genetically engineered products. Other authoritative bodies around the world have drawn the same conclusion, which has been confirmed by vast experience.

The urgency of the climate challenge is becoming clearer with each passing season as severe storms, droughts, fires, and other disasters become more frequent at home and around the world. Congress should take action today to accelerate gene-edited climate solutions. First, legislators should eliminate regulatory burdens that disincentivize innovation in gene-edited technologies and contribute little to human or environmental safety. Current regulations on gene-edited products have addedtens of millions of dollarsand multiple years to their development without delivering commensurate benefits for health, safety, or the environment.

Second, Congress should create a new agency to support agricultural research into high-reward biological technologies including gene editing. The ARPA-Terra Act of 2019 (S.2732) introduced by Sen. Michael Bennet would do so, emulating the highly successful models of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).

Finally, Congress should encourage innovative farmers to adopt new gene-edited crops and livestock to demonstrate their value and speed wider deployment. Existing tax credits for carbon capture could be expanded as these nascent products come to market.

Although gene editing is less than a decade old, it is already abundantly clear that it will be a powerful tool to address climate change. The science is ready and waiting for Congressional action.

International Group of Scientists Explain the Advantages of Using Metabolic Engineering to Address Hidden Hunger – Newswise

Posted on October 28, 2020 by Danzig

Newswise ST. LOUIS, MO, October 22, 2020 More than two billion people worldwide suffer from micronutrient malnutrition due to deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. People in developing countries are most affected, as their diets are typically dominated by starchy staple foods, which are inexpensive sources of calories but contain low amounts of micronutrients. In a perspective paper, Multiplying the efficiency and impact of biofortification through metabolic engineering, recently published in Nature Communications, an international team of scientists, led by Ghent University, explain how plant genetic engineering can help to sustainably address micronutrient malnutrition.

Micronutrient malnutrition leads to severe health problems. The highest numbers of people affected by mineral and vitamin deficiencies live in Africa and Asia. For instance, vitamin A and zinc deficiency are leading risk factors for child mortality. Iron and folate deficiency contribute to anemia, physical and cognitive development problems. Often, the people affected are not aware of their nutritional deficiencies, which is why the term hidden hunger is also used. The long-term solutions are that all people are made aware of healthy nutrition through education, and raising incomes so that all can afford a balanced diet all year round. However, more targeted interventions are required in the short and medium run.

One intervention is to breed staple food crops for higher micronutrient contents, also known as biofortification. Over the last 20 years, international agricultural research centers have developed biofortified crops using conventional breeding methods, including sweet potato and maize with vitamin A and wheat and rice with higher zinc contents. These crops were successfully released in various developing countries with proven nutrition and health benefits. However, conventional breeding approaches have certain limitations.

In the Nature Communications perspective, the scientists report how genetic engineering can help to further enhance the benefits of biofortified crops. Transgenic approaches allow us to achieve much higher micronutrient levels in crops than conventional methods alone, thus increasing the nutritional efficacy. We demonstrated this for folates in rice and potato, says Dominique Van Der Straeten from Ghent University in Belgium, the papers lead author. We also managed to reduce post-harvest vitamin losses significantly, she adds.

Another advantage of genetic engineering is that high amounts of several micronutrients can be combined in the same crop. This is very important, as impoverished people often suffer from multiple micronutrient deficiencies, says co-lead Howarth Bouis from the International Food Policy Research Institute and 2016 World Food Prize winner.

Genetic engineering can also help to combine micronutrient traits with productivity-increasing agronomic traits, such as drought tolerance and pest resistance, which are becoming ever more relevant with climate change. Farmers should not have to make difficult choices between crops that either improve nutrition or allow productive and stable harvests. They need both aspects combined, which will also support widespread adoption, says co-author Donald MacKenzie, PhD, executive director of the Institute for International Crop Improvement at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.

The authors acknowledge that genetic engineering is seen skeptically by many, even though research shows that the resulting crops are safe for human consumption and the environment. However, the publics reservations around genetic engineering, which may often be conflated with concerns around corporate concentration in agriculture, may be lessened by more support of public sector and humanitarian efforts. One of the reasons for the public reservations is also that genetic engineering is often associated with large multinational companies. Biofortified crops may possibly reduce some of the concerns, as these crops are developed for humanitarian purposes. Public funding is key to broader acceptance, said MacKenzie.

Scientists from the following organizations contributed to the paper (in alphabetical order):

About The Donald Danforth Plant Science CenterFounded in 1998, theDonald Danforth Plant Science Centeris a not-for-profit research institute with a mission to improve the human condition through plant science. Research, education and outreach aim to have impact at the nexus of food security and the environment, and position the St. Louis region as a world center for plant science. The Centers work is funded through competitive grants from many sources, including the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Follow us on Twitter at@DanforthCenter

Media contact: Karla Roeber, (314) 406-4287, kroeber@danforthcenter.org

See more here:
International Group of Scientists Explain the Advantages of Using Metabolic Engineering to Address Hidden Hunger - Newswise

COVID-19 origin: It looks like this virus was designed to infect humans – The New Daily

Posted on July 6, 2021 by Danzig

In recent weeks, there has been a radical shift in sober thinking about where the SARS-CoV-2 virus, better known as COVID 19, originated.

Early talk about an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology where bat coronaviruses are modified to become more infectious to humans was largely written off as a conspiracy theory.

As The New Daily reported a month ago, the lab-leak theory is being investigated with vigour under the direction of United States President Joe Biden notwithstanding the limited access investigators have had to the Wuhan lab.

One of the compelling pieces of evidence being examined by members of the US Congress was done by Australian researchers who were shocked by their own findings.

Their paper, published last week, found that the coronavirus is most ideally adapted to infect human cells and not bat or pangolin cells, thought to be the likely origin culprits.

The study findings, from Flinders University and La Trobe University, also ruled out monkeys, snakes, cows, tigers, hamsters, cats, civets, horses, ferrets, mice, and dogs.

On the face of it, this stands as an intriguing challenge to the prevailing theory that SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a bat and was then passed on to people via another, unidentified animals.

The problem is, the Australia data found that bats were a very poor fit for infection by the coronavirus, while humans were way off the top of the list.

One of the co-authors of the study is Professor Nikolai Petrovsky. He isdirector of endocrinology at Flinders Medical Centre and a professor of Medicine at Flinders University. Hes also vice-president and secretary-general of the International Immunomics Society.

Professor Petrovsky said the research, which began last year when the pandemic was taking hold, was based on the assumption that this was another natural transmission rather than an engineered one.

We were trying to find the particular species of animal in which this virus might have originated, he told The New Daily.

The world is now full of armchair virologists who understand that the spike protein (S) of the coronavirus gains entry to a human cell by binding to the cells ACE2 receptor like a key being inserted into a lock is the common metaphor.

Essentially, ACE2 acts as a cellular doorway or receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Professor Petrovsky with La Trobe Professor David Winkler and others used genomic data from the 12 animal species to painstakingly build computer models of the key ACE2 protein receptors for each species.

These models were then used to calculate the strength of binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to each species ACE2 receptor.

Surprisingly, the results showed that SARS-CoV-2 bound to ACE2 on human cells more tightly than any of the tested animal species, including bats and pangolins.

If one of the animal species tested was the origin, it would normally be expected to show the highest binding to the virus.

Said Professor Petrovsky, What shocked us, and not what we were expecting, was that humans came out at the very top.

The teams modelling shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus also bound relatively strongly to ACE2 from pangolins, a rare exotic ant-eater found in some parts of South-East Asia with occasional instances of use as food or traditional medicines.

The pangolins had the highest spike binding energy of all the animals the study looked at significantly higher than bats, monkeys and snakes.

Pangolins were an early suspect, because of a coronavirus it was carrying. But the pangolin coronavirus had less than 90 per cent genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2.

And hence could not be its ancestor, Professor Petrovsky said.

However, the specific part of the pangolin coronavirus spike protein that binds ACE2 is almost identical to that of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

How to explain this incongruence? Maybe the pangolin and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins were of evolutionary cousins.

They may have evolved similarities through a process of convergent evolution, genetic recombination between viruses, or through genetic engineering, with no current way to distinguish between these possibilities.

In other words, its a possibility that the hand of man interfered with these viruses that were adapted pangolins and humans.

Or it could be the natural world doing its creative thing.

Getting into a cell is one thing but making an effective take-over of the cell is another issue. It usually happens via a series of infections, during which the virus adapts.

Ordinarily, then, the first human infection by a virus wouldnt be a potent event.

What the researchers found in their modelling: it appears that human cells, from the beginning, were ripe for a takeover. They launched into the world, fully adapted to infect people.

This is hot stuff but, as Professor Petrovsky makes plain: Its just one piece of evidence that has to be assessed with all the other evidence.

You never say never, said Professor Petrovsky.

But what we know is this: If you look at SARS, that only became human-adapted through a complex series of events that have been mapped starting with bats and then mutating, moving on to civets, and from civets to humans.

Over three to four months of human infection, the virus adapted and became more efficient as one would expect.

The virus is usually weak when it infects a new species until it has time to adapt and become more efficient, said Professor Petrovsky.

But this virus was extremely good at infecting humans and there wasnt a clear explanation for that. So it means theres a coincidence or it could mean there had been some intervention that helped the virus become adapted to humans.

Which is why scientists are looking at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: it houses more bat coronaviruses than anywhere else in the world, and some of the work done there involves re-engineering coronaviruses so they adapt to infecting humans more easily.

Which is another remarkable coincidence or its telling you something, said Professor Petrovsky.

Looking just at the data youd say that it looked like this virus was designed to infect humans, he said,

But of course, scientifically, you have to go back and ask how could this have happened without infecting a human before?

It is a big question and its currently an unanswered question.

The rest is here:
COVID-19 origin: It looks like this virus was designed to infect humans - The New Daily

Khalifa University researchers complete reference genome study for the UAE – WAM EN

Posted on July 6, 2021 by Danzig

ABU DHABI, 5th July, 2021 (WAM) -- A team of scientists from Khalifa University of Science and Technology has completed a significant local genome study that will contribute to nationwide efforts to build a high-quality, comprehensive reference genome for the UAE population.

The first phase of the study - the description of the first whole genome sequences of UAE nationals - was completed in 2019. Subsequently, in 2020, the researchers completed the second phase which described the nature of the genetic diversity found among UAE nationals. This year, the researchers completed the third phase of the UAE reference genome, which supports a broader understanding of the genome composition of the nation.

Following advancements in DNA sequencing and analysis techniques since renowned scientist Craig Venter and his colleagues published the first whole human genome sequence at the turn of this century, the genome study has become part of a major area of research at Khalifa University.

The Khalifa University scientists recently published a report titled A population-specific Major Allele Reference Genome from the United Arab Emirates population in the international journal, Frontiers in Genetics. The study was authored by Dr. Habiba Alsafar, Associate Professor, Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology, Dr. Andreas Henschel, Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, with Dr. Gihan Daw Elbait and Dr. Guan Tay, from the Center for Biotechnology.

Dr. Arif Sultan Al Hammadi, Executive Vice-President, Khalifa University, said: "Our researchers have published the first whole genome of a UAE national and have followed it up with this reference genome. This will advance our understanding of the genomes of the UAE population, improving the ability of researchers and clinicians to identify genetic causes of diseases that are common in the UAE and the region. This is a stellar achievement in the field of medicine and healthcare, as this will become a fundamental tool that will advance genome and public health research in the UAE, and contribute to nationwide efforts, being led by the recently formed UAE Genomics Council to incorporate genomics into the healthcare ecosystem of the UAE."

The ethnic composition of the population of a nation contributes to its genetic uniqueness. Consequently, it is important to define national reference genomes of its people to avoid any confounding effects which are linked to the use of reference genomes from other national genome sequencing efforts. A total of 1,028 UAE nationals were recruited for this study, as part of the 1,000 UAE genome project that was conceived by the research team when the Center of Biotechnology was founded in 2015. Of these, 129 samples were selected as individuals that are most representative of the genetic diversity of the UAE for construction of the UAERG.

"Despite achieving this major milestone in a relatively short period of time, our work to improve our understanding of how genes contribute to health continues," said Dr. Alsafar and added, "Our next challenge is to decode the genome data to identify genetic markers that better predict the likelihood of disease."

Precision medicine has the potential to profoundly improve the practice of medicine. The goal is to enable clinicians to quickly, efficiently and accurately predict the most appropriate course of action for a patient; a pre-emptive strike to prevent or delay the onset of disease. However, the practice of precision medicine and personalized healthcare is a complex science as it is influenced by a range of factors such as the environment and the inherent characteristics within an individual. Genetics is an important contributor to this complexity and genome science will play a key role in the rollout of future national health programs.

Since the establishment of the Center for Biotechnology, its primary mission sought to address a gap in knowledge relating to the specific genomic features of the UAE population. In 2018, the BTC team outlined a vision for a National Arab Genome project for the UAE in the Journal of Human Genetics. The aim was to address the deficiency in genome data on the UAE population to improve our understanding of genome variants that are unique to the population of the nation. The team led by eminent geneticist Dr. Alsafar, proceeded with the bold ambition to sequence Emirati nationals to provide a reference upon which clinical decisions can be made.

In 2019, Dr. Alsafar led the team that described the first Whole Genomes Sequences (WGS) of two UAE nationals in Nature Publishing Groups Scientific Report. "It was important to achieve this milestone, as the whole genome sequences provided a starting point for construction of a UAE reference panel which will lead to improvements in the delivery of precision medicine, which we hope will eventually lead to improvements in the quality of life of UAE nationals" said Dr Alsafar.

Despite reporting on the first genome of a UAE national, the Khalifa University team continued to sequence samples provided by UAE nationals for research. In mid-2020, the team followed up the report of the first UAE Whole Genome Sequence with two papers in Frontiers in Genetics. These studies showed that the contemporary population of the UAE arose from gradual admixture through complex and long term interactions between local communities of the area that is now the UAE and the people of neighbouring regions.

Continue reading here:
Khalifa University researchers complete reference genome study for the UAE - WAM EN

Berkeley Lab Celebrates 90th Anniversary, Imagines the Next 90 Years | Berkeley Lab – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Posted on February 6, 2021 by Danzig

Ninety years ago, in August of 1931, physics professor Ernest Lawrence created the Radiation Laboratory in a modest building on the UC Berkeley campus to house his cyclotron, a particle accelerator that ushered in a new era in the study of subatomic particles. The invention of the cyclotron would go on to win Lawrence the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics.

From this start, Lawrences unique approach of bringing together multidisciplinary teams, world-class research facilities, and bold discovery science has fueled nine decades of pioneering research at the Department of Energys Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). His team science approach also grew into todays national laboratory system.

Over the years, as Berkeley Labs mission expanded to cover a remarkable range of science, this approach has delivered countless solutions to challenges in energy, environment, materials, biology, computing, and physics.

And this same approach will continue to deliver breakthroughs for decades to come.

In 2021, Berkeley Labs 90th year, we invite you to join our anniversary celebration, Berkeley Lab: The Next 90, as we celebrate our past and imagine our future.

The pursuit of discovery science by multidisciplinary teams has brought, and will continue to bring, tremendous benefits to the nation and world, said Berkeley Lab Director Mike Witherell. Our celebration is a chance to honor everyone who has contributed to solving human problems through science, and to imagine what we can accomplish together in the next 90 years.

Berkeley Labs 90th anniversary celebration honors the diverse efforts of the Lab community: from scientists and engineers to administrative and operations staff.

It also celebrates our commitment to discovery science, which explores the fundamental underpinnings of the universe, materials, biology, and more. This research requires patience the dividends can be decades in the future but the results are often surprising and profound, from the cyclotron of yesteryear to todays CRISPR-Cas9 genetic engineering technology.

Its an incredible story were proud to share, and inspired to continue with your support. Over the next several months, well offer many ways to join our celebration. Visit Berkeley Lab: The Next 90 to learn more, and engage with us on Twitter at #BerkeleyLab90.

Here are several ways to join our celebration, all highlighted on the website:

Celebrate the past

90 Breakthroughs: To celebrate Berkeley Labs nine decades of transforming discovery science into solutions that benefit the world, well roll out 90 Berkeley Lab breakthroughs over the next several months.

Interactive Timeline: Explore the Labs many remarkable achievements and events through the decades.

History and photos: Check out our decade-by-decade photo album and historical material.

Imagine the Future

Charitable giving: In 2021, Berkeley Lab will support five non-profit organizations that help prepare young scholars to become leaders and problem solvers.

Basics 2 Breakthroughs: Research at Berkeley Lab often starts with basic science, which leads to breakthroughs that help the world. In this video series, early career scientists discuss their game-changing research and what inspires them.

A Day in the Half Life: This podcast series chronicles the incredible and often unexpected ways that science evolves over time, as told by scientists who helped shape a research field, and those who will bring it into the future.

Speaker series: These monthly lectures offer a look at game-changing scientific breakthroughs of the last 90 years, highlight current research aimed at tackling the nations most pressing challenges, and offer a glimpse into future research that will spur discoveries yet to be made.

Connect

Virtual tours: These live, interactive tours will enable you to learn more about Berkeley Labs research efforts, hear from the scientists who conduct this important work, and peek inside our amazing facilities.

Social media: Join us on social media for fun and engaging content that will help you discover the Labs incredible history, and learn what were imagining for the future. BerkeleyLab#90

# # #

Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest scientific challenges are best addressed by teams,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratoryand its scientists have been recognized with 13 Nobel Prizes. Today, Berkeley Lab researchers develop sustainable energy and environmental solutions, create useful new materials, advance the frontiers of computing, and probe the mysteries of life, matter, and the universe. Scientists from around the world rely on the Labs facilities for their own discovery science. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory, managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energys Office of Science.

DOEs Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visitenergy.gov/science.

Read the original:
Berkeley Lab Celebrates 90th Anniversary, Imagines the Next 90 Years | Berkeley Lab - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

An Introduction to PCR – Technology Networks

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Danzig

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a technique that has revolutionized the world of molecular biology and beyond. In this article, we will discuss a brief history of PCR and its principles, highlighting the different types of PCR and the specific purposes to which they are being applied.

In 1983, American biochemist Kary Mullis was driving home late at night when a flash of inspiration struck him. He wrote on the back of a receipt the idea that would eventually grant him the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993. The concept was straightforward: reproducing in a laboratory tube the DNA replication process that takes place in cells. The outcome is the same: the generation of new complementary DNA (cDNA) strands based upon the existing ones.

Mullis used the basis of Sanger's DNA sequencing as a starting point for his new technique. He realized that the repeated use of DNA polymerase triggered a chain reaction resulting in a specific DNA segment's amplification.

The foundations for his idea were laid by a discovery in 1976 of a thermostable DNA polymerase, Taq, isolated from the bacterium Thermus aquaticus found in hot springs.1 Taq DNA polymerase has a temperature optimum of 72 C and survives prolonged exposure to temperatures as high as 96 C, meaning that it can tolerate several denaturation cycles.

Before the discovery of Taq polymerase, molecular biologists were already trying to optimize cyclic DNA amplification protocols, but they needed to add fresh polymerase at each cycle because the enzyme could not withstand the high temperatures needed for DNA denaturation. Having a thermostable enzyme meant that they could repeat the amplification process many times over without the need for fresh polymerase at every cycle, making the whole process scalable, more efficient and less time-consuming.

The first description of this polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using Taq polymerase was published in Science in 1985.2

In 1993, the first FDA-approved PCR kit came to market. Since then, PCR has been steadily and systematically improved. It has become a game-changer in everything from forensic evidence analysis and diagnostics, to disease monitoring and genetic engineering. It is undoubtedly considered one of the most important scientific advances of the 20th century.

The PCR is used to amplify a specific DNA fragment from a complex mixture of starting material called template DNA. The sample preparation and purification protocols depend on the starting material, including the sample matrix and accessibility of target DNA. Often, minimal DNA purification is needed. However, PCR does require knowledge of the DNA sequence information that flanks the DNA fragment to be amplified (called target DNA).

From a practical point of view, a PCR experiment is relatively straightforward and can be completed in a few hours. In general, a PCR reaction needs five key reagents:

DNA to be amplified: also called PCR template or template DNA. This DNA can be of any source, such as genomic DNA (gDNA), cDNA, and plasmid DNA.DNA polymerase: all PCR reactions require a DNA polymerase that can work at high temperatures. Taq polymerase is a commonly used one, which can incorporate nucleotides at a rate of 60 bases/second at 70 C and can amplify templates of up to 5 kb, making it suitable for standard PCR without special requirements. New generations of polymerases are being engineered to improve reaction performance. For example, some are engineered to be only activated at high temperatures to reduce non-specific amplification at the beginning of the reaction. Others incorporate a proofreading function, important, for example, when it is critical that the amplified sequence matches the template sequence exactly, such as during cloning.Primers: DNA polymerases require a short sequence of nucleotides to indicate where they need to initiate amplification. In a PCR, these sequences are called primers and are short pieces of single-stranded DNA (approximately 15-30 bases). When designing a PCR experiment, the researcher determines the region of DNA to be amplified and designs a pair of primers, one on the forward strand and one on the reverse, that specifically flanks the target region. Primer design is a key component of a PCR experiment and should be done carefully. Primer sequences must be chosen to target the unique DNA of interest, avoiding the possibility of binding to a similar sequence. They should have similar melting temperatures because the annealing step occurs simultaneously for both strands. The melting temperature of a primer can be impacted by the percentage of bases that are guanine (G) or cytosine (C) compared to adenine (A) or thymine (T), with higher GC contents increasing melting temperatures. Adjusting primer lengths can help to compensate for this in matching a primer pair. It is also important to avoid sequences that will tend to form secondary structures or primer dimers, as this will reduce PCR efficiency. Many free online tools are available to aid in primer design.Deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs): these serve as the building blocks to synthesize the new strands of DNA and include the four basic DNA nucleotides (dATP, dCTP, dGTP, and dTTP). dNTPs are usually added to the PCR reaction in equimolar amounts for optimal base incorporation.PCR buffer: the PCR buffer ensures that optimal conditions are maintained throughout the PCR reaction. The major components of PCR buffers include magnesium chloride (MgCl2), tris-HCl and potassium chloride (KCl). MgCl2 serves as a cofactor for the DNA polymerase, while tris-HCl and KCl maintain a stable pH during the reaction.The PCR reaction is carried out in a single tube by mixing the reagents mentioned above and placing the tube in a thermal cycler.The PCR amplification consists of three defined sets of times and temperatures termed steps: denaturation, annealing, and extension (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Steps of a single PCR cycle.

Each of these steps, termed cycles, is repeated 30-40 times, doubling the amount of DNA at each cycle and obtaining amplification (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The different stages and cycles of DNA molecule amplification by PCR.

Let's take a closer look at each step.

The first step of PCR, called denaturation, heats the template DNA up to 95 C for a few seconds, separating the two DNA strands as the hydrogen bonds between them are rapidly broken.

The reaction mixture is then cooled for 30 seconds to 1 minute. Annealing temperatures are usually 50 - 65 C however, the exact optimal temperature depends on the primers' length and sequence. It must be carefully optimized with every new set of primers.

The two DNA strands could rejoin at this temperature, but most do not because the mixture contains a large excess of primers that bind, or anneal, to the template DNA at specific, complementary positions. Once the annealing step is completed, hydrogen bonds will form between the template DNA and the primers. At this point, the polymerase is ready to extend the DNA sequence.

The temperature is then raised to the ideal working temperature for the DNA polymerase present in the mixture, typically around 72 C, 74 C in the case of Taq.

The DNA polymerase attaches to one end of each primer and synthesizes new strands of DNA, complementary to the template DNA. Now we have four strands of DNA instead of the two that were present to start with.

The temperature is raised back to 94 C and the double-stranded DNA molecules both the "original" molecules and the newly synthesized ones denature again into single strands. This begins the second cycle of denaturation-annealing-extension. At the end of this second cycle, there are eight molecules of single-stranded DNA. By repeating the cycle 30 times, the double-stranded DNA molecules present at the beginning are converted into over 130 million new double-stranded molecules, each one a copy of the region of the starting molecule delineated by the annealing sites of the two primers.

To determin
e if amplification has been successful, PCR products may be visualized using gel electrophoresis, indicating amplicon presence/absence, size and approximate abundance. Depending on the application and the research question, this may be the endpoint of an experiment, for example, if determining whether a gene is present or not. Otherwise, the PCR product may just be the starting point for more complex downstream investigations such as sequencing and cloning.

Thanks to their versatility, PCR techniques have evolved over recent years leading to the development or several different types of PCR technology.

Some of the most widely used ones are:

One of the most useful developments has been quantitative real-time PCR or qPCR. As the name suggests, qPCR is a quantitative technique that allows real-time monitoring of the amplification process and detection of PCR products as they are made.2 It can be used to determine the starting concentration of the target DNA, negating the need for gel electrophoresis in many cases. This is achieved thanks to the inclusion of non-specific fluorescent intercalating dyes, such as SYBR Green, that fluoresce when bound to double-stranded DNA, or DNA oligonucleotide sequence-specific fluorescent probes, such as hydrolysis (TaqMan) probes and molecular beacons. Probes bind specifically to DNA target sequences within the amplicon and use the principle of Frster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) to generate fluorescence via the coupling of a fluorescent molecule on one end and a quencher at the other end. For both fluorescent dyes and probes, as the number of copies of the target DNA increases, the fluorescence level increases proportionally, allowing real-time quantification of the amplification with reference to standards containing known copy numbers (Figure 3).

qPCR uses specialized thermal cyclers equipped with fluorescent detection systems that monitor the fluorescent signal as the amplification occurs.

Figure 3: Example qPCR amplification plot and standard curve used to enable quantification of copy number in unknown samples.

Reverse transcription (RT) -PCR and RT-qPCR are two commonly used PCR variants enabling gene transcription analysis and quantification of viral RNA, both in clinical and research settings.

RT is the process of making cDNA from single-stranded template RNA3 and is consequently also called first-strand cDNA synthesis. The first step of RT-PCR is to synthesize a DNA/RNA hybrid between the RNA template and a DNA oligonucleotide primer. The reverse transcriptase enzyme that catalyzes this reaction has RNase activity that then degrades the RNA portion of the hybrid. Subsequently, a single-stranded DNA molecule is synthesized by the DNA polymerase activity of the reverse transcriptase. High purity and quality starting RNA are essential for a successful RT-PCR.

RT-PCR can be performed following two approaches: one-step RT-PCR and two-step RT-PCR. In the first case, the RT reaction and the PCR reaction occur in the same tube, while in the two-step RT-PCR, the two reactions are separate and performed sequentially.

The reverse transcription described above often serves as the first step in qPCR too, quantifying RNA in biological samples (either RNA transcripts or derived from viral RNA genomes).

As with RT-PCR, there are two approaches for quantifying RNA by RT-qPCR: one-step RT-qPCR and two-step RT-qPCR. In both cases, RNA is first reverse-transcribed into cDNA, which is used as the template for qPCR amplification. In the two-step method, the reverse transcription and the qPCR amplification occur sequentially as two separate experiments. In the one-step method, RT and qPCR are performed in the same tube.

Digital PCR (dPCR) is another adaptation of the original PCR protocol.4 Like qPCR, dPCR technology uses DNA polymerase to amplify target DNA from a complex sample using a primer set and probes. The main difference, though, lies in the partitioning of the PCR reactions and data acquisition at the end.

dPCR and ddPCR are based on the concept of limiting dilutions. The PCR reaction is split into large numbers of nanoliter-sized sub-reactions (partitions). The PCR amplification is carried out within each droplet. Following PCR, each droplet is analyzed with Poisson statistics to determine the percentage of PCR-positive droplets in the original sample. Some partitions may contain one or more copies of the target, while others may contain no target sequences. Therefore, partitions classify either as positive (target detected) or negative (target not detected), providing the basis for a digital output format.

ddPCR is a recent technology that became available in 2011.5 ddPCR utilizes a water-oil emulsion to form the partitions that separate the template DNA molecules. The droplets essentially serve as individual test tubes in which the PCR reaction takes place.

The recent development of microfluidic handling systems with microchannels and microchambers has paved the way for a range of practical applications, including the amplification of DNA via PCR on microfluidic chips.

PCR performed on a chip benefits from microfluidics advantages in speed, sensitivity and low consumption of reagents. These features make microfluidic PCR particularly appealing for point-of-care testing, for example, for diagnostics applications. From a practical point of view, the sample flows through a microfluidic channel, repeatedly passing the three temperature zones reflecting the different steps of PCR. It takes just 90 seconds for a 10 L sample to perform 20 PCR cycles.6 The subsequent analysis can then be easily carried out off-chip.

The different PCR approaches all have advantages and disadvantages that impact the applications to which they are suited 7. These are summarized in Table 1.

Approach

Advantages

Limitations

PCR

Easiest PCR to perform

Low cost of equipment and reagents

Several downstream applications (e.g., cloning)

Results are only qualitative

Requires post-amplification analyses that increase time and risk of error

Products may need to be confirmed by sequencing

qPCR

Produces quantitative results

Probe use can ensure high specificity

High analytical sensitivity

Low turnaround time

Eliminates requirements for post-amplification analysis

Requires more expensive reagents and equipment

Less flexibility in primer and probe selection

Less amenable to other downstream product confirmation analyses (such as sequencing) due to the small length of the amplicon

Not suitable for some downstream applications such as cloning

RT-PCR and RT-qPCR

Can be used with all RNA types

RNA is prone to degradation

The RT step may increase the time and potential for contamination

dPCR and ddPCR

Fast

No DNA purification step

Provides absolute quantification

Increased sensitivity for detecting the target in limited clinical samples

Highly scalable

Costly

Based on several statistical assumptions

Microfluidic PCR

Accelerated PCR process

Reduced reagent consumption

Can be adapted for high throughput

Portable device for point-of-care applications

Allows single-cell analysis

Still very new technology

Requires extensive sample preparation to remove debris and unwanted compounds

Restricted choice of materials for the microfluidic device due to high temperatures

Table 1: Key advantages and disadvantages of different PCR approaches.

PCR has become an indispensable tool in modern molecular biology and has completely transformed scientific research. The technique has also opened up the investigation of cellular and molecular processes to those outside the field of molecular biology and consequently also finds utility by scientists in many disciplines.

Whilst PCR is itself a powerful standalone technique, it has also been incorporated into wider techniques, suc
h as cloning and sequencing, as one small but important part of these workflows.

Research applications of PCR include:

Gene transcription -PCR can examine variations in gene transcription among cell types, tissues and organisms at a specific time point. In this process, RNA is isolated from samples of interest, and reverse-transcribed into cDNA. The original levels of RNA for a specific gene can then be quantified from the amount of cDNA amplified in PCR.Genotyping -PCR can detect sequence variations in alleles of specific cells or organisms. A common example is the genotyping of transgenic organisms, such as knock-out and knock-in mice. In this application, primers are designed to amplify either a transgene portion (in a transgenic animal) or the mutation (in a mutant animal).Cloning and mutagenesis- PCR cloning is a widely used technique where double-stranded DNA fragments amplified by PCR are inserted into vectors (e.g., gDNA, cDNA, plasmid DNA). This for example, enables the creation of bacterial strains from which genetic material has been deleted or inserted. Site-directed mutagenesis can also be used to introduce point mutations via cloning. This often employs a technique known as recombinant PCR, in which overlapping primers are specifically designed to incorporate base substitutions (Figure 4). This technique can also be used to create novel gene fusions.

Figure 4: Diagram depicting an example of recombinant PCR.Sequencing- PCR can be used to enrich template DNA for sequencing. The type of PCR recommended for the preparation of sequencing templates is called high-fidelity PCR and is able to maintain DNA sequence accuracy. In Sanger sequencing, PCR-amplified fragments are then purified and run in a sequencing reaction. In next-generation sequencing (NGS), PCR is used at the library preparation stage, where DNA samples are enriched by PCR to increase the starting quantity and tagged with sequencing adaptors to allow multiplexing. Bridge PCR is also an important part of the second-generation NGS sequencing process.Both as an independent technique and as a workhorse within other methods, PCR has transformed a range of disciplines. These include:

Genetic research- PCR is used in most laboratories worldwide. One of the most common applications is gene transcription analysis9, aimed at evaluating the presence or abundance of particular gene transcripts. It is a powerful technique in manipulating the genetic sequence of organisms animal, plant and microbe - through cloning. This enables genes or sections of genes to be inserted, deleted or mutated to engineer in genetic markers alter phenotypes, elucidate gene functions and develop vaccines to name but a few. In genotyping, PCR can be used to detect sequence variations in alleles in specific cells or organisms. Its use isnt restricted to humans either. Genotyping plants in agriculture assists plant breeders in selecting, refining, and improving their breeding stock. PCR is also the first step to enrich sequencing samples, as discussed above. For example, most mapping techniques in the Human Genome Project (HGP) relied on PCR.Medicine and biomedical research- PCR is used in a host of medical applications, from diagnostic testing for disease-associated genetic mutations, to the identification of infectious agents. Another great example of PCR use in the medical realm is prenatal genetic testing. Prenatal genetic testing through PCR can identify chromosome abnormalities and genetic mutations in the fetus, giving parents-to-be important information about whether their baby has certain genetic disorders. PCR can also be used as a preimplantation genetic diagnosis tool to screen embryos for in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.Forensic science- Our unique genetic fingerprints mean that PCR can be instrumental in both paternity testing and forensic investigations to pinpoint samples' sources. Small DNA samples isolated from a crime scene can be compared with a DNA database or with suspects' DNA, for example. These procedures have really changed the way police investigations are carried out. Authenticity testing also makes use of PCR genetic markers, for example, to determine the species from which meat is derived. Molecular archaeology too utilizes PCR to amplify DNA from archaeological remains.Environmental microbiology and food safety- Detection of pathogens by PCR, not only in patients' samples but also in matrices like food or water, can be vital in diagnosing and preventing infectious disease.PCR is the benchmark technology for detecting nucleic acids in every area, from biomedical research to forensic applications. Kary Mullis's idea, written on the back of a receipt on the side of the road, turned out to be a revolutionary one.

References1. Chien A, Edgar DB, Trela JM. Deoxyribonucleic acid polymerase from the extreme thermophile Thermus aquaticus. J Bacteriol 1976;127(3):1550-57 doi: 10.1128/JB.127.3.1550-1557.1976

2. Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, et al. Enzymatic amplification of beta-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science 1985;230(4732):1350 doi: 10.1126/science.2999980

3. Arya M, Shergill IS, Williamson M, Gommersall L, Arya N, Patel HRH. Basic principles of real-time quantitative PCR. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 2005;5(2):209-19 doi: 10.1586/14737159.5.2.209

4. Bachman J. Chapter Two - Reverse-Transcription PCR (RT-PCR). In: Lorsch J, ed. Methods in Enzymology: Academic Press, 2013:67-74. doi : 10.1016/B978-0-12-420037-1.00002-6

5. Morley AA. Digital PCR: A brief history. Biomol Detect Quantif 2014;1(1):1-2 doi: 10.1016/j.bdq.2014.06.001

6. Taylor SC, Laperriere G, Germain H. Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR for gene expression analysis with low abundant targets: from variable nonsense to publication quality data. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):2409 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02217-x

7. Ahrberg CD, Manz A, Chung BG. Polymerase chain reaction in microfluidic devices. Lab on a Chip 2016;16(20):3866-84 doi: 10.1039/C6LC00984K

8. Garibyan L, Avashia N. Polymerase chain reaction. J Invest Dermatol 2013;133(3):1-4 doi: 10.1038/jid.2013.1

9. VanGuilder HD, Vrana KE, Freeman WM. Twenty-five years of quantitative PCR for gene expression analysis. BioTechniques 2008;44(5):619-26 doi: 10.2144/000112776

Read the original post:
An Introduction to PCR - Technology Networks

Outlook on the CRISPR Gene Editing Global Market to 2030 – Analysis and Forecasts – Yahoo Finance

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Danzig

Dublin, Feb. 08, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market: Focus on Products, Applications, End Users, Country Data (16 Countries), and Competitive Landscape - Analysis and Forecast, 2020-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global CRISPR gene editing market was valued at $846.2 million in 2019 and is expected to reach $10,825.1 million by 2030, registering a CAGR of 26.86% during the forecast.

The development of genome engineering with potential applications proved to reflect a remarkable impact on the future of the healthcare and life science industry. The high efficiency of the CRISPR-Cas9 system has been demonstrated in various studies for genome editing, which resulted in significant investments within the field of genome engineering. However, there are several limitations, which need consideration before clinical applications. Further, many researchers are working on the limitations of CRISPR gene editing technology for better results. The potential of CRISPR gene editing to alter the human genome and modify the disease conditions is incredible but exists with ethical and social concerns.

The growth is attributed to the increasing demand in the food industry for better products with improved quality and nutrient enrichment and the pharmaceutical industry for targeted treatment for various diseases. Further, the continued significant investments by healthcare companies to meet the industry demand and growing prominence for the gene therapy procedures with less turnaround time are the prominent factors propelling the growth of the global CRISPR gene editing market.

Research organizations, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and institutes are looking for more efficient genome editing technologies to increase the specificity and cost-effectiveness, also to reduce turnaround time and human errors. Further, the evolution of genome editing technologies has enabled wide range of applications in various fields, such as industrial biotech and agricultural research. These advanced methods are simple, super-efficient, cost-effective, provide multiplexing, and high throughput capabilities. The increase in the geriatric population and increasing number of cancer cases, and genetic disorders across the globe are expected to translate into significantly higher demand for CRISPR gene editing market.

Story continues

Furthermore, the companies are investing huge amounts in the research and development of CRISPR gene editing products, and gene therapies. The clinical trial landscape of various genetic and chronic diseases has been on the rise in recent years, and this will fuel the CRISPR gene editing market in the future.

Within the research report, the market is segmented based on product type, application, end-user, and region. Each of these segments covers the snapshot of the market over the projected years, the inclination of the market revenue, underlying patterns, and trends by using analytics on the primary and secondary data obtained.

Key Companies Profiled

Abcam, Inc., Applied StemCell, Inc., Agilent Technologies, Inc., Cellecta, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., GeneCopoeia, Inc., GeneScript Biotech Corporation, Horizon Discovery Group PLC, Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Merck KGaA, New England Biolabs, Inc., Origene Technologies, Inc., Rockland Immunochemicals, Inc., Synthego Corporation, System Biosciences LLC, ToolGen, Inc., Takara Bio

Key Questions Answered in this Report:

What is CRISPR gene editing?

What is the timeline for the development of CRISPR technology?

How did the CRISPR gene editing market evolve, and what is its scope in the future?

What are the major market drivers, restraints, and opportunities in the global CRISPR gene editing market?

What are the key developmental strategies that are being implemented by the key players to sustain this market?

What is the patent landscape of this market? What will be the impact of patent expiry on this market?

What is the impact of COVID-19 on this market?

What are the guidelines implemented by different government bodies to regulate the approval of CRISPR products/therapies?

How is CRISPR gene editing being utilized for the development of therapeutics?

How will the investments by public and private companies and government organizations affect the global CRISPR gene editing market?

What was the market size of the leading segments and sub-segments of the global CRISPR gene editing market in 2019?

How will the industry evolve during the forecast period 2020-2030?

What will be the growth rate of the CRISPR gene editing market during the forecast period?

How will each of the segments of the global CRISPR gene editing market grow during the forecast period, and what will be the revenue generated by each of the segments by the end of 2030?

Which product segment and application segment are expected to register the highest CAGR for the global CRISPR gene editing market?

What are the major benefits of the implementation of CRISPR gene editing in different field of applications including biomedical research, agricultural research, industrial research, gene therapy, drug discovery, and diagnostics?

What is the market size of the CRISPR gene editing market in different countries of the world?

Which geographical region is expected to contribute to the highest sales of CRISPR gene editing market?

What are the reimbursement scenario and regulatory structure for the CRISPR gene editing market in different regions?

What are the key strategies incorporated by the players of global CRISPR gene editing market to sustain the competition and retain their supremacy?

Key Topics Covered:

1 Technology Definition

2 Research Scope

3 Research Methodology

4 Market Overview4.1 Introduction4.2 CRISPR Gene Editing Market Approach4.3 Milestones in CRISPR Gene Editing4.4 CRISPR Gene Editing: Delivery Systems4.5 CRISPR Technology: A Potential Tool for Gene Editing4.6 CRISPR Gene Editing Current Scenario4.7 CRISPR Gene Editing Market: Future Potential Application Areas

5 Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market, $Million, 2020-20305.1 Pipeline Analysis5.2 CRISPR Gene Editing Market and Growth Potential, 2020-20305.3 Impact of COVID-19 on CRISPR Gene Editing Market5.3.1 Impact of COVID-19 on Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market Growth Rate5.3.1. Impact on CRISPR Gene Editing Companies5.3.2 Clinical Trial Disruptions and Resumptions5.3.3 Application of CRISPR Gene Editing in COVID-19

6 Market Dynamics6.1 Impact Analysis6.2 Market Drivers6.2.1 Prevalence of Genetic Disorders and Use of Genome Editing6.2.2 Government and Private Funding6.2.3 Technology Advancement in CRISPR Gene Editing6.3 Market Restraints6.3.1 CRISPR Gene Editing: Off Target Effects and Delivery6.3.2 Ethical Concerns and Implications With Respect to Human Genome Editing6.4 Market Opportunities6.4.1 Expanding Gene and Cell Therapy Area6.4.2 CRISPR Gene Editing Scope in Agriculture

7 Industry Insights7.1 Introduction7.2 Funding Scenario7.3 Regulatory Scenario of CRISPR Gene Editing Market7.4 Pricing of CRISPR Gene Editing7.5 Reimbursement of CRISPR Gene Editing7.5.1 CRISPR Gene Editing: Insurance Coverage in the U.S.

8 CRISPR Gene Editing Patent Landscape8.1 Overview8.2 CRISPR Gene Editing Market Patent Landscape: By Application8.3 CRISPR Gene Editing Market Patent Landscape: By Region8.4 CRISPR Gene Editing Market Patent Landscape: By Year

9 Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (by Product Type), $Million9.1 Overview9.2 CRISPR Products9.2.1 Kits and Enzymes9.2.1.1 Vector-Based Cas99.2.1.2 DNA-Free Cas99.2.2 Libraries9.2.3 Design Tools9.2.4 Antibodies9.2.5 Other Products9.3 CRISPR Services9.3.1 gRNA Design and Vector Construction9.3.2 Cell Line and Engineering9.3.3 Screening Services9.3.4 Other Services

10 CRISPR Gene Editing Market (by Application), $Million10.1 Overview10.2 Agriculture10.3 Biom
edical10.3.1 Gene Therapy10.3.2 Drug Discovery10.3.3 Diagnostics10.4 Industrial10.5 Other Applications

11 Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (by End User)11.1 Academic Institutions and Research Centers11.2 Biotechnology Companies11.3 Contract Research Organizations (CROs)11.4 Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Companies

12 Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market (by Region)12.1 Introduction12.2 North America12.3 Europe12.4 Asia-Pacific12.5 Latin America

13 Competitive Landscape13.1 Key Developments and Strategies13.1.1 Overview13.1.1.1 Regulatory and Legal Developments13.1.1.2 Synergistic Activities13.1.1.3 M&A Activities13.1.1.4 Funding Activities13.2 Market Share Analysis13.3 Growth Share Analysis

14 Company Profiles14.1 Overview14.2 Abcam, Inc.14.2.1 Company Overview14.2.2 Role of Abcam, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.2.3 Financials14.2.4 SWOT Analysis14.3 Applied StemCell, Inc.14.3.1 Company Overview14.3.2 Role of Applied StemCell, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.3.3 SWOT Analysis14.4 Agilent Technologies, Inc.14.4.1 Company Overview14.4.2 Role of Agilent Technologies, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.4.3 Financials14.4.4 R&D Expenditure, 2017-201914.4.5 SWOT Analysis14.5 Cellecta, Inc.14.5.1 Company Overview14.5.2 Role of Cellecta, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.5.3 SWOT Analysis14.6 CRISPR Therapeutics AG14.6.1 Company Overview14.6.2 Role of CRISPR Therapeutics AG in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.6.3 Financials14.6.4 R&D Expenditure, 2017-201914.6.5 SWOT Analysis14.7 Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. INC14.7.1 Company Overview14.7.2 Role of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.7.3 Financials14.7.4 R&D Expenditure, 2017-201914.7.5 SWOT Analysis14.8 GeneCopoeia, Inc.14.8.1 Company Overview14.8.2 Role of GeneCopoeia, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.8.3 SWOT Analysis14.9 GeneScript Biotech Corporation14.9.1 Company Overview14.9.2 Role of GenScript Biotech in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.9.3 Financials14.9.4 SWOT Analysis14.1 Horizon Discovery Group PLC14.10.1 Company Overview14.10.2 Role of Horizon Discovery Group PLC in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.10.3 Financials14.10.4 SWOT Analysis14.11 Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc.14.11.1 Company Overview14.11.2 Role of Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.11.3 SWOT Analysis14.12 Merck KGaA14.12.1 Company Overview14.12.2 Role of Merck KGaA in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.12.3 Financials14.12.4 SWOT Analysis14.13 New England Biolabs, Inc.14.13.1 Company Overview14.13.2 Role of Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.13.3 SWOT Analysis14.14 Origene Technologies, Inc.14.14.1 Company Overview14.14.2 Role of Origene Technologies, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.14.3 SWOT Analysis14.15 Rockland Immunochemicals, Inc.14.15.1 Company Overview14.15.2 Role of Rockland Immunochemicals, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.15.3 SWOT Analysis14.16 Synthego Corporation14.16.1 Company Overview14.16.2 Role of Synthego Corporation in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.16.3 SWOT Analysis14.17 System Biosciences LLC14.17.1 Company Overview14.17.2 Role of System Biosciences LLC in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.17.3 SWOT Analysis14.18 ToolGen, Inc.14.18.1 Company Overview14.18.2 Role of ToolGen, Inc. in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.18.3 SWOT Analysis14.19 Takara Bio14.19.1 Company Overview14.19.2 Role of Takara Bio in the Global CRISPR Gene Editing Market14.19.3 Financials14.19.4 SWOT Analysis

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/c7om7t

Go here to see the original:
Outlook on the CRISPR Gene Editing Global Market to 2030 - Analysis and Forecasts - Yahoo Finance

Sonny Perdue proposes transferring animal biotech regulation to USDA – AG Week

Posted on December 24, 2020 by Danzig

According to a statement from the USDA, the agency will begin an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public input and feedback on the contemplated regulatory framework.

Our livestock producers need all the tools in the toolbox to help protect against animal diseases and continue to meet the challenge of feeding everyone now and into the future. If we do not put these safe biotechnology advances to work here at home, our competitors in other nations will, Perdue said. Science-based advances in biotechnology have great promise to continue to enhance rural prosperity and improve the quality of life across Americas heartland and around the globe. With this effort, we are outlining a pragmatic, science-based, and risk-based approach that focuses on potential risk to animal and livestock health, the environment, and food safety in order to provide our farmers and ranchers the tools they need to continue to feed, clothe and fuel the world.

This ANPR will transition portions of FDAs pre-existing animal biotechnology regulatory oversight to USDA. USDA will consult with FDA to ensure reviews benefit from FDAs expertise, while providing developers with a one-stop-shop for their products at USDA.

Through this ANPR, USDA is proposing to establish a flexible, forward-looking, risk-proportionate and science-based regulatory framework that provides a predictable pathway to commercialization and keeps pace with advances in science and technology for certain farm animals (cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, mules, or other equines, catfish, and poultry) developed using genetic engineering intended for agricultural purposes.

USDAs proposed safety review would cover molecular characterization, animal health (including noninfectious, infectious, and zoonotic diseases), efficacy (for disease and pest resistance traits), environmental considerations, food safety evaluation of any expressed substance (including allergenicity and compositional analyses of key components), and food storage and processing. USDAs proposal would provide end-to-end regulatory oversight from pre-market reviews through post-market food safety monitoring of animals. USDA will continue to coordinate closely with the FDA to fulfill oversight responsibilities and provide the appropriate regulatory environment, ensuring the safety of products derived from new technologies, while fostering innovation at the same time.

Under the regulatory framework being contemplated, USDA would provide regulatory oversight from pre-market reviews through post-market food safety monitoring for certain farm animals developed using genetic engineering. USDA would promulgate regulations using the authorities granted to the Department through the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). Pursuant to these authorities, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would conduct a safety assessment of organisms developed using genetic engineering that may increase an animals susceptibility to pests or diseases of livestock, including zoonotic diseases, or ability to transmit the same. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) would conduct a pre-slaughter food safety assessment to ensure that the slaughter and processing of animals developed using genetic engineering would not result in a product that is unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food.

The rest is here:
Sonny Perdue proposes transferring animal biotech regulation to USDA - AG Week

Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 – GlobeNewswire

Posted on December 24, 2020 by Danzig

New York, Dec. 24, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

The naturally occurring microbiota is actively involved in metabolic cycle and the performance of immune system.Today, with deeper understanding of microbiome and its role in human health, we are able to utilize microbiome for developing therapeutics.

Designing microbial therapeutics has been challenging , however with the help of genetic engineering tools manipulating these naturally occurring consortia of microbiome has gained momentum in the last five years. Numerous studies are being conducted to gain deeper understanding of host-microbiome interaction for developing targeted therapeutics.A significant focus of human microbiome research has been studying the bacteria in the gut, which represent the largest community both in terms of abundance and diversity. Microbiome therapeutics companies are increasingly involved in developing therapies for dysbiosis , obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, even neurological disorders as schizophrenia and autism. This radar profiles companies actively involved in developing microbiome therapeutics.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

View original post here:
Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 - GlobeNewswire

Why I Got the Russian Vaccine – The New York Times

Posted on January 9, 2021 by Danzig

MOSCOW A nurse, needle in hand, asked me brusquely if I was ready. I said yes. A quick injection followed, then instructions to wait a half-hour in the hospital corridor for the possibility of anaphylactic shock, which thankfully never came.

Last Monday, I put aside my misgivings and got the first dose of Russias coronavirus vaccine, called Sputnik V, made at a factory outside of Moscow from genetically modified human cold viruses.

Like so much else in Russia, the rollout of Sputnik V was entangled in politics and propaganda, with President Vladimir V. Putin announcing its approval for use even before late-stage trials began. For months, it was pilloried by Western scientists. Like many Russian citizens distrustful of the new vaccine, saying they would wait to see how things turned out before getting it themselves, I had my doubts.

Consider how the rollout went: With the approval back in August, Russian health officials were quick to assert they had won the vaccine race, just as the country had won the space race decades ago with the Sputnik satellite. In fact, at the time, several other vaccine candidates were further along in testing.

A series of misleading announcements followed. The vaccines backers claimed a national inoculation campaign would begin in September, then in November; it ramped up only last month, no earlier than the kickoff of vaccinations in Britain and the United States.

Then came suspicions aired in foreign reporting that the Russian government, already eyed warily in medical matters over accusations of poisoning dissidents and doping Olympic athletes, was now cooking the books on vaccine trial results, perhaps for reasons of national pride or marketing.

As if to outperform the perceived competition, when Pfizer and the German pharmaceutical company BioNTech reported trial results showing more than 91 percent efficacy for their candidate vaccine, the Kremlin-connected financial company backing Sputnik V asserted its trials showed 92 percent efficacy.

When Moderna then reported 94.1 percent efficacy, the Russian company again claimed superiority, saying it achieved 95 percent. Officials later conceded, when the late-stage trials were complete, that Sputnik Vs results showed an efficacy rate of 91.4 percent.

But from the perspective of a recipient, did that matter? The final reported result still offers a nine out of 10 chance of avoiding Covid-19, once the vaccine has taken effect. Skepticism from Western experts focused mostly on the questionable early approval, not the vaccines design, which is similar to the one produced by Oxford University and AstraZeneca.

While public apprehension hasnt completely subsided, and the developers have yet to release detailed data on adverse events observed during the trials, the Russian government has now vaccinated about one million of its own citizens and exported Sputnik V to Belarus, Argentina and other countries, suggesting that any harmful side effects overlooked during trials would by now have come to light.

In the end, the politicized rollout only served to obscure the essentially good trial results what appears to be a bona fide accomplishment for Russian scientists continuing a long and storied practice of vaccine development.

In the Soviet period, tamping down infectious diseases was a public health priority at home and exporting vaccines to the developing world an element of Cold War diplomacy.

While the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.

Life will return to normal only when society as a wholegains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, theyll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But its also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing theyre infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists dont yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.

Yes, but not forever. The two vaccines that will potentially get authorized this month clearly protect people from getting sick with Covid-19. But the clinical trials that delivered these results were not designed to determine whether vaccinated people could still spread the coronavirus without developing symptoms. That remains a possibility. We know that people who are naturally infected by the coronavirus can spread it while theyre not experiencing any cough or other symptoms. Researcherswill be intensely studying this question as the vaccines roll out. In the meantime, even vaccinated people will need to think of themselves as possible spreaders.

The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection wont be any different from ones youve gotten before. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. But some of them have felt short-lived discomfort, including aches and flu-like symptoms that typically last a day. Its possible that people may need to plan to take a day off work or school after the second shot. While these experiences arent pleasant, they are a good sign: they are the result of your own immune system encountering the vaccine and mounting a potent response that will provide long-lasting immunity.

No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell's enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.

The Soviet Union and United States cooperated in eliminating smallpox through vaccination. Virology was central to the Soviet Unions biological weapons program, which continued in secrecy long after a 1975 treaty banned the weapons.

In 1959, a husband-and-wife team of Soviet scientists successfully tested the first live polio virus vaccine using their own children as the first trial subjects. That followed a Russian tradition of medical researchers testing potentially harmful products on themselves first.

Last spring, the chief developer of Sputnik V, Aleksandr L. Gintsburg, followed in this custom by injecting himself even before the announcement that animal trials had wrapped up.

Russian promoters have compared the vaccine to the Kalashnikov rifle, simple and effective in its operation. I was even lucky in avoiding some of the common side effects of Sputnik V, such as a raging headache or a fever.

With many of my fears alleviated, another reason I chose to get inoculated with a product of Russian genetic engineering was more basic: It was available. Russian clinics have not been do
gged by the lines or logistical snafus reported at vaccination sites in the United States and other countries.

In Moscow, the best days of winter come in early January as the country slumbers through a weeklong holiday, the traffic thins and the citys bustling chaos gives way to a quiet, snowy beauty. Vaccination sites were also lightly attended.

Russias vaccination campaign began with medical workers and teachers and then expanded. It is now open to people older than 60 or with underlying conditions that render them vulnerable to more severe disease, and to people working in a widening list of professions deemed to be at high risk: bank tellers, city government workers, professional athletes, bus drivers, police officers and, conveniently for me, journalists. Its unclear whether Russias production capacity is sufficient to meet demand long term.

For now, with so many Russians deeply skeptical of their medical system and the vaccine, there is no great clamor for the shot. The first site I visited, while reporting back in December, closed early because so few people had turned up.

In the capital, the vaccine has, paradoxically, appealed to educated people, a group that is traditionally a hotbed of political opposition to Mr. Putin, the chief promoter of the vaccine. When it came to a decision about health, many rolled up their sleeves.

I got the second component of Sputnik in my shoulder, Andrei Desnitsky, an academic at the Institute of Oriental Studies who has been chronicling his experience with vaccination, wrote on Facebook.

To followers posting comments, he said, hysterics in the style of You sold out, you bastard, to the bloody regime and They take us all for idiots, will be deleted.

Like Mr. Desnitsky, I was willing to take my chances. At Polyclinic No. 5 on a snowy morning, I filled out a form asking about chronic diseases, blood disorders or heart ailments. I showed my press pass as proof of my profession. A doctor asked a few questions about allergies. I waited an hour or so for my turn in a beige-tiled hospital corridor.

Sitting nearby was Galina Chupyl, a 65-year-old municipal worker. What did she think of getting vaccinated?

I am happy, of course, she said. Nobody wants to get sick.

I agreed.

Excerpt from:
Why I Got the Russian Vaccine - The New York Times

Explained: What US FDA nod for genetically modified pigs means – The Indian Express

Posted on December 19, 2020 by Danzig

By: Explained Desk | New Delhi | Updated: December 19, 2020 12:45:50 pmThis undated photo provided by Revivicor, Inc., a unit of United Therapeutics, shows a genetically modified pig. (Revivicor, Inc. via AP)

This week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a first-of-its-kind intentional genomic alteration (IGA) in a line of domestic pigs referred to as GalSafe pigs. These pigs may be used for food and human therapeutics, the FDA has said. This will be the first time that the regulator has approved an animal biotechnology product for both food and biomedical purposes.

What is intentional genomic alteration?

Intentional genomic alteration in animals means making specific changes to the genome of the organism using modern molecular technologies that are popularly referred to as genome editing or genetic engineering. However, there are other technologies that can be used to make IGAs in animals.

Such changes in the DNA sequence of an animal may be carried out for research purposes, to produce healthier meat for human consumption and to study disease resistance in animals among other reasons. One example is of using IGAs to make an animal more susceptible to certain diseases such as cancer, which helps researchers get a better understanding of the disease and develop new therapies to treat it.

The FDA maintains that the only difference between an animal with an IGA and one that does not have an IGA is that the IGA gives them a new trait or characteristic, such as faster growth or resistance to certain diseases.

Essentially, an IGA is inserted into an animal to change or alter its structure and function and the FDA makes sure that the IGA contained in the animal is safe for the animal and safe for anyone who consumes a product or food derived from the animal. Follow Express Explained on Telegram

What does FDAs recent approval mean?

The FDA made the announcement this week and allowed IGA in GalSafe pigs to eliminate a type of sugar found in mammals called alpha-gal. This sugar is present on the surface of these pigs cells and when they are used for products such as medicines or food (the sugar is found in red meats such as beef, pork and lamb), the sugar makes some people with Alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS) more susceptible to developing mild to severe allergic reactions.

Since GalSafe pigs may potentially be used to produce human medical products, IGA will help eventually free these products from detectable alpha-gal sugar, thereby protecting their human consumers from potential allergies.

According to the FDA, GalSafe pigs may be used to make the blood-thinning drug heparin.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Explained News, download Indian Express App.

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Should education be a part of human engineering? – Sunday Observer

Posted on December 19, 2020 by Danzig

With genetic engineering, well be able to increase the complexity of our DNA and improve the human race. But itll be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code. Stephen Hawking

Modern eugenics, better known in the present world as human genetic engineering has become one of the most important research areas, since genetic engineering can prevent and/or cure diseases or improve the human body in significant ways.

Even though potential health benefits of human gene therapy are enormous one should not overlook the equally staggering potential dangers it also brings.

Genetic testing already allows parents to identify some diseases in their child in utero which will give them the choice to decide whether they want to terminate the pregnancy.

Genetic testing

This can be extended to detect negative traits implicated by a particular gene and try to eliminate it or modify it. This becomes controversial since what exactly constitutes negative traits is open to interpretation. Many people think the laws of nature should not be tampered with, even if the intentions of doing so are backed by the purest of motives.

Advancements in genetic engineering and modern research in the area of eugenics these days do not get as much publicity as the new findings and applications in the area of ICT and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

As in any other area of science and technology, genetic engineering also has its good and bad coming with it leaving the choice of using it for selfish reasons or for the betterment of the world in general, in the hands of human beings.

This is where the question: Should education be a part of human engineering? comes to the surface since it is obvious that the advancement of technology comes through science and technology education.

But, if the system of education in which science and technology education of the kind is facilitated does not emphasise the importance and provide opportunities to develop ones ethical and moral standards then the development of such technologies can, in the long run, do more harm than good.

The practice or the concept of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits is known as Eugenics. It supposedly aims to reduce human suffering by breeding out diseases, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population. The word eugenics is supposed to have been coined by Sir Francis Galton in the late 1800s to mean well-born or good creation using the Greek words eu meaning good and genos meaning birth.

Eugenics

Even though Galton gets the credit for introducing the concept and the word eugenics in modern history, Platos The Republic mentions about creating a superior society by procreating high-class people together and discouraging reproduction among the lower classes and/or cross breeding.

Historically, eugenics encouraged people of so called superior class to reproduce more and discouraged reproduction of the mentally challenged or anyone who fell outside the social norm.

Even though eugenics got all its negative publicity due to Adolf Hitlers obsessive attempts to create a superior Aryan race during the years leading to World War II, he has mentioned in his books that he has followed American eugenics very closely in the 1930s.

In 1896, the state of Connecticut, in the USA, made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were feeble-minded to marry.

As the concept of eugenics was becoming popular, in the early 1900s, scientists and administrators in the USA established a eugenics record office to track families and their genetic traits.

There have been over 20,000 forced sterilisations in state mental institutions in the state of California under the guise of protecting the society from the offspring of people with mental illness.

Thirty-three states eventually allowed involuntary sterilisation of anyone who deemed unworthy to procreate according to the definitions of the lawmakers at the time. Records show that close to 50 percent of Native Americans were sterilised between 1970 and 1976.

Some of the women have been sterilised during other surgical procedures without their knowledge. Such occurrences were taking place in the USA long after Hitlers trials of creating the Aryan race.

Genetic differences

Even if we do not use the word eugenics, as long as we do the same thing with the expectation of similar results, the consequences would be the same.

There may be genetically enhanced athletes performing in Olympics and in professional sports in the future. It may seem unfair just as the usage of steroids or other enhancement drugs is considered to be.

But, the supporters of human engineering might argue that it has always been the case where some humans are born with better performance abilities than others and the ability to manipulate the genes is also a part of the natural progress of human knowledge. In fairness, enhanced genetic differences would be no worse than natural ones, assuming that they were safe and made available to anyone interested in doing so.

In a world dominated by competition from kindergarten to universities and beyond, parents would be lined up to receive the services of genetic engineers to give their children every possible advantage.

The advancement of science and technology, though it can bring much good, it is dangerous since it is used by humans themselves who have not shown any development in their ethical and moral behaviour.

If the word spiritual can be used to denote any or all activities which can drive the human being forward towards a higher state of consciousness, then an essential part of an education system would be a support system for the participants to improve their spirituality.

This type of spirituality has nothing to do with religion but will be capable of guiding the thought process of the human being away from using his knowledge against the common good.

The writer has served in the higher education sector as an academic for over twenty years in the USA and thirteen years in Sri Lanka and can be contacted at [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Should education be a part of human engineering? - Sunday Observer

Does Autism Hold the Key to What Makes Humans Special? – The New York Times

Posted on December 9, 2020 by Danzig

Heres how the mechanism works: Humans alone observe the world and ask questions that demand why, how and what. They answer their questions by looking for if-and-then patterns, such as, if I boil an egg for eight minutes, then the yolk will be hard, and if I boil an egg for four minutes, then the yolk will be soft. They use those patterns to build theories, which they then repeatedly test, looking always for systems to further employ and exploit.

Grand theories aside, Baron-Cohen is at his most striking when he writes about people with autism, like Jonah, who was slow to talk but who taught himself to read. When Jonah eventually learned to speak, he used language less as a tool for communication than as a system for categorizing the world around him. As a young child, he was endlessly fascinated by how things worked, and he spent hours experimenting, like flipping a light switch on and off to test and retest its effect. At school he showed great brilliance in his observations about the natural world, he was a born pattern seeker, but at the same time he was taunted by other children for being so different. In group reading time, which he hated, he would shut his eyes and put his fingers in his ears. Jonahs weekend hobby as a young man was helping fishermen locate shoals by being able to read the signs from surface waves. Yet despite his incredible talents, Jonah was lonely and frustrated because he couldnt find a job that would allow him to live an independent life. Baron-Cohen argues with feeling and conviction that society must do a better job of making room for people like Jonah, and that it will benefit enormously when it does.

Mostly, though, The Pattern Seekers is about the idea of using autism as a key to unlock the mystery of human cognition, and on this front, its less convincing. Sometimes its simply because the books framing is misleading. Baron-Cohen takes great care to set up the idea that all humans possess a Systemizing Mechanism, that some people are hyper-systemizers, and that a comparatively high number of those hyper-systemizers are autistic. But the subtitle of the book is not how systemizing drives human invention, its how autism drives human invention. At the same time, he cautions against speculation that people, living or dead, might be autistic. The term should be reserved only for diagnosis when people are struggling to function, he explains.

In addition, Baron-Cohen divides humans into five brain types, grouping people who are more or less likely to systemize or empathize. He believes that humans also uniquely possess an Empathy Circuit. But he establishes his five groups by conducting large surveys about individual tendencies and traits, so they are not brain types at all. They are, at best, mind types.

CollPlant to Supply rhCollagen to STEMCELL Technologies for Use in a Broad Range of Cell Culture Applications – PRNewswire

Posted on December 11, 2020 by Danzig

REHOVOT, Israel and VANCOUVER, BC, Dec. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- CollPlant (NASDAQ: CLGN), a regenerative medicine company, and STEMCELL Technologies, Canada's largest privately owned biotechnology company, which develops cell culture media, cell separation systems, instruments, and other reagents for life sciences research, today jointly announced they have entered into aproduct manufacturing and supply agreement. CollPlant will sell its proprietary recombinant human Type I collagen (rhCollagen), the world's first plant-based rhCollagen, to STEMCELL Technologies, which will incorporate CollPlant's product into cell culture media kits.

The recently signed agreement follows the companies' established business relationship, which started in 2014 when STEMCELL began purchasing and incorporating CollPlant's rhCollagen into some of its cell culture expansion and differentiation media kits. To date, hundreds of companies, as well as research and academic institutes, have used these kits for research and development projects. STEMCELL will distribute the kits globally for use in the regenerative medicine research market.

"Incorporation of rhCollagen into STEMCELL's cell culture applications sold to researchers worldwide is designed to help advance the science in a broad range of dynamic fields including stem cells, immunology, cancer, regenerative medicine, and cellular therapy. We are happy to have entered into this agreement with STEMCELL, which, as Canada's largest biotechnology company, is very well positioned to make rhCollagen-containing cell culture kits widely available in the market," stated Yehiel Tal, Chief Executive Officer of CollPlant. "The cell culture market is just one example of the vast potential of our rhCollagen platform technology in life science applications. We continuously evaluate new fields in which CollPlant's products and technologies have the potential to enable breakthroughs that improve patients' lives."

Dr. Sharon Louis, STEMCELL's Senior Vice President of Research and Development noted that "STEMCELL is pleased to utilize CollPlant's animal component free rhCollagen to promote cell attachment in several products that support the culture of diverse human progenitor cell types. The quality and animal component-free composition of CollPlant's rhCollagen is what first brought this product to STEMCELL's attention, and the robust performance rhCollagen provides with a variety of STEMCELL media is what we want to be able to provide to our customers. Upon entering into this agreement, STEMCELL and CollPlant will together provide high-quality reagents that will be used to further our understanding in life sciences and potentiate regenerative medicine research."

About STEMCELL Technologies

STEMCELL Technologies is Canada's largest biotechnology company. Based in Vancouver, STEMCELL supports life sciences research around the world with more than 2,500 specialized reagents, tools, and services. STEMCELL offers high-quality cell culture media, cell separation technologies, instruments, accessory products, and educational resources that are used by scientists advancing the stem cell, immunology, cancer, regenerative medicine, microbiology, and cellular therapy fields.

Find more information at http://www.stemcell.com

About CollPlant Biotechnologies

CollPlant is a regenerative and aesthetic medicine company focused on 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs, and medical aesthetics. Our products are based on our rhCollagen (recombinant human collagen) that is produced with CollPlant's proprietary plant based genetic engineering technology.

Our products address indications for the diverse fields of tissue repair, aesthetics and organ manufacturing, and, we believe, are ushering in a new era in regenerative and aesthetic medicine.

Our flagship rhCollagen BioInk product line is ideal for 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. In October 2018, we entered into a licensing agreement with United Therapeutics, whereby United Therapeutics is using CollPlant's BioInks in the manufacture of 3D bioprinted lungs for transplant in humans.Recently, the parties announced the expansion of the collaboration with the exercise by United Therapeutics of its option to cover a second lifesaving organ, human kidneys.

Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements relating to CollPlant's objectives, plans and strategies, as well as statements, other than historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that CollPlant intends, expects, projects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future. These statements are often characterized by terminology such as "believes," "hopes," "may," "anticipates," "should," "intends," "plans," "will," "expects," "estimates," "projects," "positioned," "strategy" and similar expressions and are based on assumptions and assessments made in light of management's experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors believed to be appropriate. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Many factors could cause CollPlant's actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: the CollPlant's history of significant losses and its need to raise additional capital and its inability to obtain additional capital on acceptable terms, or at all; CollPlant's expectations regarding the timing and cost of commencing clinical trials; regulatory action with respect to rhCollagen-based products, including but not limited to acceptance of an application for marketing authorization, review and approval of such application, and, if approved, the scope of the approved indication and labeling; commercial success and market acceptance of the CollPlant's rhCollagen-based BioInk; CollPlant's ability to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties and its reliance on third-party distributors and resellers; CollPlant's reliance on third parties to conduct some aspects of its product manufacturing; the scope of protection CollPlant is able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights and the company's ability to operate its business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; the overall global economic environment; the impact of competition and new technologies; general market, political, and economic conditions in the countries in which the company operates; projected capital expenditures and liquidity; changes in the company's strategy; and litigation and regulatory proceedings. More detailed information about the risks and uncertainties affecting CollPlant is contained under the heading "Risk Factors" included in CollPlant's most recent annual report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC, and in other filings that CollPlant has made. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and reflect CollPlant's current views with respect to future events, and CollPlant does not undertake, and specifically disclaims, any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Contact atCollPlant:

Eran RotemDeputy CEO & CFOTel: + 972-73-2325600[emailprotected]

Contact at STEMCELL: Luba Metlitskaia Vice President, Business Development & Licensing [emailprotected]

SOURCE CollPlant

Excerpt from:
CollPlant to Supply rhCollagen to STEMCELL Technologies for Use in a Broad Range of Cell Culture Applications - PRNewswire

Spatial Genomics & Transcriptomics Market Demand is Expanding at a Stellar Pace in the Years to Follow – BioSpace

Posted on December 18, 2020 by Danzig

The demand within the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market is expanding at a stellar pace in the years to follow. Advancements in molecular biology have paved the way for revenue inflow into the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market. The need for studying genetic patterns in humans, animals, and plants has generated new opportunities for market expansion, Genetic engineering has emerged as a robust domain within nascent biological sciences, creating room for experimentation and analysis. The applications of genomics in molecular biology and genetic studies has given a thrust to market expansion.

In this custom review, TMR Research delves into the extrinsic and intrinsic trends that are shaping the growth graph of the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market. The domain of biological sciences has encapsulated new technologies for studying sizes, compositions, and archetypes of human genes. This is playing a vital role in driving sales across the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market. This review also assesses the impact of advancements in genetic engineering to decode market growth.

Get Brochure of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=B&rep_id=7053

Spatial Genomics & Transcriptomics Market: Notable Developments

Key Players

Spatial Genomics & Transcriptomics Market: Growth Drivers

The high incidence of genetic disorders has probed the medical industry to invest in new technologies for genetic engineering and gene transfer studies. Several medical centers and research units are investing in the study of dyslexia, downs syndrome, and other genetic inconsistencies. This has created fresh avenues for growth across the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market. In addition to this, the use of next-generation genetic studies for understanding genetic disorders has also given a thrust to market expansion.

The importance of microbiology in genetic studies has created a boatload of opportunities for growth and expansion across the global spatial genomics and transcriptomics market. The use of spatial genomics to understand the structure and composition of genes has enabled the inflow of fresh revenues into the global market. Besides, the use of genetic studies in the domain of veterinary care has also generated humongous opportunities for market expansion. The study of human and animal genes often goes hand-in-hand for the purpose of core research and analysis.

Get Table of Content of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=T&rep_id=7053

Regional Segments

About TMR Research

TMR Research is a premier provider of customized market research and consulting services to business entities keen on succeeding in todays supercharged economic climate. Armed with an experienced, dedicated, and dynamic team of analysts, we are redefining the way our clients conduct business by providing them with authoritative and trusted research studies in tune with the latest methodologies and market trends.

Contact:

Rohit Bhisey

TMR Research,

3739 Balboa St # 1097,

San Francisco, CA 94121

United States

Tel: +1-415-520-1050

Visit Site: https://www.tmrresearch.com/

Link:
Spatial Genomics & Transcriptomics Market Demand is Expanding at a Stellar Pace in the Years to Follow - BioSpace

Future Visioning the Role of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law and Ethics to Regenerate Health and Cure Disease – IPWatchdog.com

Posted on November 28, 2020 by Danzig

As society adjusts to a new world of social distance and remote everything, rapid advancements in the digital, physical, and biological spheres are accelerating fundamental changes to the way we live, work, and relate to one another. What Klaus Schwab prophesized in his 2015 book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, is playing out before our very eyes. Quantum computing power, a network architecture that is moving function closer to the edge of our interconnected devices, bandwidth speeds of 5G and beyond, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are all working together to accelerate innovation in fundamental ways. Given the global pandemic, in the biological sphere, government industrial policy drives the public sector to work hand-in-glove with private industry and academia to develop new therapies and vaccines to treat and prevent COVID-19 and other lethal diseases. This post will envision the future of gene editing technologies and the legal and ethical challenges that could imperil their mission of saving lives.

There are thousands of diseases occurring in humans, animals, and plants caused by aberrant DNA sequences. Traditional small molecule and biologic therapies have only had minimal success in treating many of these diseases because they mitigate symptoms while failing to address the underlying genetic causes. While human understanding of genetic diseases has increased tremendously since the mapping of the human genome in the late 1990s, our ability to treat them effectively has been limited by our historical inability to alter genetic sequences.

The science of gene editing was born in the 1990s, as scientists developed tools such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TALE nucleases (TALENs) to study the genome and attempt to alter sequences that caused disease. While these systems were an essential first step to demonstrate the potential of gene editing, their development was challenging in practice due to the complexity of engineering protein-DNA interactions.

Then, in 2011, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, a French professor of microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry, and Jennifer Doudna, an American professor of biochemistry, pioneered a revolutionary new gene-editing technology called CRISPR/Cas9. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and Cas9 stands for CRISPR-associated protein 9. In 2020, the revolutionary work of Drs. Charpentier and Doudna developing CRISPR/Cas9 were recognized with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The technology was also the source of a long-running and high-profile patent battle between two groups of scientsists.

CRISPR/Cas9 for gene editing came about from a naturally occurring viral defense mechanism in bacteria. The system is cheaper and easier to use than previous technologies. It delivers the Cas9 nuclease complexed with a synthetic guide RNA (gRNA) into a cell, cutting the cells genome at the desired location, allowing existing genes to be removed and new ones added to a living organisms genome. The technique is essential in biotechnology and medicine as it provides for the genomes to be edited in vivo with extremely high precision, efficiently, and with comparative ease. It can create new drugs, agricultural products, and genetically modified organisms or control pathogens and pests. More possibilities include the treatment of inherited genetic diseases and diseases arising from somatic mutations such as cancer. However, its use in human germline genetic modification is highly controversial.

The following diagram from CRISPR Therapeutics AG, a Swiss company, illustrates how it functions:

In the 1990s, nanotechnology and gene editing were necessary plot points for science fiction films. In 2020, developments like nano-sensors and CRISPR gene editing technology have moved these technologies directly into the mainstream, opening a new frontier of novel market applications. According to The Business Research Company, the global CRISPR technology market reached a value of nearly $700 million in 2019, is expected to more than double in 2020, and reach $6.7 billion by 2030. Market applications target all forms of life, from animals to plants to humans.

Gene editings primary market applications are for the treatment of genetically-defined diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing promises to enable the engineering of genomes of cell-based therapies and make them safer and available to a broader group of patients. Cell therapies have already begun to make a meaningful impact on specific diseases, and gene editing helps to accelerate that progress across diverse disease areas, including oncology and diabetes.

In the area of human therapy, millions of people worldwide suffer from genetic conditions. Gene-editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have introduced a way to address the cause of debilitating illnesses like cystic fibrosis and create better interventions and therapies. They also have promising market applications for agriculture, food safety, supply, and distribution. For example, grocery retailers are even looking at how gene editing could impact the products they sell. Scientists have created gene-edited crops like non-browning mushrooms and mildew-resistant grapes experiments that are part of an effort to prevent spoilage, which could ultimately change the way food is sold.

Despite the inability to travel and conduct face-to-face meetings, attend industry conferences or conduct business other than remotely or with social distance, the investment markets for venture, growth, and private equity capital, as well as corporate R&D budgets, have remained buoyant through 2020 to date. Indeed, the third quarter of 2020 was the second strongest quarter ever for VC-backed companies, with 88 companies raising rounds worth $100 million or more according to the latest PwC/Moneytree report. Healthcare startups raised over $8 billion in the quarter in the United States alone. Gene-editing company Mammouth Biosciences raised a $45 million round of Series B capital in the second quarter of 2020. CRISPR Therapeutics AG raised more in the public markets in primary and secondary capital.

Bayer, Humboldt Fund and Leaps are co-leading a $65 million Series A round for Metagenomi, a biotech startup launched by UC Berkeley scientists. Metagenomi, which will be run by Berkeleys Brian Thomas, is developing a toolbox of CRISPR- and non-CRISPR-based gene-editing systems beyond the Cas9 protein. The goal is to apply machine learning to search through the genomes of these microorganisms, finding new nucleases that can be used in gene therapies. Other investors in the Series A include Sozo Ventures, Agent Capital, InCube Ventures and HOF Capital. Given the focus on new therapies and vaccines to treat the novel coronavirus, we expect continued wind in the sails for gene-editing companies, particularly those with strong product portfolios that leverage the technology.

Despite the projected growth in market applications and abundant investment capital, there is a danger that legal and ethical concerns related to genetic research could put the brakes on gene-editing technologies and product programs emanating therefrom. The possibility of off-target effects, lack of informed consent for germline therapy, and other ethical concerns could cause government regulators to put a stop on important research and development required to cure disease and regenerate human health.

Gene-editing companies can only make money by developing products that involve editing the human genome. The clinical and commercial success of these product candidates depends on public acceptance of gene-editing therapies for the treatment of human diseases. Public attitudes could be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, unethical, or
immoral. Consequently, products created through gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the government, the public, or the medical community. Adverse public reaction to gene therapy, in general, could result in greater government regulation and stricter labeling requirements of gene-editing products. Stakeholders in government, third-party payors, the medical community, and private industry must work to create standards that are both safe and comply with prevailing ethical norms.

The most significant danger to growth in gene-editing technologies lies in ethical concerns about their application to human embryos or the human germline. In 2016, a group of scientists edited the genome of human embryos to modify the gene for hemoglobin beta, the gene in which a mutation occurs in patients with the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia. Although conducted in non-viable embryos, it shocked the public that scientists could be experimenting with human eggs, sperm, and embryos to alter human life at creation. Then, in 2018, a biophysics researcher in China created the first human genetically edited babies, twin girls, causing public outcry (and triggering government sanctioning of the researcher). In response, the World Health Organization established a committee to advise on the creation of standards for gene editing oversight and governance standards on a global basis.

Some influential non-governmental agencies have called for a moratorium on gene editing, particularly as applied to altering the creation or editing of human life. Other have set forth guidelines on how to use gene-editing technologies in therapeutic applications. In the United States, the National Institute of Health has stated that it will not fund gene-editing studies in human embryos. A U.S. statute called The Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for research projects that would create or destroy human life. Laws in the United Kingdom prohibit genetically modified embryos from being implanted into women. Still, embryos can be altered in research labs under license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Regulations must keep pace with the change that CRISPR-Cas9 has brought to research labs worldwide. Developing international guidelines could be a step towards establishing cohesive national frameworks. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences recommended seven principles for the governance of human genome editing, including promoting well-being, transparency, due care, responsible science, respect for persons, fairness, and transnational co-operation. In the United Kingdom, a non-governmental organization formed in 1991 called The Nuffield Council has proposed two principles for the ethical acceptability of genome editing in the context of reproduction. First, the intervention intends to secure the welfare of the individual born due to such technology. Second, social justice and solidarity principles are upheld, and the intervention should not result in an intensifying of social divides or marginalizing of disadvantaged groups in society. In 2016, in application of the same, the Crick Institute in London was approved to use CRISPR-Cas9 in human embryos to study early development. In response to a cacophony of conflicting national frameworks, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was formed in 2015 by NGOs in the United States, the United Kingdom and China, and is working to harmonize regulations global from both the ethical and safety perspectives. As CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna has written in a now infamous editorial in SCIENCE, stakeholders must engage in thoughtfully crafting regulations of the technology without stifling it.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to rely more on new technologies to keep us healthy, adapt to working from home, and more. The pandemic makes us more reliant on innovative digital, biological, and physical solutions. It has created a united sense of urgency among the public and private industry (together with government and academia) to be more creative about using technology to regenerate health. With continued advances in computing power, network architecture, communications bandwidths, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and gene editing, society will undoubtedly find more cures for debilitating disease and succeed in regenerating human health. As science advances, it inevitably intersects with legal and ethical norms, both for individuals and civil society, and there are new externalities to consider. Legal and ethical norms will adapt, rebalancing the interests of each. The fourth industrial revolution is accelerating, and hopefully towards curing disease.

Continue reading here:
Future Visioning the Role of CRISPR Gene Editing: Navigating Law and Ethics to Regenerate Health and Cure Disease - IPWatchdog.com

SAB Biotherapeutics Awarded $57.5M from BARDA and US Department of Defense for Manufacturing of SAB-185 for the Treatment of COVID-19 | Antibodies |…

Posted on December 1, 2020 by Danzig

DetailsCategory: AntibodiesPublished on Tuesday, 01 December 2020 10:26Hits: 181

SIOUX FALLS, SD, USA I November 30, 2020 I SAB Biotherapeutics (SAB), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing a novel immunotherapy platform to produce specifically targeted, high-potency, fully human polyclonal antibodies without the need for human serum, today announced that, as part of Operation Warp Speed, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) have awarded SAB $57.5 million in expanded scope for its DiversitAb Rapid Response Antibody Program contract for the manufacturing of SAB-185, the companys clinical stage therapeutic candidate for COVID-19.

"We are pleased to be awarded this additional contract scope, which we believe is a reflection of the compelling science that supports SAB-185s potential in COVID-19, as well as the urgent need for treatment options amidst the global pandemic. Previous data has indicated that this human polyclonal antibody therapeutic has potent neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially driving more available doses, giving us the confidence to continue to progress our clinical development programs for SAB-185, said Eddie J. Sullivan, PhD, co-founder, president and CEO of SAB Biotherapeutics. This manufacturing agreement with BARDA and the Department of Defense supports our vision of bringing a novel, first-of-its-kind human polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19 to patients, and I am proud of the work by our team and appreciate the continued support from BARDA and JPEO as we continue to rapidly advance SAB-185.

SAB-185 is currently being tested as a COVID-19 therapeutic in an ongoing Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers and an ongoing Phase Ib trial in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. SAB has leveraged its expertise to develop scalable manufacturing capabilities to support clinical activities, and continues to increase capacities in working with contract manufacturing organizations.

About SAB-185

SAB-185 is a fully-human, specifically-targeted and broadly neutralizing polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19. The therapeutic was developed from SABs novel proprietary DiversitAb Rapid Response Antibody Program. SAB filed the Investigational New Drug (IND) application and produced the initial clinical doses in just 98 days from program initiation. The novel therapeutic has shown neutralization of both the Munich and Washington strains of mutated virus in preclinical studies. Preclinical data has also demonstrated SAB-185 to be significantly more potent than human-derived convalescent plasma.

About SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc.

SAB Biotherapeutics, Inc. (SAB) is a clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical company advancing a new class of immunotherapies leveraging fully human polyclonal antibodies. Utilizing some of the most complex genetic engineering and antibody science in the world, SAB has developed the only platform that can rapidly produce natural, specifically-targeted, high-potency, human polyclonal immunotherapies at commercial scale. SAB-185, a fully-human polyclonal antibody therapeutic candidate for COVID-19, is being developed with initial funding supported by the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) Joint Project Lead for Enabling Biotechnologies (JPL-EB). In addition to COVID-19, the companys pipeline also includes programs in Type 1 diabetes, organ transplant and influenza. For more information visit: http://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com or follow @SABBantibody on Twitter.

SOURCE: SAB Biotherapeutics

Read the original here:
SAB Biotherapeutics Awarded $57.5M from BARDA and US Department of Defense for Manufacturing of SAB-185 for the Treatment of COVID-19 | Antibodies |...

Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction – The Conversation UK

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Danzig

At a time when humans are threatening the extinction of so many other species, it might not seem so surprising that some people think that the extinction of our own species would be a good thing. Take, for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose founder believes that our extinction would put an end to the damage we inflict on each other and ecosystems more generally.

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

But humans arent the only beings to feel pain. Non-human animals would continue suffering without us. So, driven by a desire to eliminate suffering entirely, some people have shockingly advocated taking the rest of nature with us. They recommend that we actively abolish the world, rather than simply desert it.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Around 1600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

If you dont believe in an afterlife, this becomes a less attractive option. Youd have to be motivated exclusively by removing suffering from nature, without any promise of gaining supernatural rewards. Probably the first person to advocate human extinction in this way was Arthur Schopenhauer. He did so 200 years ago, in 1819, urging that we spare the coming generations of the burden of existence.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

But what about the pain of non-human animals? Schopenhauer had an answer, but it wasnt a convincing one. He was a philosophical idealist, believing that the existence of external nature depends on our self-consciousness of it. So, with the abolition of human brains, the sufferings of less self-aware animals would also vanish as they ceased to exist without us around to perceive them.

Even on Schopenhauers own terms, theres a problem. What if other intelligent and self-conscious beings exist? Perhaps on other planets? Surely, then, our sacrifice would mean nothing; existence and painful perception of it would continue. It fell to Schopenhauers disciple, Eduard von Hartmann, to propose a more complete solution.

Hartmann, born in Berlin in 1842, wrote a system of pessimistic philosophy that was almost as lengthy as his impressive beard. Infamous in his own time, but completely forgotten in ours, Hartmann proposed a shockingly radical vision.

Writing in 1869, Hartmann rebuked Schopenhauer for thinking of the problem of suffering in only a local and temporary sense. His predecessors vision of human extinction by sexual continence would not suffice. Hartmann was convinced that, after a few aeons, another self-conscious species would re-evolve on Earth. This would merely perpetuate the misery of existence.

Hartmann also believed that life exists on other planets. Given his belief that most of it was probably unintelligent, the suffering of such beings would be helpless. They wouldnt be able to do anything about it.

So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to annihilate the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to cause the whole kosmos to disappear.

Hartmann hoped that if humanity did not prove up to this task then some planets might evolve beings that would be, long after our own sun is frozen. But he didnt think this meant we could be complacent. He noted the stringency of conditions required for a planet to be habitable (let alone evolve creatures with complex brains), and concluded that the duty might fall exclusively on humans, here and now.

Hartmann was convinced this was the purpose of creation: that our universe exists in order to evolve beings compassionate and clever enough to decide to abolish existence itself. He imagined this final moment as a shockwave of deadly euthanasia rippling outwards from Earth, blotting out the existence of this cosmos until all its world-lenses and nebulae have been abolished.

He remained unclear as to exactly how this goal would be achieved. Speaking vaguely of humanitys increasing global unification and spiritual disillusion, he hinted to future scientific and technological discoveries. He was, thankfully, a metaphysician not a physicist.

Hartmanns philosophy is fascinating. It is also unimaginably wrong. This is because he confuses the eradication of suffering with the eradication of sufferers. Conflating this distinction leads to crazy visions of omnicide. To get rid of suffering you dont need to get rid of sufferers: you could instead try removing the causes of pain. We should eliminate suffering, not the sufferer.

Indeed, so long as there are intelligent beings around, theres at least the opportunity for a radical removal of suffering. Philosophers such as David Pearce even argue that, in the future, technologies like genetic engineering will be able to entirely phase it out, abolishing pain from the Earth. With the right interventions, Pearce contends, humans and non-humans could plausibly be driven by gradients of bliss, not privation and pain.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendents might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

See the original post:
Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction - The Conversation UK

To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction – The Wire Science

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Danzig

Representative image of an explosion in space. Photo: Pixabay

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Benevolent world-exploders

Around 1,600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

Abolishing the universe

Also Read: How Humanity Came To Contemplate Its Possible Extinction a Timeline

Euthanasia shockwaves

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendants might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

Thomas Moynihan, researcher, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the article here:
To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction - The Wire Science

Select Page ::