Increase in Younger Bowel Cancer Cases Highest in Southern England – Medscape

The increased incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in younger adults is not simply a demographic shift but reflects potential biological changes in the disease as well as alterations in geographical distribution that need to be better understood, say UK researchers in a large population-based study.

Numerous recent studies from the US, as well as those in countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, have shown that there has been an increase in CRC incidence in younger people in the past few decades.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, these studies suggest that, while the overall incidence of CRC may have stabilised, the incidence in adults aged under 50 years has risen sharply, at rates ranging from 1.5% to 8% per year.

Seeking to provide a more detailed picture of the shift, Adam Chambers, School of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, and colleagues looked at data on more than 56,000 UK adults aged 2049 years diagnosed with the disease between 1974 and 2015.

The new research, published online by the British Journal of Surgery, showed that, following an initial dip in incidence, rates increased initially in adults aged 2029 years, followed by those aged 3039 years, at rates of up to 6% per year.

While gender and socioeconomic status did not appear to have an impact on the change in incidence rates, there were notable geographic variations, with the largest increases in southern England, and distal tumours were found to be the biggest driver of new cases.

Mr Chambers commented in a news release: "Age has always been a major risk factor for bowel cancer, with the majority of cases being diagnosed in patients over 60 and therefore bowel cancer screening has focused on older age groups.

"However, this study shows that over the past 30 years, there has been an exponential increase in the incidence of bowel cancer among adults under 50."

Co-author David Messenger, a consultant colorectal surgeon at Bristol Royal Infirmary, added: "Future research needs to focus on understanding why this trend is occurring and how it might be reversed, potentially through the development of cost-effective testing strategies that detect tumours at an earlier stage or polyps before they become cancerous."

Mr Messenger told Medscape News UK that, while this is a population-based study and cannot demonstrate cause and effect, he believes that there are likely to be multiple factors underlying the trend that are "not necessarily the same" for different countries or regions.

He believes that "undoubtedly some of it is dietary related and some of it also obesity related" but, unlike in, say, lung cancer, it is "much more difficult to pick apart" the relationship between lifestyle factors and the development of CRC.

He said that, "based on when weve seen the rise in incidence, it is probably something to do with how our lifestyles have changed really from the mid-60s onwards" because, for successive generations from that period, "youve got a cohort effect" of increasing incidence.

Mr Messenger also notes that the shift in tumour location and the shift in geographical distribution of cases suggests that "the biology of the disease in young adults is different", which could have healthcare implications if the increase in CRC incidence in younger patients continues.

The authors point out that, while increases in rates of CRC have been observed in younger adults across Europe and North America, there appear to be differences in the way the disease manifests in younger versus older populations.

They note that it therefore is "vital" that the epidemiology underlying the increase is better understood, "as young adults typically present with more advanced tumours that carry a poorer prognosis".

To investigate further, the team examined data from the UK-wide National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database on all adults aged 2049 years diagnosed with CRC between 1974 and 2015.

They also obtained population estimates from the Office for National Statistics and the European Standard Population report to examine trends in age-specific incidence rates, stratified by sex, anatomic subsite, Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, and geographical region.

The researchers identified a total of 1,145,639 new cases of CRC diagnosed during the study period, of which 2594 were in adults aged 2029 years, 11,406 among 3039 year olds, and 42,314 in those aged 4049 years.

Joinpoint regression analysis revealed that after an initial decrease, there was a notable increase in cases among individuals aged 2029 years, at an annual percentage change (APC) of 4.6% in women from 1986 and 5.1% in men from 1992.

In adults aged 3039 years, the increase started later, at an APC in women of 3.8% from 1995 and 6.0% in men from 2002.

The increases were smaller in adults aged 4049 years and started later, at an APC of 1.5% in women and 0.8% in men, beginning in 2003.

These results, the team writes, are "suggestive of an age cohort effect".

Looking at the data in more detail, they found that the incidence of proximal CRCs, primarily driven by caecal and ascending colon cancers, was increased in 2029 year olds, at an APC of 4.4% from 1995, and in 3039 year olds, at an APC of 5.8% from 2005, but not in 4049 year olds.

However, the increase in incidence rates for distal cancers was higher and more sustained, at an APC of 5.6% from 1991 for 2029 year olds, and an APC of 3.3% from 1995 to 2006 and 7.0% from 2006 for adults aged 3039 years. For those aged 4049 years, the APC was 1.4% from 2001.

While there were few differences noted when stratifying individuals by socioeconomic status, there were differences observed when the researchers looked at geographical region.

For example, incidence rates of proximal CRC among 2049 year olds were, in 1985, decreasing all across England apart from in London, with the South West recording an APC of -12.1%.

By 2015, however, incidence rates for proximal CRC were increasing fastest in the South East at an APC of 7.4%, in London by 6.5% per annum, and in the East at an APC of 6.0%.

The increase was even greater for distal cancers, with all southern regions showing annual increases in incidence rates of more than 5%, rising to an APC of 10.1% in the South West.

"It is difficult to explain why incidence rates are increasing more rapidly in young adults in the south given that risk factors such as obesity are increasing faster in northern regions," the team says.

While acknowledging there may be issues around access to healthcare at play, they add: "The role of environmental factors, such as diet, obesity, physical exercise and the gut microbiota, in the development of youngonset colorectal cancer is incompletely understood and requires further research."

Mr Messenger said the evidence nevertheless suggests that the biology of CRC in younger adults differs from that in their older counterparts.

"That then begs the question about what is happening in the UK that were seeing such pronounced increases in southern regions," particularly in terms of the dramatic increase in CRC cases in the distal large bowel.

He highlighted that, "typically, people have thought this is maybe a disease that is perhaps related to lower socioeconomic groups but weve not seen that in our study the increased rates have occurred equally across all socioeconomic groups in the younger adult age group".

However, Mr Messenger noted that, over time, there has been northsouth migration in England, as well as "increasing urbanisation in southern regions, particularly the South West".

He pointed to cities such as Bristol and towns along the M4 corridor, including Swindon, which are increasing in size and becoming more and more urbanised. In contrast, Middlesborough and Teeside are depopulating, a phenomenon he ascribes to internal migration.

Mr Messenger added that, as well as tumours in younger adults having a "greater propensity to be in the sigmoid and the rectum, theres some evidence that molecularly, they are slightly different; they dont necessarily exhibit microsatellite instability in the same way that you see with older adults".

He said that this observation cannot currently be fully explained, and is the focus of future research. There is also evidence to suggest that younger adults are more likely to present with metastatic or locally advanced disease.

He believes that screening could therefore help with identifying patients at an earlier stage, although not via the blanket use of flexible sigmoidoscopies or colonoscopies but rather greater application of faecal immunochemical testing, which is currently being used in the over-50s.

"The question is do we then roll that out to adults under 50 as a means of risk stratifying those groups, as to whether or not they should have endoscopic examination," Mr Messenger asked.

This would also be a way of obtaining more data on whether young adults really do present with more advanced disease.

"Weve got some idea that they might do worse because theyve got more advanced disease but that is really not set in stone and there is virtually no data on that in the UK, so thats really where things will be heading," he said.

If the current trends continue unchecked, Mr Messenger believes that the types of cases "that we see in 20 years time will look very different".

"At the moment, we think that about 5% of all bowel cancer occurs in adults under 50 but if you were to extrapolate out those rates of increase out to 2041we think it could account for anywhere from about 8% up to 30% of all cases, so youve got the potential in 20 years that patients with bowel cancer could be a very different group."

He continued: "This is anecdotal but Im seeing a lot more younger adults with advanced disease.

"So overall, globally in the population, probably the incidence will trickle down and everyone will think thats great, but actually if you look at it more deeply, those that are getting the cancers will be different. It will be younger adults with more advanced disease."

Mr Messenger said: "Suddenly were having a paradigm shift from where this is seen as a disease of middle age and elderly to then becoming a disease of a younger population."

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, David Telling Charitable Trust and the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute.

No conflicts of interest declared.

Br J Surg 2020. doi 10.1002/bjs.11486

Visit link:

Increase in Younger Bowel Cancer Cases Highest in Southern England - Medscape

Medicine is getting to grips with individuality – The Economist

Mar 12th 2020

NEENA NIZAR is 42 years old, a professor of business studies and just 122cm tall. The ends of her bones are soft and pliable: on an x-ray they look frayed, like old paintbrushes. During her childhood and adolescence in Dubai she was operated on 30 times. The source of her problem remained a mystery. In 2010, after three decades of wondering, she finally received a diagnosis: Jansens Metaphyseal Chondrodysplasia, a condition first recognised in the 1930s. Her problems stem from a broken copy of just one of her 20,000 genes.

Dr Nizar is in some ways very unusual. Fewer than one in 200m people have the mutation to the PTH1R gene that causes Jansens disease. In other ways she is like everyone else. Although few people have a defect as debilitating, everyones health, and ill-health, is tied to the contents of their genomes. All genomes contain arrangements of genes that make psychological disorders, cancers, dementias or circulatory diseases either more of a problem or less of one. Everyone has genes that make them better or worse at metabolising drugs, more or less likely to benefit from specific forms of exercise, better able to digest some foods than others.

The same arrangement will never be seen twice. Though for identical twins the differences are the height of subtlety, each of the 7.5bn human genomes sharing the planet is unique. That irreducible diversity represents a challenge to many of the 20th centurys greatest medical advances, which were based on a one-size-fits-all approach. Personalising medicine is an enticing opportunity for improvement.

Good doctors have always treated their patients as individuals. In the 20th century blood tests, X-rays, body scans and other diagnostic tools made the specifics of each patients particular problems ever more visible. A spectacular reduction in the cost of reading, or sequencing, the DNA bases that make up human genetic information is adding a new level of individuality. It is now possible to inspect genetic differences with an ease previously unimaginable, and thus to know something about propensities to disease well before any symptoms show up.

Nobody knows exactly how many human genomes have been fully sequenced, and different sequencing procedures read the genome to different degreesthere are quick skims and painstaking philological studies. But the number is in the millions (see chart). By the 2030s genome sequencing is likely to be as routine in some places as taking a pin-prick of blood from a babys heel is todayit may even be part of the same procedure. Genome science is becoming a matter of practical medicine. New therapies that make it possible to adjust or edit this genetic inheritance are coming to market.

This flood of data is allowing medicine to become more precise and more personalin many ways, the p-words are two sides of the same coin. Previously recognised genetic diseases, such as Jansens, have been traced to specific genes and can be connected to defects in the proteins they create (almost all genes describe proteins, and proteins do almost all the bodys chemical work). Most of these diseases are rare, in that they typically affect no more than one person in 2,000 in the general population. But with over 6,000 such rare diseases now recognised, this means they are common in the aggregate. In Britain one in 17 people can expect to suffer from a rare disease at some point.

Studies of genetic diseases are not just a worthwhile end in themselves. Understanding what goes wrong when a specific protein is out of whack can reveal basic information about the bodys workings that may be helpful for treating other ailments. And the growing understanding of how large sets of genes may contribute to disease is making it possible to pick out the patients most at risk from common diseases like diabetes, heart conditions and cancer. That will help doctors personalise their interventions. In theory, the rise in access to personal genetic information allows individuals to better calculate these risks and to take pre-emptive action. In practice, so far, few people seem to do so.

Genomics is not the only source of new personal-health data. Just as all genomes are unique, so are the lives that all those genome-carriers lead. The increase in other forms of data about individuals, whether in other molecular information from medical tests, electronic health records, or digital data recorded by cheap, ubiquitous sensors, makes what goes on in those lives ever easier to capture. The rise of artificial intelligence and cloud computing is making it possible to analyse this torrent of data.

Almost 4bn people carry smartphones that can monitor physical activity. It is estimated that by 2022, 1bn people may be wearing a device such as a smart watch that can monitor their heart rate. The data-driven giants and startups of Silicon Valley are eager to help. Consumers no longer need to go to a doctor for a genome scan or to engage with a wide range of opinion about what ails them, or will ail them. The pharmaceutical companies used to dominating medicine are working hard to keep up. So are doctors, hospitals and health systems.

These possibilities are not without their risks, drawbacks and potential for disappointment. The ability to pinpoint what has gone wrong in a genome does not make it easy to fix. Moreover, as technology helps people monitor themselves in more ways, the number of the worried well will swell and unnecessary care will grow. Many could be done real harm by an algorithmic mirage.

Beyond this, the move fast and break things attitude common in tech companies sits uneasily with first, do no harm. And the untrammelled, unsupervised and unaccountable means of data accrual seen in other industries which have undergone digital transformations sits uneasily with concerns over medical privacy.

The very nature of medicine, though, means that the future will not just be a matter of business goals, research cultures, technological prowess, wise practice and well-crafted regulations. It will also be subject to the driving interests of particular individuals in ways never seen before. The development of gene-based medical research in Britain was deeply affected by the short, difficult life of Ivan Cameron, whose father, David Cameron, did much to build up genomics when he was prime minister. Many of those working in this field are impelled by personal loss.

And then there are those whose interests stem from the way in which their own genes shape their lives. People like Dr Nizar, who is now crafting a new research agenda for Jansens disease. There may only be 30 people in the world who suffer from it. But two of them are her children, and they are in ceaseless pain. Science knows why; medicine cannot yet help. We believe in miracles, she says. She is also working to make one happen.

This article appeared in the Technology Quarterly section of the print edition under the headline "Populations of one"

Continued here:

Medicine is getting to grips with individuality - The Economist

Next-gen supercomputers are fast-tracking treatments for the coronavirus in a race against time – CNBC

A computer image created by Nexu Science Communication together with Trinity College in Dublin, shows a model structurally representative of a betacoronavirus which is the type of virus linked to COVID-19.

Source: NEXU Science Communication | Reuters

Research has gone digital, and medical science is no exception. As the novel coronavirus continues to spread, for instance, scientists searching for a treatment have drafted IBM's Summit supercomputer, the world's most powerful high-performance computing facility, according to the Top500 list, to help find promising candidate drugs.

One way of treating an infection could be with a compound that sticks to a certain part of the virus, disarming it. With tens of thousands of processors spanning an area as large as two tennis courts, the Summit facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has more computational power than 1 million top-of-the-line laptops. Using that muscle, researchers digitally simulated how 8,000 different molecules would interact with the virus a Herculean task for your typical personal computer.

"It took us a day or two, whereas it has traditionally taken months on a normal computer," said Jeremy Smith, director of the University of Tennessee/ORNL Center for Molecular Biophysics and principal researcher in the study.

Simulations alone can't prove a treatment will work, but the project was able to identify 77 candidate molecules that other researchers can now test in trials. The fight against the novel coronavirus is just one example of how supercomputers have become an essential part of the process of discovery. The $200 million Summit and similar machines also simulate the birth of the universe, explosions from atomic weapons and a host of events too complicated or too violent to recreate in a lab.

The current generation's formidable power is just a taste of what's to come. Aurora, a $500 million Intel machine currently under installation at Argonne National Laboratory, will herald the long-awaited arrival of "exaflop" facilities capable of a billion billion calculations per second (five times more than Summit) in 2021 with others to follow. China, Japan and the European Union are all expected to switch on similar "exascale" systems in the next five years.

These new machines will enable new discoveries, but only for the select few researchers with the programming know-how required to efficiently marshal their considerable resources. What's more, technological hurdles lead some experts to believe that exascale computing might be the end of the line. For these reasons, scientists are increasingly attempting to harness artificial intelligenceto accomplish more research with less computational power.

"We as an industry have become too captive to building systems that execute the benchmark well without necessarily paying attention to how systems are used," says Dave Turek, vice president of technical computing for IBM Cognitive Systems. He likens high-performance computing record-seeking to focusing on building the world's fastest race car instead of highway-ready minivans. "The ability to inform the classic ways of doing HPC with AI becomes really the innovation wave that's coursing through HPC today."

Just getting to the verge of exascale computing has taken a decade of research and collaboration between the Department of Energy and private vendors. "It's been a journey," says Patricia Damkroger, general manager of Intel's high-performance computing division. "Ten years ago, they said it couldn't be done."

While each system has its own unique architecture, Summit, Aurora, and the upcoming Frontier supercomputer all represent variations on a theme: they harness the immense power of graphical processing units (GPUs) alongside traditional central processing units (CPUs). GPUs can carry out more simultaneous operations than a CPU can, so leaning on these workhorses has let Intel and IBM design machines that would have otherwise required untold megawatts of energy.

IBM's Summit supercomputer currently holds the record for the world's fastest supercomputer.

Source: IBM

That computational power lets Summit, which is known as a "pre-exascale" computer because it runs at 0.2 exaflops, simulate one single supernova explosion in about two months, according to Bronson Messer, the acting director of science for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. He hopes that machines like Aurora (1 exaflop) and the upcoming Frontier supercomputer (1.5 exaflops) will get that time down to about a week. Damkroger looks forward to medical applications. Where current supercomputers can digitally model a single heart, for instance, exascale machines will be able to simulate how the heart works together with blood vessels, she predicts.

But even as exascale developers take a victory lap, they know that two challenges mean the add-more-GPUs formula is likely approaching a plateau in its scientific usefulness. First, GPUs are strong but dumbbest suited to simple operations such as arithmetic and geometric calculations that they can crowdsource among their many components. Researchers have written simulations to run on flexible CPUs for decades and shifting to GPUs often requires starting from scratch.

GPU's have thousands of cores for simultaneous computation, but each handles simple instructions.

Source: IBM

"The real issue that we're wrestling with at this point is how do we move our code over" from running on CPUs to running on GPUs, says Richard Loft, a computational scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, home of Top500's 44th ranking supercomputerCheyenne, a CPU-based machine "It's labor intensive, and they're difficult to program."

Second, the more processors a machine has, the harder it is to coordinate the sharing of calculations. For the climate modeling that Loft does, machines with more processors better answer questions like "what is the chance of a once-in-a-millennium deluge," because they can run more identical simulations simultaneously and build up more robust statistics. But they don't ultimately enable the climate models themselves to get much more sophisticated.

For that, the actual processors have to get faster, a feat that bumps up against what's physically possible. Faster processors need smaller transistors, and current transistors measure about 7 nanometers. Companies might be able to shrink that size, Turek says, but only to a point. "You can't get to zero [nanometers]," he says. "You have to invoke other kinds of approaches."

If supercomputers can't get much more powerful, researchers will have to get smarter about how they use the facilities. Traditional computing is often an exercise in brute forcing a problem, and machine learning techniques may allow researchers to approach complex calculations with more finesse.

More from Tech Trends:Robotic medicine to fight the coronavirusRemote work techology that is key

Take drug design. A pharmacist considering a dozen ingredients faces countless possible recipes, varying amounts of each compound, which could take a supercomputer years to simulate. An emerging machine learning technique known as Bayesian Optimization asks, does the computer really need to check every single option? Rather than systematically sweeping the field, the method helps isolate the most promising drugs by implementing common-sense assumptions. Once it finds one reasonably effective solution, for instance, it might prioritize seeking small improvements with minor tweaks.

In trial-and-error fields like materials science and cosmetics, Turek says that this strategy can reduce the number of simulations needed by 70% to 90%. Recently, for instance, the technique has led to breakthroughs in battery design and the discovery of a new antibiotic.

Fields like climate science and particle physics use brute-force computation in a different way, by starting with simple mathematical laws of nature and calculating the behavior of complex systems. Climate models, for instance, try to predict how air currents conspire with forests, cities, and oceans to determine global temperature.

Mike Pritchard, a climatologist at the University of California, Irvine, hopes to figure out how clouds fit into this picture, but most current climate models are blind to features smaller than a few dozen miles wide. Crunching the numbers for a worldwide layer of clouds, which might be just a couple hundred feet tall, simply requires more mathematical brawn than any supercomputer can deliver.

Unless the computer understands how clouds interact better than we do, that is. Pritchard is one of many climatologists experimenting with training neural networksa machine learning technique that looks for patterns by trial and errorto mimic cloud behavior. This approach takes a lot of computing power up front to generate realistic clouds for the neural network to imitate. But once the network has learned how to produce plausible cloudlike behavior, it can replace the computationally intensive laws of nature in the global model, at least in theory. "It's a very exciting time," Pritchard says. "It could be totally revolutionary, if it's credible."

Companies are preparing their machines so researchers like Pritchard can take full advantage of the computational tools they're developing. Turek says IBM is focusing on designing AI-ready machines capable of extreme multitasking and quickly shuttling around huge quantities of information, and the Department of Energy contract for Aurora is Intel's first that specifies a benchmark for certain AI applications, according to Damkroger. Intel is also developing an open-source software toolkit called oneAPI that will make it easier for developers to create programs that run efficiently on a variety of processors, including CPUs and GPUs.As exascale and machine learning tools become increasingly available, scientists hope they'll be able to move past the computer engineering and focus on making new discoveries. "When we get to exascale that's only going to be half the story," Messer says. "What we actually accomplish at the exascale will be what matters."

Follow this link:

Next-gen supercomputers are fast-tracking treatments for the coronavirus in a race against time - CNBC

Two Canadian teams of scientists isolate coronavirus to speed research effort – The Globe and Mail

The researchers involved in isolating the virus: Dr. Rob Kozak and Dr. Samira Mubareka of the University of Toronto, and Dr. Arinjay Banerjee of McMaster University.

handout/Sunnybrook Hospital

Two teams of Canadian scientists have isolated the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and successfully reproduced it in the laboratory.

The accomplishment means that researchers who are looking to test screening methods, therapies and vaccines now have Canadian sources that can provide access to the global pathogen without them having to undertake the complicating step of shipping live virus across international borders.

Coronavirus guide: The latest news on COVID-19 and the toll its taking around the world

Should I cancel my plans? How to get social distancing right in the coronavirus outbreak

The significance for us is that it serves as a tool," said Samira Mubareka, a microbiologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and member of one of the teams. Now that we have this virus in hand it means that we have material for a number of things."

Story continues below advertisement

Dr. Mubareka and her colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton and the University of Toronto worked in a facility in the Toronto area with the appropriate containment level to handle the new coronavirus safely. They announced their feat on Thursday.

On Friday, Paul Hodgson, associate director of business development at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre in Saskatoon, confirmed to The Globe and Mail that the joint federal-provincial facility had quietly reached the same milestone a few weeks earlier and is now using its version of the virus for a vaccine development effort.

Samples of the Saskatoon-derived version of the coronavirus are now available for approved research groups through the National Microbiological Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Ontario group also plans to generate its version for distribution.

The spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 continues, with more cases diagnosed in Canada. The Globe offers the dos and don'ts to help slow or stop the spread of the virus in your community.

In both cases, the virus was isolated from clinical samples obtained from patients at Sunnybrook, the first hospital in Canada to treat someone with COVID-19. However, the Toronto and Saskatoon isolates are from different patients and so may vary in ways that will be important for scientists looking to detect or target the virus.

They are also different from a version of the virus isolated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and documented in a paper posted online last week. That version is intended to be the reference strain for scientists working in the United States.

I think having multiple virus isolates is incredibly valuable, Dr. Hodgson said. We can see whether one vaccine or therapy works across all the virus strains ... if there are known [genetic] variations.

Dr. Mubareka said that for the Ontario-based team, the process of isolating the virus began with a relatively standard procedure that did not work the first time. Hurdles along the way had to be surmounted with some additional scientific tricks. The group ultimately succeeded in getting the virus to reproduce in animal cells that were engineered to have no immune response and specially treated to enhance the likelihood of infection.

Story continues below advertisement

The first sign that the method was working surfaced when the group spotted plaques in their cell cultures patches of dead cells that were destroyed by the virus.

We did the infection from clinical specimens on a Friday, said Arinjay Banerjee, a postdoctoral researcher at McMaster Universitys Institute for Infection Disease Research. Then to go back on Monday and see all [the] cells dead that was pretty exciting. That was step one.

Dr. Mubareka said that one of the first uses for the isolate would be to act as a control to make sure that tests used by health-care workers to identify the virus are performing as expected. It could also serve as a challenge strain for antiviral drugs and vaccines currently in development.

Karen Mossman, a professor of pathology and molecular medicine at McMaster, said that researchers there would be working with the isolates to better understand details about the biology of COVID-19, including how the virus works to counteract the human immune response.

She added that there was a certain irony in trying so hard to create a virus that everyone else is trying to get rid of.

Dr. Hodgson said the virus isolated in Saskatoon has now been used to establish the virus in ferrets that can be used to test the efficacy of vaccines in living organisms before human clinical trials commence.

Story continues below advertisement

Last week, the western facility received a $1-million grant to advance its work as part of a funding competition organized by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which selected 47 teams working on various aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Ontario collaboration was not among the winners and, until now, a lack of funding has been the teams biggest challenge, Dr. Mubareka said.

On Friday, the federal agency said it would be able to support 49 additional projects with a portion of the $1.1-billion COVID-19 response package announced earlier in the week by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Among them is a proposal by Dr. Mossmans group at McMaster to study the biology of how the virus interacts with its hosts and to model this interaction in laboratory experiments

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the days most important headlines. Sign up today.

Read more:

Two Canadian teams of scientists isolate coronavirus to speed research effort - The Globe and Mail

Henry Ford to expand precision medicine program with help of $25 million donation – ModernHealthcare.com

Henry Ford Health System plans to rapidly expand its life-extending precision medicine program in Detroit after the Jeffries family pledged $25 million to create a specialized center.

The $25 million donation, provided by developer Chris Jeffries and his wife, Lisa, is the largest single gift from individuals in Henry Ford's 105-year history and one of the largest in the nation for a precision medicine program, Henry Ford officials said.

"We are incredibly grateful to Lisa and Chris Jeffries for their generosity," Wright Lassiter III, president and CEO of Henry Ford Health System, said in a statement. "We are experiencing a momentous era in medicine, a radical shift from the traditional approach to cancer care. This gift will help us consolidate and advance our collective efforts to create unprecedented access to advanced, highly personalized treatments for our patients and members."

But in the past three months, precision medicine or precision health, as neurosurgeon Steven Kalkanis, M.D., CEO of the Henry Ford Medical Group, likes to call it is now available for a whole host of new treatments besides those for cancer.

"Hot off the press. There have been animal studies and now clinical studies, only in the last several months, where precision health is ready for prime time and for human beings," said Kalkanis, who also is Henry Ford's chief academic officer.

Over the past decade, precision medicine has been evolving as a new type of medical care that initially focused on treating patients with various forms of cancer, including brain, lung, colon and pancreatic. It works like this: By analyzing patients' own molecular profile and the genetic mutations of their tumors, doctors are able to use the information to develop personalized treatments that could be more effective than standard care.

Doctors are now using precision medicine approaches to treat many other conditions, including cystic fibrosis, asthma, depression, heart disease, autoimmune diseases and multiple sclerosis, Kalkanis said.

"We have a whole era opening up to treat a host of other chronic diseases, using precision medicine to identify patients' molecular profiles, but potentially using existing drugs for everything from asthma to high blood pressure to depression," Kalkanis said. "However, the majority (of precision medicine) is still about designing a tailored drug regimen for individual patients."

Kalkanis said patients with some chronic conditions will one day soon be able to take a blood test and have their molecular profile entered into a database of existing drugs that may be able to match to an existing drug or to new ones being created in real time.

"We have found, in one of our clinical trials, that a (patient had a) rare type of brain cancer with a mutation impacting glucose levels. We used an existing diabetes drug and the patient went into remission," Kalkanis said.

Why the Jeffries donated

Chris Jeffries' father, Gerald was diagnosed with a highly malignant brain tumor in 2001.

Treated initially by neuro-oncologist Tom Mikkelsen and later Kalkanis and the Hermelin Brain Tumor Center team, Gerald was given only nine to 11 months to live, but using a precision medicine approach, he lived another five years until he died in December 2006.

"That meant so much to us. It's impossible to describe," Chris Jeffries said in a statement. Lisa Jeffries also lost her stepfather to cancer.

A native of Flint, Chris Jeffries is co-founder of Millennium Partners, a real estate development company that specializes in mixed-use, urban living and entertainment centers in Boston; San Francisco; Miami; Washington D.C.; Los Angeles; and New York.

Last year, the Jeffries donated $33 million to the University of Michigan Law School, where Chris was a 1974 graduate. The donation is earmarked for student support, including scholarships and other forms of financial aid, summer funding programs, and debt management. It was the largest private donation to the law school in its history, UM said.

Kalkanis said Gerald Jeffries was one of the first cohorts of patients in Henry Ford's personalized medicine program long before it was called precision medicine, in the early 2000s.

"He was enrolled in a clinical trial at Henry Ford 10 to 15 years ago and treated with a novel drug based on his unique cancer characteristics," Kalkanis said. "Because of that, he lived way beyond his life expectancy. The family was very supportive of our program and especially wanted to provide this same hope to others once they learned of the enhanced capability of precision medicine."

Since Gerald Jeffries was treated and Henry Ford developed its precision medicine approach, Kalkanis said there have been a number of patients who have outlived their prognoses. He said doctors can now give patients and families more hope than ever.

"We went through the precision medicine protocol, based on his own unique biomarkers and using a novel drug," he said. "Today these tests have become much more accessible. (For instance), a decade ago, it cost $5,000 (for testing). Now it costs several hundred for the tests" that can lead to the novel, personalized treatment.

Henry Ford's precision medicine program

For years, Henry Ford has been at the forefront of the precision medicine revolution, making world-class, targeted cancer treatments available at its national destination referral center, the Henry Ford Cancer Institute, officials said.

"By analyzing genetic and non-genetic factors, we can gain a better understanding of how a disease forms, progresses and can be treated in a specific patient," Mikkelsen, who is Henry Ford's medical director of the Precision Medicine Program and Clinical Trials Office, said in a statement.

"As of now, we can check for more than 500 genomic markers, which helps us understand the pattern of changes in a patient's tumor cells that influence how cancer grows and spreads," Mikkelsen said. "I'm confident this gift will lead to advancements that provide hope for patients with even the most complex diagnoses."

Kalkanis said the $25 million donation, which is expected to be received over the next several years, will enable Henry Ford to do a number of things.

"It takes investment to build out our biodepository with tissue samples, test them, look for biomarkers and see if (patients are) eligible for certain drugs," Kalkanis said. "We need to design our lab platform that is FDA-approved and recruit the best and brightest scientists and clinicians (specializing in) other cancer types."

Based on the current projection of about four to five chronic diseases and about 10 subspecialties that can be addressed by precision medicine, Kalkanis estimated Henry Ford will recruit two to three scientists and clinicians each year for the next few years.

"We are launching the search process for key researchers and working with the lab and pathology group for tests this calendar year," he said. "We should be up and running over the next year."

Adnan Munkarah, M.D., Henry Ford's executive vice president and chief clinical officer, said taking research in the lab and translating it to patient care is a standard process at Henry Ford.

"(It) is a critical element to help us treat many of the most challenging conditions our patients face," Munkarah said in a statement. "Translational research is bench-to-bedside, meaning it allows patients to benefit from discoveries in real time. That is an essential part of our history and commitment to medicine and academics not only offering the latest innovations in medicine, but also playing a leading role in their development."

Precision medicine is an approach to patient care that allows doctors to select treatments most likely to help patients based on a genetic understanding of their disease.

"The support of our donors is the fuel behind our clinical innovations and the breakthroughs that are improving people's lives," Mary Jane Vogt, Henry Ford's senior vice president and chief development officer, said in a statement. "It is remarkable to work with donors who believe in a better tomorrow and the power of a unified approach to medicine."

The Jeffrieses said they believe Henry Ford will achieve transformational advancements in cancer treatment using precision medicine and personalized treatments.

"The team at Henry Ford is second to none," said Chris Jeffries. "We believe this gift will lead to other families having more time together, as I had with my father. Defeating cancer requires a concerted effort from everyone and we hope to make as big an impact on that goal as possible."

Read the original:

Henry Ford to expand precision medicine program with help of $25 million donation - ModernHealthcare.com

Is there a cure for coronavirus? Why Covid-19 is so hard to treat – Vox.com

In the race to develop a treatment for the rapidly spreading illness Covid-19, dozens of drugs are being tested around the world. Its an urgent mission because the latest data suggests that some 20 percent of people infected have serious illness, and around 1 percent may die.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress on Wednesday that Covid-19 is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu.

The danger stems from the pathogen itself: a virus called SARS-CoV-2.

Teeny tiny viruses are one of the biggest threats that humanity has ever faced. They are behind some of the most devastating pandemics ever known. Even with all of modern medicine, we have only eradicated one virus, smallpox, which required a decades-long global mass vaccination effort.

SARS-CoV-2, the brand new foe, is spreading fast even as entire countries, like Italy, are locking down to prevent its transmission. Estimates of its potential impact vary, but Brian Monahan, the attending physician of the US Congress, told lawmakers Wednesday he expects between 70 million and 150 million people in the US to get infected with the virus over time.

Right now, doctors are using general treatment measures to control the symptoms of Covid-19, but theres not yet a specific vaccine or cure.

Several factors make viruses like SARS-CoV-2 a particularly pernicious threat to humans. The good news is scientists have learned more about how they attack. Theyve also come up with ways to keep some of the deadliest of these tiny germs in check and are slowly inching toward cures. The question now is whether that research will bear fruit in time to blunt the blow of the Covid-19 pandemic and help us get ahead of the next outbreak.

Viruses are the most bizarre germs. Using just a handful of molecules, they assemble into all kinds of tiny shapes, and with just a small set of instructions, they can wreak havoc across entire ecosystems and threaten crop harvests. They can travel between hosts through the air, water, soil, and droplets. They mutate rapidly. And they are truly everywhere, from the oceans to the skies.

Compared to infectious agents like bacteria and fungi, viruses are much smaller and simpler. In fact, viruses can even make other germs sick. Yet theyre so simple that most scientists dont even consider them to be living organisms.

For instance, the poliovirus is just 30 nanometers wide. The SARS-CoV-2 virus behind Covid-19 is about 120 nanometers. Meanwhile, the E. coli bacterium is more than 16 times larger than SARS-CoV-2, and the human red blood cell is 64 times larger. A human cell uses 20,000 different types of proteins. HIV uses just 15. SARS-CoV-2 uses 33.

With all that extra space, larger pathogens like bacteria store the molecular tools they need to make copies of themselves and to fight off infections of their own. These tools are also what make bacteria vulnerable to antibiotics, drugs that interfere with molecular mechanisms in bacteria but not those of human cells, so they have a targeted effect.

But antibiotics dont work on viruses. Thats because viruses dont reproduce on their own. Rather, they invade cells and hijack their hosts machinery to make copies of themselves.

Bacteria are very different from us, so theres a lot of different targets for drugs. Viruses replicate in cells, so they use a lot of the same mechanisms that our cells do, said Diane Griffin, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. So its been harder to find drugs that target the virus but dont damage the cell as well.

Theres also a huge variety of viruses, and they mutate quickly, so tailored treatments and vaccines against a virus can lose effectiveness over time.

Another factor that makes viruses so difficult to treat is how our bodies respond to them. Once the immune system detects a virus, it makes antibodies. These are proteins that attach to a virus or a virus-infected cell, marking it for destruction or preventing it from infecting new cells.

The problem is that a virus can cause a lot of damage and infect other people before the immune system readies its defenses. When those defenses kick in, they can cause other problems like fever and inflammation. And by the time these symptoms show up, the virus may already be in decline, or it may be too late to act.

Often at the time that virus diseases present themselves, its fairly far into the replication of that virus in that person, Griffin said. Many symptoms of the virus disease are actually manifestations of the immune response to the disease, so often things are sort of starting to get better at the time that you actually even figure out somebody has a virus infection.

Researchers use two broad strategies to combat viral infections: slowing down the damage from the virus, and speeding up and strengthening the bodys countermeasures.

Antiviral drugs are one approach to slowing down viruses. Like antibiotics, these are drugs that hamper the virus without causing much collateral damage. The majority of antivirals are targeting the viruses [themselves]. That means the components of the viruses, the viral enzymes, the surface proteins, said Pei-Yong Shi, a biochemistry and molecular biology professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch. By attacking different parts of the virus, antiviral compounds can prevent a virus from entering cells or they can interfere with its reproduction.

For example, remdesivir, under development by Gilead Sciences, is being studied as a way to treat Covid-19. It works by blocking the SARS-CoV-2 virus from copying its genetic material, RNA, the instructions the virus uses to replicate itself. Remdesivir resembles a component of RNA, but when its taken up by the virus, it causes the copying process to stop. Crucially, remdesivir fools the virus, but not human cells.

Protease inhibitors are another class of antiviral drugs, like lopinavir and ritonavir used to treat HIV (the -vir suffix is used to denote an antiviral drug, similar to how -cillin denotes an antibiotic). These compounds block an enzyme in the virus that normally trims proteins down, allowing the virus to infect other cells. When the enzyme is blocked, the virus doesnt mature properly, rendering it inert.

Researchers are also studying how to use antibodies to a given virus collected from engineered animals or from people previously infected with the same virus. By administering antibodies as a treatment, the recipients immune system can get a head start on identifying and eliminating the viral threat rather than waiting to build up its own antibodies.

There are also drugs like interferons that trigger a general immune response. These are a series of signaling molecules that make cells in the body more resistant to infection, inhibiting the spread of a virus while the rest of the immune system catches up. Its mainly used to control persistent infections like hepatitis B.

But interferons can have severe side effects like inflammation, so it requires fine-tuning to treat a virus without doing more harm than good. Doctors have used interferon with other antiviral drugs to treat Covid-19 in China and researchers are investigating this approach as another potential therapy.

Doctors can also use a number of different therapies to limit the immune systems response to viruses, like fever and inflammation, which can sometimes cause more damage to a patient than the virus itself. Anti-inflammatory drugs like corticosteroids and chloroquine are often used to lessen these symptoms.

And there are also vaccines for some viruses and efforts to develop new ones. These are treatments that coach the immune system to detect and fight off a virus before an infection takes place. These are powerful tools for controlling viruses across an entire population, but theyre tricky to optimize for a rapidly changing pathogen, and they require extensive, time-consuming testing to ensure they are safe for a wide segment of the population.

However, even if effective treatments enter the market, the virus will likely remain a threat. As weve learned with influenza (another respiratory disease caused by viruses), despite updated vaccines, new treatments, and a long history of public health responses, there are still between 12,000 and 60,000 flu deaths each year in the US. Covid-19 could remain a persistent threat, too.

To be clear, the best way to fight a virus is to prevent infections in the first place. And that depends on public health measures during an outbreak, like quarantines and social distancing, as well as personal tactics like robust, 20-second hand-washing with soap.

While there is a large and growing body of research on drugs to control viruses, they are still few and far between. We dont have that many antiviral drugs for acute infections, Griffin said. You often dont have any choice except to let it run its course.

Developing new drugs can take years of testing, and by then, an outbreak may have faded, or another more threatening pathogen may have emerged. Even viruses for which we do have antiviral drugs, like influenza, the illness often isnt detected in time to make it worth the treatment.

Other viruses like HIV can be controlled with drugs, but not eliminated, as hidden reservoirs of the virus remain in the body.

And within a population, there are always people who are more susceptible to infections, like people with depressed immune systems. For them, treatments and vaccines may not work, so they depend on the people around them to be immunized and to take proper infection control procedures.

All of which brings us back to prevention as the most effective way to combat viruses within a population. That means global coordinated action can be one of the best strategies to control the smallest pathogens. And simple tools like soap and water can be more effective at fighting a pandemic than the best drugs.

Read more here:

Is there a cure for coronavirus? Why Covid-19 is so hard to treat - Vox.com

ERYTECH Announces the Appointment of Dr. Melanie Rolli to its Board of Directors – GlobeNewswire

LYON, France and CAMBRIDGE, Mass. , March 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ERYTECH Pharma (Nasdaq & Euronext: ERYP), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative therapies by encapsulating therapeutic drug substances inside red blood cells, today announced the appointment of Melanie Rolli, M.D., to its Board of Directors and the intention to propose the ratification of her appointment at ERYTECHs next General Meeting of Shareholders. Dr. Rolli has more than 15 years of experience in the global biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, including in both Europe and the United States. Dr. Rollis appointment follows the resignation of Allene Diaz, who resigned from the Board effective September 30, 2019.

We are very pleased to welcome Melanie to our Board of Directors, commented Dr Jean-Paul Kress, Chairman of the Board of ERYTECH Pharma.We look forward to working with her to develop ERYTECHs business plans and strategy as ERYTECH advances its late-stage clinical programs and begins preparations for its transition into a commercial-stage company.

I am delighted to be joining ERYTECHs Board of Directors, said Dr. Rolli. It is an exciting time for ERYTECH as its lead product eryaspase is progressing through a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in one of the largest unmet medical needs in oncology. I look forward to working closely with the Board and leadership team in supporting the Companys plans.

Dr. Rolli currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of PIQUR Therapeutics AG, a Basel, Switzerland-based clinical stage biotechology company dedicated to drug development of targeted therapies in various oncological and dermatological indications. Previously, she was at Novartis Pharmaceuticals AG for 14 years, where she held positions of increasing responsibilities across the Drug Development, Safety, and Medical Affairs functions. At Novartis, she spent eight years in the United States in global and local positions as the Medical Director in Primary Care, Respiratory, Womens Health and Dermatology and Oncology franchises.

Prior to joining Novartis, she worked as a post-doctoral cancer research physician at SCRIPPS Research Institute for Molecular and Experimental Medicine in La Jolla, California, and as a clinicial and researcher in Germany.

Dr. Rolli graduated from the University of Heidelberg with a doctorate in medicine and pharmacology.

About ERYTECH and eryaspase: http://www.erytech.com

ERYTECH is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative red blood cell-based therapeutics for severe forms of cancer and orphan diseases. Leveraging its proprietary ERYCAPS platform, which uses a novel technology to encapsulate drug substances inside red blood cells, ERYTECH is developing a pipeline of product candidates for patients with high unmet medical needs. ERYTECHs primary focus is on the development of product candidates that target the altered metabolism of cancer cells by depriving them of amino acids necessary for their growth and survival.

The Companys lead product candidate, eryaspase, which consists of L-asparaginase encapsulated inside donor-derived red blood cells, targets the cancer cells altered asparagine and glutamine metabolism. Eryaspase is in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of second-line pancreatic cancer and in Phase 2 for the treatment of first-line triple-negative breast cancer. An investigator-sponsored Phase 2 study in second-line acute lymphoblastic leukemia is ongoing in the Nordic countries of Europe.

ERYTECH produces its product candidates for treatment of patients in Europe at its GMP-approved manufacturing site inLyon, France, and for patients in the United States at its recently opened GMP manufacturing site in Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

ERYTECH is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market inthe United States(ticker: ERYP) and on theEuronext regulated market inParis(ISIN code: FR0011471135, ticker: ERYP). ERYTECH is part of the CACHealthcare, CAC Pharma & Bio, CAC Mid & Small, CAC All Tradable, EnterNext PEA-PME 150 and Next Biotech indexes.

Forward-looking information

This press release contains forward-looking statements with respect to the clinical development plans of eryaspase, including ERYTECHs plans for transition into a commercial-stage company. Certain of these statements, forecasts and estimates can be recognized by the use of words such as, without limitation, believes, anticipates, expects, intends, plans, seeks, estimates, may, will and continue and similar expressions. All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding the ERYTECHs business strategy including its clinical development of eryaspase; the status of the TRYbeCA1 trial including the timeline for patient enrollment, expansion of trial into the United States and intended activities with respect to the interim analysis; the potential of ERYTECHs product pipeline; the timing of ERYTECHs preclinical studies and clinical trials and announcements of data from those studies and trials; ERYTECHs anticipated manufacturing capacity and ability to meet future demand and ERYTECHs anticipated cash runway and sufficiency of cash resources. Such statements, forecasts and estimates are based on various assumptions and assessments of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which were deemed reasonable when made but may or may not prove to be correct. Actual events are difficult to predict and may depend upon factors that are beyond ERYTECH's control. There can be no guarantees with respect to pipeline product candidates that the candidates will receive the necessary regulatory approvals or that they will prove to be commercially successful. Therefore, actual results may turn out to be materially different from the anticipated future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements, forecasts and estimates. Further description of these risks, uncertainties and other risks can be found in the Companys regulatory filings with the French Autorit des Marchs Financiers (AMF), the Companys Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and reports, including in the Companys 2018 Document de Rfrence filed with the AMF in March 2019 and in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC on March 29, 2019 and future filings and reports by the Company. Given these uncertainties, no representations are made as to the accuracy or fairness of such forward-looking statements, forecasts and estimates. Furthermore, forward-looking statements, forecasts and estimates only speak as of the date of this press release. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements. ERYTECH disclaims any obligation to update any such forward-looking statement, forecast or estimates to reflect any change in ERYTECHs expectations with regard thereto, or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement, forecast or estimate is based, except to the extent required by law.

CONTACTS

PDF available at:http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/63f70169-8d48-4ddc-9041-58214b1e6c00

The rest is here:

ERYTECH Announces the Appointment of Dr. Melanie Rolli to its Board of Directors - GlobeNewswire

Call for Papers: International Conference on Molecular Imaging and Clinical PETCT in November – International Atomic Energy Agency

Interested participants have until 27 April 2020 to submit abstracts for the IAEA International Conference on Molecular Imaging and Clinical PETCT (IPET-2020), to be held in Vienna, Austria, from 23 November to 27 November 2020.

The conference will focus on theranostics, a patient-centred and personalized form of care, coupling diagnostics and therapy, which enables medical professionals to focus on the specific needs of individual patients.

The meeting, in which participation is free, will include presentations as well as interactive sessions and free discussions with top experts in the field. Participants will be able to earn continuing medical education (CME) credits, and virtual attendees can officially register to the livestream and take brief quizzes using the conference app after individual sessions to earn some CME credits too. Up to 100 conference abstracts will be published on the conference webpage on iaea.org.

IPET-2020 will focus on theranostics which is a major topic in global health that allows us to provide personalized care tailored to the specific needs of the patient, said Diana Paez, Head of the Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging Section at the IAEA. Participants will have the opportunity to attend in person, as well as virtually, to learn about advances in the field, the challenges faced by countries to address theranostic applications and future developments and trends.

IPET-2020 is the fourth conference of its kind; it follows three earlier conferences organized by the IAEA in 2007, 2011 and 2015. It will bring together about 500 nuclear medicine physicians, radiologists, oncologists and medical physicists from around the world. It will be a unique chance for nuclear medicine physicians and scientists working in all aspects of molecular imaging to showcase their research and create lasting connections with their colleagues from all over the globe, Paez said.

IPET-2020 provides a unique platform for professionals in medical imaging to come together and exchange experiences from their clinical work and learn how things are being done in different countries since theranostics is a field that is rapidly evolving and increasingly relevant for all of us globally, said Stefano Fanti, Director of the Nuclear Medicine Division at the St. Orsola-MalpighiUniversity Hospital in Bologna and lecturer for IPET-2020.

In addition to its focus on theranostic applications, IPET-2020 will cover the latest developments in imaging devices, radiopharmaceuticals and radio-guided surgery. Special sessions on ethics and leadership will provide an opportunity for participants to learn about the tools needed to prepare themselves for leadership in their respective professions.

An exhibition, where companies and professional organizations will be demonstrating their cutting-edge technologies, will take place alongside the sessions of the conference.

See more here:

Call for Papers: International Conference on Molecular Imaging and Clinical PETCT in November - International Atomic Energy Agency

In-Person Class Cancellations Halt Undergraduate Research on Campus – Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

Undergraduate students in the biological sciences honors program were informed on Wednesday afternoon that they will officially not be allowed to work in laboratories starting March 28, the deadline the University set after which all classes must be held online.

As a part of the honors program, students conduct novel, independent research and then write a formal honors thesis in a specific field of study. As a result of the disruption, participants should plan to collect as much data as possible before spring break, according to an email sent by Laura Schoenle, coordinator of undergraduate research and honors.

Even though aspects of the course will be cut short, students enrolled in Biology 4990: Independent Research in Biology, will receive full credit.

If you are enrolled in BIOG 4990, you will be able to receive full credit for the course, as we will have passed the 60% time point in the semester when we reach spring break, Schoenle wrote in an email to biological sciences honors students.

The decision was made in line with the Department of Educations guidelines for assigning credit in case of a disruption in instruction.

Although students living in off-campus housing may be inclined to continue working on their research projects, Cornell has discouraged working in research labs after March 27.

I was informed yesterday that Cornell does not want undergrads to continue working in research labs after March 27 even if you are living in off-campus housing and you plan to stay here in Ithaca, said Scott D. Emr, director of the Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, in an email to Weill Institute undergraduate students.

After March 27, honors students are encouraged to work with their laboratory research mentors to continue any data analysis and finish their theses remotely. The timeline for the program will remain the same, with students expected to submit their final papers to their group leader and committee for review by mid-April.

However, honors poster sessions to be held in May have been cancelled and the presentation requirement for honors will also be waived, according to Scheonle.

I realize these are challenging and stressful times. Please know that the entire university community, including the Bio Sci Honors Committee, has your best interests at heart, and respects the great efforts honors students put towards their research, Scheonle wrote.

The change in honors thesis policies sparked a variety of responses from students.

Natalie Brown 20, a Biology and Society major, works in Prof. Minglin Mas lab, biological and environmental engineering, pursuing an honors thesis project that investigates therapeutic approaches for diabetes.

I definitely understand that the decisions to cancel classes and close campus were made with consideration, but research isnt something you can just immediately pull out of, Brown said, who, like many students, acknowledged the necessity of the move while struggling to grapple with the effects of it.

Pooja Reddy 20 is a molecular and cell biology major that conducts research in Prof. Ankur Singhs lab, mechanical and aerospace engineering. For her honors thesis project, Reddy is studying how underlying health conditions, like metabolic syndrome, affect the effectiveness of vaccines.

In response to class cancellations, Reddy expressed concerns over finishing her experiments in time.

I planned on completing my experiments over the next 4 weeks to have them ready for my final thesis draft, but now I need to scramble to fit them all in two weeks, Reddy said. Having to do this while also saying goodbye to all my friends is super overwhelming and upsetting.

Claire Malkin 20, a computational biology major, works in Prof. Toshi Kawates lab, molecular medicine, studying the structure of a protein membrane receptor linked to chronic pain.

I was lucky to have just finished a lot of my data analysis so Im hoping that I can do work remotely, she said. [But] it is upsetting that we dont get to present our work, and its definitely harder to get feedback and continue work in the lab.

Even though Brown expressed frustration that many of us were planning to finish getting all of the data wed like to have during or after Spring Break, she appreciated steps being taken to accommodate undergraduates in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

I respect that measures are being taken to address the severity of this pandemic, and Im happy that we are still able to submit our theses for consideration at all, Brown said.

Whether these announced changes pertaining to biological sciences honors students will affect all undergraduate students doing research remains unclear.

For now, there is no specific guidance for students living off-campus, wrote Bill Loftus, director of administration for the Weill Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology, in an email sent to students and employees at the Weill Institute on Wednesday night. Presently, we do not know if undergrads can continue working in Institute labs after April 6. We are waiting for further clarification from the University.

Prof. Julia Thom-Levy, vice provost for academic innovation, did not respond for comment by the time of publication.

See the original post:

In-Person Class Cancellations Halt Undergraduate Research on Campus - Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

New drugs are costly and unmet need is growing – The Economist

Mar 12th 2020

BEING ABLE to see all the details of the genome at once necessarily makes medicine personal. It can also make it precise. Examining illness molecule by molecule allows pharmaceutical researchers to understand the pathways through which cells act according to the dictates of genes and environment, thus seeing deep into the mechanisms by which diseases cause harm, and finding new workings to target. The flip side of this deeper understanding is that precision brings complexity. This is seen most clearly in cancer. Once, cancers were identified by cell and tissue type. Now they are increasingly distinguished by their specific genotype that reveals which of the panoply of genes that can make a cell cancerous have gone wrong in this one. As drugs targeted against those different mutations have multiplied, so have the options for oncologists to combine them to fit their patients needs.

Cancer treatment has been the most obvious beneficiary of the genomic revolution but other diseases, including many in neurology, are set to benefit, too. Some scientists now think there are five different types of diabetes rather than two. There is an active debate about whether Parkinsons is one disease that varies a lot, or four. Understanding this molecular variation is vital when developing treatments. A drug that works well on one subtype of a disease might fail in a trial that includes patients with another subtype against which it does not work at all.

Thus how a doctor treats a disease depends increasingly on which version of the disease the patient has. The Personalised Medicine Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group, examines new drugs approved in America to see whether they require such insights in order to be used. In 2014, it found that so-called personalised medicines made up 21% of the drugs newly approved for use by Americas Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2018 the proportion was twice that.

Two of those cited were particularly interesting: Vitrakvi (larotrectinib), developed by Loxo Oncology, a biotech firm, and Onpattro (patisiran), developed by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Vitrakvi is the first to be approved from the start as tumour agnostic: it can be used against any cancer that displays the mutant protein it targets. Onpattro, which is used to treat peripheral-nerve damage, is the first of a new class of drugssmall interfering RNAs, or siRNAsto be approved. Like antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), siRNAs are little stretches of nucleic acid that stop proteins from being made, though they use a different mechanism.

Again like ASOs, siRNAs allow you to target aspects of a disease that are beyond the reach of customary drugs. Until recently, drugs were either small molecules made with industrial chemistry or bigger ones made with biologynormally with genetically engineered cells. If they had any high level of specificity, it was against the actions of a particular protein, or class of proteins. Like other new techniques, including gene therapies and anti-sense drugs, siRNAs allow the problem to be tackled further upstream, before there is any protein to cause a problem.

Take the drugs that target the liver enzyme PCSK9. This has a role in maintaining levels of bad cholesterol in the blood; it is the protein that was discovered through studies of families in which congenitally high cholesterol levels led to lots of heart attacks. The first generation of such drugs were antibodies that stuck to the enzyme and stopped it working. However, the Medicines Company, a biotech firm recently acquired by Novartis, won approval last year for an siRNA called inclisiran that interferes with the expression of the gene PCSK9thus stopping the pesky protein from being made in the first place. Inclisiran needs to be injected only twice a year, rather than once a month, as antibodies do.

New biological insights, new ways of analysing patients and their disease and new forms of drug are thus opening up a wide range of therapeutic possibilities. Unfortunately, that does not equate to a range of new profitable opportunities.

Thanks in part to ever better diagnosis, there are now 7,000 conditions recognised as rare diseases in America, meaning that the number of potential patients is less than 200,000. More than 90% of these diseases have no approved treatment. These are the diseases that personalised, precision medicine most often goes after. Nearly 60% of the personalised medicines approved by the FDA in 2018 were for rare diseases.

Zolgensma is the most expensive drug ever brought to market.

That might be fine, were the number of diseases stable. But precision in diagnosis is increasingly turning what used to be single diseases into sets of similar-looking ones brought about by distinctly different mechanisms, and thus needing different treatment. And new diseases are still being discovered. Medical progress could, in short, produce more new diseases than new drugs, increasing unmet need.

Some of it will, eventually, be met. For one thing, there are government incentives in America and Europe for the development of drugs for rare diseases. And, especially in America, drugs for rare diseases have long been able to command premium prices. Were this not the case, Novartis would not have paid $8.7bn last year to buy AveXis, a small biotech firm, thereby acquiring Zolgensma, a gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Most people with SMA lack a working copy of a gene, SMN1, which the nerve cells that control the bodys muscles need to survive. Zolgensma uses an empty virus-like particle that recognises nerve cells to deliver working copies of the gene to where it is needed. Priced at $2.1m per patient, it is the most expensive drug ever brought to market. That dubious accolade might not last long. BioMarin, another biotech firm, is considering charging as much as $3m for a forthcoming gene therapy for haemophilia.

Drug firms say such treatments are economically worthwhile over the lifetime of the patient. Four-fifths of children with the worst form of SMA die before they are four. If, as is hoped, Zolgensma is a lasting cure, then its high cost should be set against a half-century or more of life. About 200 patients had been treated in America by the end of 2019.

But if some treatments for rare diseases may turn a profit, not all will. There are some 6,000 children with SMA in America. There are fewer than ten with Jansens disease. When Dr Nizar asked companies to help develop a treatment for it, she says she was told your disease is not impactful. She wrote down the negative responses to motivate herself: Every day I need to remind myself that this is bullshit.

A world in which markets shrink, drug development gets costlier and new unmet needs are ceaselessly discovered is a long way from the utopian future envisaged by the governments and charities that paid for the sequencing of all those genomes and the establishment of the worlds biobanks. As Peter Bach, director of the Centre for Health Policy and Outcomes, an academic centre in New York, puts it with a degree of understatement: if the world needs to spend as much to develop a drug for 2,000 people as it used to spend developing one for 100,000, the population-level returns from medical research are sharply diminishing.

And it is not as if the costs of drug development have been constant. They have gone up. What Jack Scannell, a consultant and former pharmaceutical analyst at UBS, a bank, has dubbed Erooms lawEroom being Moore, backwardsshows the number of drugs developed for a given amount of R&D spending has fallen inexorably, even as the amount of biological research skyrocketed. Each generation assumes that advances in science will make drugs easier to discover; each generation duly advances science; each generation learns it was wrong.

For evidence, look at the way the arrival of genomics in the 1990s lowered productivity in drug discovery. A paper in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery by Sarah Duggers from Columbia University and colleagues argues that it brought a wealth of new leads that were difficult to prioritise. Spending rose to accommodate this boom; attrition rates for drugs in development subsequently rose because the candidates were not, in general, all that good.

Today, enthused by their big-science experience with the genome and enabled by new tools, biomedical researchers are working on exhaustive studies of all sorts of other omes, including proteomesall the proteins in a cell or body; microbiomesthe non-pathogenic bacteria living in the mouth, gut, skin and such; metabolomessnapshots of all the small molecules being built up and broken down in the body; and connectomes, which list all the links in a nervous system. The patterns they find will doubtless produce new discoveries. But they will not necessarily, in the short term, produce the sort of clear mechanistic understanding which helps create great new drugs. As Dr Scannell puts it: We have treated the diseases with good experimental models. Whats left are diseases where experiments dont replicate people. Data alone canot solve the problem.

Daphne Koller, boss of Insitro, a biotech company based in San Francisco, shares Dr Scannells scepticism about the way drug discovery has been done. A lot of candidate drugs fail, she says, because they aim for targets that are not actually relevant to the biology of the condition involved. Instead researchers make decisions based on accepted rules of thumb, gut instincts or a ridiculous mouse model that has nothing to do with what is actually going on in the relevant human diseaseeven if it makes a mouse look poorly in a similar sort of way.

But she also thinks that is changing. Among the things precision biology has improved over the past five to 10 years have been the scientists own tools. Gene-editing technologies allow genes to be changed in various ways, including letter by letter; single-cell analysis allows the results to be looked at as they unfold. These edited cells may be much more predictive of the effects of drugs than previous surrogates. Organoidsself-organised, three-dimensional tissue cultures grown from human stem cellsoffer simplified but replicable versions of the brain, pancreas, lung and other parts of the body in which to model diseases and their cures.

Insitro is editing changes into stem cellswhich can grow into any other tissueand tracking the tissues they grow into. By measuring differences in the development of very well characterised cells which differ in precisely known ways the company hopes to build more accurate models of disease in living cells. All this work is automated, and carried out on such a large scale that Dr Koller anticipates collecting many petabytes of data before using machine learning to make sense of it. She hopes to create what Dr Scannell complains biology lacks and what drug designers need: predictive models of how genetic changes drive functional changes.

There are also reasons to hope that the new upstream drugsASOs, siRNAs, perhaps even some gene therapiesmight have advantages over todays therapies when it comes to small-batch manufacture. It may also prove possible to streamline much of the testing that such drugs go through. Virus-based gene-therapy vectors and antisense drugs are basically platforms from which to deliver little bits of sequence data. Within some constraints, a platform already approved for carrying one message might be fast-tracked through various safety tests when it carries another.

One more reason for optimism is that drugs developed around a known molecule that marks out a diseasea molecular markerappear to be more successful in trials. The approval process for cancer therapies aimed at the markers of specific mutations is often much shorter now than it used to be. Tagrisso (osimertinib), an incredibly specialised drug, targets a mutation known to occur only in patients already treated for lung cancer with an older drug. Being able to specify the patients who stand to benefit with this degree of accuracy allows trials to be smaller and quicker. Tagrisso was approved less than two years and nine months after the first dose was given to a patient.

With efforts to improve the validity of models of disease and validate drug targets accurately gaining ground, Dr Scannell says he is sympathetic to the proposal that, this time, scientific innovation might improve productivity. Recent years have seen hints that Erooms law is being bent, if not yet broken.

If pharmaceutical companies do not make good on the promise of these new approaches then charities are likely to step in, as they have with various ASO treatments for inherited diseases. And they will not be shackled to business models that see the purpose of medicine as making drugs. The Gates Foundation and Americas National Institutes of Health are investing $200m towards developing treatments based on rewriting genes that could be used to tackle sickle-cell disease and HIVtreatments that have to meet the proviso of being useful in poor-country clinics. Therapies in which cells are taken out of the body, treated in some way and returned might be the basis of a new sort of business, one based around the ability to make small machines that treat individuals by the bedside rather than factories which produce drugs in bulk.

There is room in all this for individuals with vision; there is also room for luck: Dr Nizar has both. Her problem lies in PTH1R, a hormone receptor; her PTH1R gene makes a form of it which is jammed in the on position. This means her cells are constantly doing what they would normally do only if told to by the relevant hormone. A few years ago she learned that a drug which might turn the mutant receptor off (or at least down a bit) had already been characterisedbut had not seemed worth developing.

The rabbit, it is said, outruns the fox because the fox is merely running for its dinner, while the rabbit is running for its life. Dr Nizars incentives outstrip those of drug companies in a similar way. By working with the FDA, the NIH and Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr Nizar helped get a grant to make enough of the drug for toxicology studies. She will take it herself, in the first human trial, in about a years time. After that, if things go well, her childrens pain may finally be eased.

This article appeared in the Technology Quarterly section of the print edition under the headline "Kill or cure?"

See original here:

New drugs are costly and unmet need is growing - The Economist

Repurposed drugs may help scientists fight the new coronavirus – Science News

As the new coronavirus makes its way around the world, doctors and researchers are searching for drugs to treat the ill and stop the spread of the disease, which has already killed more than 3,800 people since its introduction in Wuhan, China, in December.

The culprit virus is in the same family as the coronavirusesthat caused two other outbreaks, severe acute respiratory syndrome and MiddleEast respiratory syndrome. But the new coronavirus may be more infectious. Inearly March, the number of confirmed cases of the new disease, called COVID-19,had exceeded 100,000, far surpassing the more than 10,600 combined total casesof SARS and MERS.

Health officials are mainly relying on quarantines to try tocontain the virus spread. Such low-tech public health measures were effectiveat stopping SARS in 2004, Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. NationalInstitute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said January 29 in Arlington,Va., at the annual American Society for Microbiologys Biothreats meeting.

But stopping the new virus may require a more aggressive approach. In China alone, about 300 clinical trials are in the works to treat sick patients with standard antiviral therapies, such as interferons, as well as stem cells, traditional Chinese medicines including acupuncture, and blood plasma from people who have already recovered from the virus.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Researchers are not stopping there. They also are working to develop drugs to treat infections and vaccines to prevent them (SN: 3/14/20, p. 6). But creating therapies against new diseases often takes years, if not decades. With this new coronavirus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, nobody wants to wait that long. Thanks to their experience developing treatments against the MERS coronavirus, as well as other diseases, such as HIV, hepatitis C, influenza, Ebola and malaria, researchers are moving quickly to see what they can borrow to help patients sooner.

Finding new uses for old drugs is a good strategy,especially when racing to fight a fast-moving disease for which there is notreatment, says Karla Satchell, a microbiologist and immunologist atNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.

Repurposing drugs is absolutely the best thing that could happen right now, Satchell says. Potentially, drugs that combat HIV or hepatitis C might be able to put the new coronavirus in check, too. Those drugs exist. Theyve been produced. Theyve been tested in patients, she says. Although these drugs arent approved to treat the new coronavirus disease, theyre a great place to start. One of the most promising candidates, however, hasnt yet been approved for any disease.

Scientists have been quick to reveal the new coronavirussecrets. When SARS emerged in 2002, researchers took about five months to get acomplete picture of the viruss genetic makeup, or genome. With the new virus,Chinese health officials first reported a cluster of mysterious pneumonia casesin Wuhan to the World Health Organization on December 31. By January 10, thenew coronaviruss full genome was made available to researchers worldwide inpublic databases.

A viruss genome is one of the most valuable toolsscientists have for understanding where the pathogen came from, how it worksand how to fight it. The first thing that coronaviruses have in common is thattheir genetic material is RNA, a chemical cousin to DNA.

Researchers immediately began comparing the newcoronaviruss genome with SARS and MERS viruses and other RNA viruses todetermine whether drugs developed to combat those disease-causing organismswould work against the new threat. As a result, some potential Achilles heelsof SARS-CoV-2 have already come to light.

One target is the viruss main protein-cutting enzyme,called M protease. RNA viruses often make one long string of proteins thatlater get cut into individual proteins to form various parts of the virus. Inthe new coronavirus, the M protease is one of 16 proteins that are linked likebeads on a string, says Stephen Burley, an oncologist and structural biologistat Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

The virus can mature and infect new cells only if M proteasecan snip the string of proteins free, he says. Stop the protease from cuttingand the virus cant reproduce, or replicate.

Existing drugs might be able to stop the viruss M protease, two research groups proposed online January 29 at bioRxiv.org. One group suggested four drugs, including one used to treat hepatitis C and two aimed at HIV. A second group named 10candidates, including an anti-nausea medication, an antifungal drug and some cancer-fighting drugs.

HIV and hepatitis C are both RNA viruses that need aprotease to cut proteins free from long chains. Drugs that inhibit thoseproteases can reduce levels of the HIV and hepatitis C viruses to undetectable.Some of those drugs are now being tested against the new coronavirus inclinical trials in China.

The HIV drug Kaletra, also called Aluvia, is a combination of two protease inhibitors, lopinavir and ritonavir. Kaletras maker, the global pharmaceutical company AbbVie, announced on January 26 that it is donating the drug to be tested in COVID-19 patients in China. Kaletra will be tested alone or in combination with other drugs. For instance, researchers may combine Kaletra with Arbidol, a drug that prevents some viruses from fusing with and infecting human cells. Arbidol may be tested on its own as well.

But the HIV drugs may not work against the new virus because of two differences in the proteases. The coronavirus protease cuts proteins in different spots than the HIV protease does, say Guangdi Li of the Xiangya School of Public Health of Central South University in Changsha, China, and Erik De Clercq, a pioneer in HIV therapy at KU Leuven in Belgium. Secondly, the HIV drugs were designed to fit a pocket in HIVs protease that doesnt exist in the new coronaviruss protease, the researchers reported February 10 in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

Yet a few anecdotal accounts suggest the HIV drugs may help people with COVID-19 recover. Doctors at Rajavithi Hospital in Bangkok reported in a news briefing February 2 that they had treated a severely ill 70-year-old woman with high doses of a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir and the anti-influenza drug oseltamivir, which is sold as Tamiflu. Within 48 hours of treatment, the woman tested negative for the virus.

Her recovery may be due more to the HIV drugs than to oseltamivir. In 124 patients treated with oseltamivir at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, no effective outcomes were observed, doctors reported on February 7 in JAMA. Clinical trials in which these drugs are given to more people in carefully controlled conditions are needed to determine what to make of those isolated reports.

Researchers may be able to exploit a second weakness in thevirus: its copying process, specifically the enzymes known as RNA-dependent RNApolymerases that the virus uses to make copies of its RNA. Those enzymes areabsolutely essential, says Mark Denison, an evolutionary biologist atVanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville. If the enzyme doesntwork, you cant make new virus.

Denison and colleagues have been testing molecules that muckwith the copying machinery of RNA viruses. The molecules mimic the nucleotidesthat RNA polymerases string together to make viral genomes. Researchers havetested chemically altered versions of two RNA nucleotides adenosine andcytidine against a wide variety of RNA viruses in test tubes and in animals.The molecules get incorporated into the viral RNA and either stop it fromgrowing or they damage it by introducing mutations, Denison says.

One of the molecules that researchers are most excited aboutis an experimental drug called remdesivir. The drug is being tested in peoplewith COVID-19 because it can stop the MERS virus in the lab and in animalstudies. The drug has also been used in patients with Ebola, another RNA virus.

Remdesivir has been given to hundreds of people infected with Ebola, without causing serious side effects, but the drug hasnt been as effective as scientists had hoped, virologist Timothy Sheahan of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said January 29 at the Biothreats meeting. In a clinical trial in Congo, for example, about 53 percent of Ebola patients treated with remdesivir died, researchers reported November 27 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Thats better than the 66 percent of infected people killed in the ongoing Ebola outbreak, but other drugs in the trial were more effective.

Several tests of remdesivir in lab animals infected with MERS have researchers still hopeful when it comes to the new coronavirus. In studies in both rhesus macaques and mice, remdesivir protected animals from lung damage whether the drug was given before or after infection. Molecular pathologist Emmie de Wit of NIAIDs Laboratory of Virology in Hamilton, Mont., and colleagues reported the monkey results February 13 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Remdesivir appears to be one of the most promisingantiviral treatments tested in a nonhuman primate model to date, the teamwrote. The results also suggest remdesivir given before infection might helpprotect health care workers and family members of infected people from gettingsevere forms of the disease, Sheahan says.

Denison, Sheahan and colleagues tested remdesivir on infected human lung cells in the lab and in mice infected with MERS. Remdesivir was more potent at stopping the MERS virus than HIV drugs and interferon-beta, the researchers reported January 10 in Nature Communications.

But the question is still open about whether remdesivir canstop the new coronavirus.

In lab tests, it can. Both remdesivir and the antimalaria drug chloroquine inhibited the new viruss ability to infect and grow in monkey cells, virologist Manli Wang of the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and colleagues reported February 4 in Cell Research. Remdesivir also stopped the virus from growing in human cells. Chloroquine can block infections by interfering with the ability of some viruses including coronaviruses to enter cells. Wang and colleagues found that the drug could also limit growth of the new coronavirus if given after entry. Chloroquine also may help the immune system fight the virus without the kind of overreaction that can lead to organ failure, the researchers propose.

In China, remdesivir is already being tested in patients. And NIAID announced February 25 that it had launched a clinical trial of remdesivir at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The first enrolled patient was an American evacuated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan that had been quarantined in February because of a COVID-19 outbreak.

Ultimately, nearly 400 sick people at 50 centers around theworld will participate in the NIAID trial, which will compare remdesivir with aplacebo. The trial may be stopped or altered to add other drugs depending onresults from the first 100 or so patients, says Andre Kalil, an infectiousdisease physician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Researchers considered many potential therapies, but basedon results from the animal and lab studies, remdesivir seemed to be the onethat was more promising, Kalil says.

In the early patient studies, figuring out when to give remdesivirto patients might not be easy, Sheahan says. Often drugs are tested on thesickest patients. For example, those in the NIAID trial must have pneumonia toparticipate. By the time someone lands in the intensive care unit withCOVID-19, it may be too late for remdesivir to combat the virus, Sheahan says.It may turn out that the drug works best earlier in the disease, before viralreplication peaks.

We dont know because it hasnt really been evaluated inpeople how remdesivir will work, or if it will work at all, Sheahan cautions.

The drug seems to have helped a 35-year-old man in Snohomish County, Wash., researchers reported January 31 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The man had the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States. He developed pneumonia, and doctors treated him with intravenous remdesivir. By the next day, he was feeling better and was taken off supplemental oxygen.

Thats just one case, and the company that makes remdesivirhas urged caution. Remdesivir is not yet licensed or approved anywhereglobally and has not been demonstrated to be safe or effective for any use,the drugs maker, biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, headquartered inFoster City, Calif., said in a statement on January 31.

But global health officials are eager to see the drug testedin people. Theres only one drug right now that we think may have realefficacy, and thats remdesivir, WHOs assistant director-general BruceAylward said during a news briefing on February 24. But researchers in Chinaare having trouble recruiting patients into remdesivir studies, partly becausethe number of cases has been waning and partly because too many trials ofless-promising candidates are being offered. We have got to start prioritizingenrollment into those things that may save lives and save them faster, Aylwardsaid.

Another strategy for combating COVID-19 involves distracting the virus with decoys. Like the SARS virus, the new virus enters human cells by latching on to a protein called ACE2. The protein studs the surface of cells in the lungs and many other organs. A protein on the surface of the new virus binds to ACE2 10 to 20 times as tightly as the SARS protein does.

Researchers at Vienna-based Apeiron Biologics announced February 26 that they would use human ACE2 protein in a clinical trial against the new coronavirus. When released into the body, the extra ACE2 acts as a decoy, glomming on to the virus, preventing it from getting into cells.

ACE2 isnt just a viruss doorway to infection. Normally, it helps protect the lungs against damage, says Josef Penninger, an immunologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and a cofounder of Apeiron. Penninger and colleagues reported the proteins protective qualities, based on studies with mice, in Nature in 2005.

During a viral infection, the protein is drawn away from thecell surface and cant offer protection. Penninger thinks that adding in extraACE2 may help shield the lungs from damage caused by the virus and by immunesystem overreactions. The protein is also made in many other organs. Penningerand colleagues are testing whether the new virus can enter other tissues, whichmight be how the virus leads to multiple organ failures in severely ill people.

The decoy protein drug, called APN01, has already beenthrough Phase I and Phase II clinical testing. We know its safe, Penningersays. Now researchers just need to determine whether it works.

No one knows whether any of these approaches can help stemthe spread of COVID-19.

Right now, we need lots of people working with lots ofideas, Satchell says. Similarities between the viruses that cause SARS andCOVID-19 may mean that some drugs could work against both. There is a hopethat several small molecules that were identified as inhibitors of the SARSprotease would represent reasonable starting points for trying to make a drugfor the 2019 coronavirus, Burley says.

The open questionis, can you produce a drug that is both safe and effective quickly enough tohave an impact? SARS was stopped by traditional infection-control measures in2004, before any virus-fighting drugs made it through the development pipeline.

But had a decision been made then to spend $1 billion tomake a safe and effective drug against SARS, Burley says, such a drug might beworking now against the new coronavirus, eliminating the need to spend hundredsof billions of dollars to contain this new infection.

An investment in SARS would not have paid off for peoplewith MERS, which is still a danger in the Middle East. The MERS virus is toodifferent from SARS at the RNA level for SARS drugs to work against it.

But a future coronavirus might emerge that is similar enough to SARS and SARS-CoV-2 to be worth the cost, Burley says. Even if the current outbreak dwindles and disappears, he says, governments and companies should keep investing in drugs that can stop coronaviruses.

Im quite certain that the economic impact of the epidemic is going to run into the hundreds of billions, he says. So you would only need a 1 percent chance of something that was treatable with the drug to show up in the future to have made a good investment.

The reliable science journalism you count on is expensive. It takes professional reporters, editors, fact checkers, designers and digital producers to make sureScience Newsreflects the depth and breadth of science.We need your financial support to make it happen every contribution makes a difference.

Read more here:

Repurposed drugs may help scientists fight the new coronavirus - Science News

Renowned neurodegeneration expert receives top accolade – News – The University of Sydney

Internationally renowned neurodegeneration academic, Professor Glenda Halliday, who is shaping the treatment of non-Alzheimers dementias and Parkinsons disease, has been recognised as one of Australias leading female medical researchers.

Professor Halliday, from the Faculty of Medicine and Health and the Brain and Mind Centre, was awarded the NHMRC Elizabeth Blackburn Investigator Grant Award for Leadership in Clinical Medicine and Science.

The award is named in honour of Professor Elizabeth Blackburn, an Australian molecular biologist who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009.

Professor Hallidays groundbreaking research has shaped current international diagnostic criteria and recommendations for neurodegenerative patient identification and management.

After developing quantitative methods to evaluate the symptoms of patients with Parkinson's disease, she revealed more extensive neurodegeneration in Parkinson's and related syndromes than previously thought.

Her 70 strong research team in the Brain and Mind Centres Dementia and Movement Disorders Lab is now focused on finding biomarkers that identify under-recognised non-Alzheimer diseases to target with disease modifying strategies.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Professor Duncan Ivison congratulated Professor Halliday on this prestigious award, adding that her work is at the forefront of understanding the origins of neurodegeneration and developing new treatments.

Glenda has rightly been recognised as one of Australias, and the worlds, leading experts on neurodegeneration. Her research is critical to improving the lives of those with Parkinsons, dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases and we are proud to support her and her team to conduct this important research.

Professor Halliday has produced more than 430 publications, has a h-index of 83, and was named among the world's most influential academics on the Clarivate Analytics 2019 Highly Cited Researchers List.

She is on the editorial boards of five international journals, and on the scientific advisory boards for a number of international organisations and research institutes. She is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

The University of Sydney is ranked 18th in the world for medicine, according to the latest QS Subject rankings.

Continued here:

Renowned neurodegeneration expert receives top accolade - News - The University of Sydney

Aging eyes and the immune system – Science Magazine

A central promise of regenerative medicine is the ability to repair aged or diseased organs using stem cells (SCs). This approach will likely become an effective strategy for organ rejuvenation, holding the potential to increase human health by delaying age-related diseases (1). The successful translation of this scientific knowledge into clinical practice will require a better understanding of the basic mechanisms of aging, along with an integrated view of the process of tissue repair (1).

The advent of SC therapies, now progressing into clinical trials, has made clear the many challenges limiting the application of SCs to treat disease. Our duty, as scientists, is to anticipate such limitations and propose solutions to effectively deliver on the promise of regenerative medicine.

Degenerating tissues have difficulty engaging a regulated repair response that can support efficient cell engraftment and restoration of tissue function (2). This problem, which I encountered when trying to apply SC-based interventions to treat retinal disease, will likely be an important roadblock to the clinical application of regenerative medicine approaches in elderly patients, those most likely to benefit from such interventions. I therefore hypothesized that the inflammatory environment present in aged and diseased tissues would be a major roadblock for efficient repair and that finding immune modulators with the ability to resolve chronic inflammation and promote a prorepair environment would be an efficient approach to improve the success of SC-based therapies (2, 3).

Immune cells, as sources and targets of inflammatory signals, emerged naturally as an ideal target for intervention. I chose to focus on macrophages, which are immune cells of myeloid origin that exist in virtually every tissue of the human body and which are able to reversibly polarize into specific phenotypes, a property that is essential to coordinate tissue repair (3, 4).

If there is an integral immune modulatory component to the process of tissue repair that has evolved to support the healing of damaged tissues, then it should be possible to find strategies to harness this endogenous mechanism and improve regenerative therapies. Anchored in the idea that tissue damage responses are evolutionarily conserved (5), I started my research on this topic using the fruit fly Drosophila as a discovery system.

The fruit fly is equipped with an innate immune system, which is an important player in the process of tissue repair. Using a well-established model of tissue damage, I sought to determine which genes in immune cells are responsible for their prorepair activity. MANF (mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor), a poorly characterized protein initially identified as a neurotrophic factor, emerged as a potential candidate (6). A series of genetic manipulations involving the silencing and overexpression of MANF and known interacting partners led me to the surprising discovery that, instead of behaving as a neurotrophic factor, MANF was operating as an autocrine immune modulator and that this activity was essential for its prorepair effects (2). Using a model of acute retinal damage in mice and in vitro models, I went on to show that this was an evolutionarily conserved mechanism and that MANF function could be harnessed to limit retinal damage elicited by multiple triggers, highlighting its potential for clinical application in the treatment of retinal disease (2).

Having discovered a new immune modulator that sustained endogenous tissue repair, I set out to test my initial hypothesis that this factor might be used to improve the success of SC-based therapies applied to a degenerating retina. Indeed, the low integration efficiency of replacement photoreceptors transplanted into congenitally blind mice could be fully restored to match the efficiency obtained in nondiseased mice by supplying MANF as a co-adjuvant with the transplants (2). This intervention improved restoration of visual function in treated mice, supporting the utility of this approach in the clinic (7).

Next, my colleagues and I decided to address the question of whether the immune modulatory mechanism described above was relevant for aging biology and whether we could harness its potential to extend health span. We found that MANF levels are systemically decreased in aged flies, mice, and humans. Genetic manipulation of MANF expression in flies and mice revealed that MANF is necessary to limit age-related inflammation and maintain tissue homeostasis in young organisms. Using heterochronic parabiosis, an experimental paradigm that involves the surgical joining of the circulatory systems of young and old mice, we established that MANF is one of the circulatory factors responsible for the rejuvenating effects of young blood. Finally, we showed that pharmacologic interventions involving systemic delivery of MANF protein to old mice are effective therapeutic approaches to reverse several hallmarks of tissue aging (8).

A confocal fluorescence microscope image of a giant macrophage shows MANF (mesencephalic astrocyte-derived neurotrophic factor) expression in red.

The biological process of aging is multifactorial, necessitating combined and integrated interventions that can simultaneously target several of the underlying problems (9). The potential of immune modulatory interventions as rejuvenating strategies is emerging and requires a deeper understanding of its underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms.

One expected outcome of reestablishing a regulated inflammatory response is the optimization of tissue repair capacity that naturally decreases during aging (3). Combining these interventions with SCbased therapeutics holds potential to deliver on the promise of regenerative medicine as a path to rejuvenation (1).

PHOTO: COURTESY OF J. NEVES

GRAND PRIZE WINNER

Joana Neves

Joana Neves received undergraduate degrees from NOVA University in Lisbon and a Ph.D. from the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. After completing her postdoctoral fellowship at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in California, Neves started her lab in the Instituto de Medicina Molecular (iMM) at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon in 2019. Her research uses fly and mouse models to understand the immune modulatory component of tissue repair and develop stem cellbased therapies for age-related disease.

PHOTO: COURTESY OF A. SHARMA

FINALIST

Arun Sharma

Arun Sharma received his undergraduate degree from Duke University and a Ph.D. from Stanford University. Having completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Harvard Medical School, Sharma is now a senior research fellow jointly appointed at the Smidt Heart Institute and Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. His research seeks to develop in vitro platforms for cardiovascular disease modeling and drug cardiotoxicity assessment. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/367/6483/1206.1

FINALIST

Adam C. Wilkinson

Adam C. Wilkinson received his undergraduate degree from the University of Oxford and a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge. He is currently completing his postdoctoral fellowship at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University, where he is studying normal and malignant hematopoietic stem cell biology with the aim of identifying new biological mechanisms underlying hematological diseases and improving the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/367/6483/1206.2

Read the original here:

Aging eyes and the immune system - Science Magazine

Infographic: The History of Pandemics, by Death Toll – Visual Capitalist

Pandemic /pandemik/ (of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.

As humans have spread across the world, so have infectious diseases. Even in this modern era, outbreaks are nearly constant, though not every outbreak reaches pandemic level as the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has.

Todays visualization outlines some of historys most deadly pandemics, from the Antonine Plague to the current COVID-19 event.

Disease and illnesses have plagued humanity since the earliest days, our mortal flaw. However, it was not until the marked shift to agrarian communities that the scale and spread of these diseases increased dramatically.

Widespread trade created new opportunities for human and animal interactions that sped up such epidemics. Malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, influenza, smallpox, and others first appeared during these early years.

The more civilized humans became with larger cities, more exotic trade routes, and increased contact with different populations of people, animals, and ecosystems the more likely pandemics would occur.

Here are some of the major pandemics that have occurred over time:

Note: Many of the death toll numbers listed above are best estimates based on available research. Some, such as the Plague of Justinian, are subject to debate based on new evidence.

Despite the persistence of disease and pandemics throughout history, theres one consistent trend over time a gradual reduction in the death rate. Healthcare improvements and understanding the factors that incubate pandemics have been powerful tools in mitigating their impact.

In many ancient societies, people believed that spirits and gods inflicted disease and destruction upon those that deserved their wrath. This unscientific perception often led to disastrous responses that resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.

In the case of Justinians plague, the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea traced the origins of the plague (the Yersinia pestis bacteria) to China and northeast India, via land and sea trade routes to Egypt where it entered the Byzantine Empire through Mediterranean ports.

Despite his apparent knowledge of the role geography and trade played in this spread, Procopius laid blame for the outbreak on the Emperor Justinian, declaring him to be either a devil, or invoking Gods punishment for his evil ways. Some historians found that this event could have dashed Emperor Justinians efforts to reunite the Western and Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire, and marked the beginning of the Dark Ages.

Luckily, humanitys understanding of the causes of disease has improved, and this is resulting in a drastic improvement in the response to modern pandemics, albeit slow and incomplete.

The practice of quarantine began during the 14th century, in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Cautious port authorities required ships arriving in Venice from infected ports to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing the origin of the word quarantine from the Italian quaranta giorni, or 40 days.

One of the first instances of relying on geography and statistical analysis was in mid-19th century London, during a cholera outbreak. In 1854, Dr. John Snow came to the conclusion that cholera was spreading via tainted water and decided to display neighborhood mortality data directly on a map. This method revealed a cluster of cases around a specific pump from which people were drawing their water from.

While the interactions created through trade and urban life play a pivotal role, it is also the virulent nature of particular diseases that indicate the trajectory of a pandemic.

Scientists use a basic measure to track the infectiousness of a disease called the reproduction number also known as R0 or R naught. This number tells us how many susceptible people, on average, each sick person will in turn infect.

Measles tops the list, being the most contagious with a R0 range of 12-18. This means a single person can infect, on average, 12 to 18 people in an unvaccinated population.

While measles may be the most virulent, vaccination efforts and herd immunity can curb its spread. The more people are immune to a disease, the less likely it is to proliferate, making vaccinations critical to prevent the resurgence of known and treatable diseases.

Its hard to calculate and forecast the true impact of COVID-19, as the outbreak is still ongoing and researchers are still learning about this new form of coronavirus.

We arrive at where we began, with rising global connections and interactions as a driving force behind pandemics. From small hunting and gathering tribes to the metropolis, humanitys reliance on one another has also sparked opportunities for disease to spread.

Urbanization in the developing world is bringing more and more rural residents into denser neighborhoods, while population increases are putting greater pressure on the environment. At the same time, passenger air traffic nearly doubled in the past decade. These macro trends are having a profound impact on the spread of infectious disease.

As organizations and governments around the world ask for citizens to practice social distancing to help reduce the rate of infection, the digital world is allowing people to maintain connections and commerce like never before.

Editors Note: The COVID-19 pandemic is in its early stages and it is obviously impossible to predict its future impact. This post and infographic are meant to provide historical context, and we will continue to update it as time goes on to maintain its accuracy.

Update (March 15, 2020): Weve adjusted the death toll for COVID-19, and will continue to update on a regular basis.

Thank you!

Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!

Please provide a valid email address.

Please complete the CAPTCHA.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Read this article:

Infographic: The History of Pandemics, by Death Toll - Visual Capitalist

Rapid response COVID-19 science conducted by father and daughter virologists – Medicine Hat News

By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press on March 15, 2020.

HALIFAX For a Halifax father and daughter dedicated to taking on global infectious diseases, the novel coronavirus has led to their latest, exhausting push to create tests and vaccines to save lives.

Alyson Kelvin, 39, and David Kelvin, 65, are once again in the trenches of a race to find long-term solutions, hoping for success while public interest and funding remain in place.

Alyson, a virologist working at Dalhousie University, has been seconded to the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization International Vaccine Centre in Saskatoon since mid-February to test vaccines in lab animals.

Meanwhile, back in Halifax, her father a professor in Dalhousies department of microbiology and immunology is immersed in creating a portable test kit to identify the severity of the illness for people who test positive for the virus.

Both are engaged in rapid response science, which has meant fast-tracked federal funding is paired with swift collaboration with scientists around the globe working on the pandemic.

I work from waking up until going to sleep, the younger Kelvin said during an interview from Saskatoon. My whole life has shifted. My husband and children are back in Halifax.

The pursuit of infectious disease solutions is a family passion, she adds.

Thats how I was raised, she says, referring to her observation of her fathers work on HIV-AIDS as a young woman.

Her career has already included work on the first SARS outbreak, the Zika virus and various influenza outbreaks. Her father has worked on many of the same outbreaks.

David Kelvin has several projects on the go, including a push to identify biomarkers in this instance molecules that activate white blood cells that will indicate if a person who tests positive for the virus is at risk of developing a severe case of COVID-19.

The goal is to create a kit that would allow health care providers to determine in as little as 20 minutes who needs to be hospitalized, which could potentially keep vitally needed beds and respirators open for patients most in need.

Rather than going through a lengthy process of days, we can do it rapidly and provide assistance to doctors who are looking at a surge of patients and can decide who should receive hospitalization at the earlier stages of the disease, he explained in an interview.

In Saskatoon, his daughter, accompanied by a doctoral student and technician from Dalhousie, is working with coronavirus investigator Darryl Falzarano at the International Vaccine Centre to carry out animal tests for potential vaccines.

Her knowledge of ferrets is key as the animal was identified as a helpful model for human immune reactions in the SARS outbreak in 2002-03, and is believed to also be a useful lab animal for testing vaccines for the novel coronavirus.

Her team is working with three vaccines developed by Halifax molecular virologist Chris Richardson, also a Dalhousie University scientist, and a vaccine developed by a scientist at the centre.

While their work has to move as swiftly as possible, she says that doesnt mean compromising a meticulous methodology to avoid any safety risks. Without animal-testing stages in vaccine research, its possible errors can occur, she said.

Its especially important because the original SARS vaccines werent effective and sometimes led to more severe disease in the end. So, this is an important stage of the evaluation, she said.

Having vaccines a year from now for the novel coronavirus may still be vital, the researcher said.

We may see waves of it in the same way we do with influenza . Having a vaccine and being ready for this particular virus could help us if that becomes a reality, she said.

Richardson, who has worked in the field for four decades, said regular vaccine research can take several years.

Typically it could be two years and clinical trials can go even further, he said in an interview.

He says one of the frustrations is that funding can dry up after an outbreak prompts an initial surge in interest. The veteran virologist said he hopes it will be different this time.

The father and daughter both say they are relying on Ottawa to keep funding flowing in the months to come, even if the pandemic calms.

This call for the initial research was $1 million, David Kelvin said. Its a fantastic initial start. We realize and know that to continue this through the full duration of the infection cycle, were going to have to have a lot more investment.

Hes hopeful the biomarkers for the potential test kits will emerge from his collaborators in China and Italy in four to 10 weeks, but further work will then require commercial collaborators interested in producing the kits.

The family connections in the research are likely to continue. Alyson Kelvin said that as her fathers teams kits evolve, her team will be able to test their effectiveness.

We can experimentally induce viral infection and disease, and we can evaluate the kits using samples from our experiments before theyre used in people, she said.

Amid the current pressure for results, David Kelvin says it may be time for government to reflect on whether the funding for vaccine research should have been in place sooner and on a steadier basis.

Too often, he says, interest has faded when the worst of an international infection passes.

We need to impress on everyone this is our third pandemic in 20 years, he said. We dont want to respond in an emergency fashion every time. We want to be really well prepared.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 15, 2020.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Read this article:

Rapid response COVID-19 science conducted by father and daughter virologists - Medicine Hat News

We Can Be Better Than COVID-19 – The Bulwark

Everyone is looking for silver-linings in the COVID-19 pandemic, which is only natural. In the tech sector, for example, many people have decided that one of the up-sides of the crisis is that it has demonstrated the fantastic power of artificial intelligence.

The argument is that AI helped doctors anticipate, diagnose, and formulate treatments for COVID-19.

The truth is somewhat less fantastic.

In MITs Technology Review, Will Douglas debunked these claims, concluding that AI could help with the next pandemicbut not with this one. Where AI has made an impact, its been in ways that we might not like. The Wall Street Journals Tech News podcast points out that the most consequential implementation of AI during this crisis may have been Chinas use of facial recognition to identify and report citizens who were using public transportation without wearing masks.

In other words, so far AI has been most useful as a means to extending an authoritarian regimes surveillance capabilities, and in this one instance that may have contributed some unmeasurable public health benefit. Yay?

And advances in the biotech sector have not been terribly impressive, either.

We are more than 60 years into the molecular age (Watson and Crick first published their double helix structure of DNA in 1953) and the two most valuable remediation techniques at our disposal are the admonitions to (1) wash your hands and (2) isolate the afflicted. According to the CDC, this latter technique was developed in the Middle Ages.

This isnt to say that weve learned nothing in the ensuing 700 years: the supportive care afforded to those who are critically ill is an extraordinary achievement, the result of iterativeand often unheraldedimprovements in processes over time. And it seems that real and rapid progress is being made toward the development of potential therapies (to treat the disease), and vaccines (to protect from it)but the proof here will be in the eventual clinical trials.

To their credit, physicians and other health care providers tend to be painfully aware of the limitations of their armamentarium, and feel a powerful sense of humility in response to this pandemic.

Yet the worst attitude elicited by the current crisis isnt hubris, but disdain. There is a sense emanating from certain sectors that there would be karmic justice if MAGA zealots who believe more strongly in the Deep State than in science were to become preferentially infected with coronavirus because they dismissed precautions around social distancing and regarded these public health admonitions as an anti-Trump conspiracy.

You may have heard of the Darwin Award, the satirical prize given to people who are killed by their own foolishness. Example: A lawyer who dies after running through a skyscraper window, trying to demonstrate its safety. Or a rhino poacher stomped to death by an elephant (then digested by a lion).

There is, here and there in the tech and science communities, the whispered belief that Trump supporters who disdain public health advice like social distancing are lining up to win their own Darwin Awards and that if they start dropping like flies, they will have gotten what they deserved.

This notion is deplorable and runs directly counter to the spirit of medicine. And it must be stamped out. Immediately.

One of the best things about being a doctor is the bedrock commitment to helping each person in need. When you approach a patient as a physician, you dont take on the complex moral calculus of how complicit someone may or may not be in their condition, and then titrate care and concern accordingly. You attend to each person equally, and without qualification.

Beyond that, to be a physician is to recognize that diseases afflict all of us; while those with the least are often the most susceptible to illness, all of us can, at a moments notice, move from the realm of the well to the realm of the sick. As Susan Sontag eloquently wrote,

Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer to use only the good passport, sooner or later each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to identify ourselves as citizens of that other place.

As long as disease has existed, theres been a tendency to attribute illness to a failing of the sufferer; yet while someones behavior and choices often plays a role in illnesssmoking predisposes to lung cancer, and obesity contributes to the prevalence of type 2 diabetesdoctors know that although prevention is important, illness can strike anyone. Which is why physicians aspire to offer you understanding, rather than judgment.

When I started my medical training, one of the things which struck me is just how much so many people are dealing with, all the time. We get a sense of this from the occasional celebrity revelations: rapper Lil Wayne coping with epilepsy; Giants great Tiki Barber managing his sickle cell disease; Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor living with type 1 diabetes since she was a child; the revelation that President John F. Kennedy suffered from an adrenal gland deficiency called Addisons Disease; and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun, and Colorados senior Senator Michael Bennet, who each have overcome dyslexia.

The arrival of a global pandemic upon our shores, despite the insistent skepticism of the president and his supporters, should not be looked at as a victory of science over the heathens.

Instead, this pandemic should remind us just how far science and technology still have to go, while reawakening our sense of responsibility to care for all the afflicted, to the best of our ability, and with all our hearts.

The most appropriate response to misplaced arrogance and self-regard isnt the transposition of these qualities from politicians to scientists.

Its to replace these reflexes with the humility that science demands, and the empathy our patientsall of themdeserve.

See the original post:

We Can Be Better Than COVID-19 - The Bulwark

Bidens Second Amendment Outburst Was a Warning Sign – National Review

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H., February 4, 2020.(Rick Wilking/Reuters)

Joe Biden had a little outburst today, after a construction worker asked him about the Second Amendment:

You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns, the man told Biden as the candidate greeted workers building a Fiat-Chrysler assembly plant.

Youre full of sh**, Bidenresponded. A Biden aide tried to end the discussion, but the candidate silenced her in order to continue speaking with the worker. I support the Second Amendment from the very beginning. I have a shotgun. I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt, he said.

The two men then argued about whether Biden had said he would try to take away Americans guns.

This is not okay, alright? the worker said, to which Biden responded, Dont tell me that, pal, or Im going to go out and slap you in the face.

Youre working for me, man! the worker responded.

Im not working for you, Biden shot back. Dont be such a horses ass.

If I were a Democrat, this would alarm me. Bidens behavior here is extraordinary, especially given that he is currently previewing the return to normalcy theme that he intends to run on in November. One might think that telling a voter that he is full of s*** and that you will slap them matters less than it usually would given that Donald Trump is in the White House. But, arguably, the opposite is true. Elections are about contrasts. If he is as belligerent and ill-disciplined as the incumbent, what is Bidens case for replacing him?

In this instance, the answer seems to be that, unlike Trump, Biden will usher in stricter gun control. But that, too, should alarm Democrats. If Biden now has a reputation as a champion of gun confiscation and if construction workers in Michigan are asking him about it, it suggests he does he is going to have a hard time winning back the voters that Trump peeled away from the Obama coalition. Barack Obama didnt say much about guns at all until his second term had begun, and, once he did, he presided over the loss of the Senate, the loss of the White House, and a record-breaking period of civilian firearms sales. Judging by their rhetoric, Democrats seem to believe that the center of gravity has changed on this question since then. But the evidence for this is scant. The State of Virginia is run solely by Democrats Democrats who were bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg and who promised to pass restrictive gun control as their first priority. They failed, and sparked a massive backlash in the process. Do we think the playing field looks different in Michigan?

Democrats should also be worried because, whatever the chorus of blue-check journalists who thrilled to the exchange might think, Biden was flatly wrong on the details here. Biden took offense at the idea that he was in favor of confiscation Dont tell me that, pal, he said. But what other conclusion are voters to draw from Bidens having said that he would put Beto hell yes, were coming for your AR-15 ORourke in charge of his gun policy? ORourke is now primarily famous for having taken the most extreme gun position any presidential candidate has taken in three decades, and Biden has willingly tied himself to him. Can he really be surprised that voters have put two and two together?

The rest of his answer was no better. What, I wonder, are Michiganders supposed to make of Bidens commitment to the Second Amendment when, as decades of his rhetoric suggests, he believes that it protects the private ownership of shotguns for hunting? What are they to make of his seriousness on the issue when he talks about the evils of the AR-14; when he does not know which guns are presently banned under federal law and which are not; when he does not know the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic carbine; when he believes you dont need 100 rounds! means . . . well, anything comprehensible at all; and when he approvingly cites the appalling (and overturned) decision in Schenck v. United States as if it makes the case for banning the most commonly owned rifle in America?

This was a bad exchange not because it is likely to change much on its own, but because it illustrates some underlying truths about the electorate and about this candidate that do not portend well.

Continued here:

Bidens Second Amendment Outburst Was a Warning Sign - National Review

Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment – Brainerd Dispatch

Although the topics did not appear on Tuesdays agenda, the Second Amendment and gun control legislation dominated the first hour and a half of the county board meeting. Thirty-five people some more than once spoke during open forum. Most implored county commissioners to pass a resolution declaring Crow Wing Countys dedication to protecting residents Second Amendment rights, including potential legal action and the appropriation of public funds.

This isnt about guns. This is about due process. I cant rely on the federal system to protect me. I cant rely on the state system to protect me. So Im looking to my county to stand up and defend due process, said Emily resident Michael Starry. ... This is your opportunity to stand with your fellow citizens and tell us that youve got our backs the same way we have yours. Due process matters, the Constitution matters and our right to be free from tyranny, from oppression from any kind of madness that can take place that matters.

Supporters of a bill to make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment sanctuary county spoke to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Starry is one of five administrators of a Facebook group called Patriots for Crow Wing 2nd Amendment Dedicated (Sanctuary) County, which sought to organize residents to attend Tuesdays meeting en force. The grassroots effort is among dozens coalescing across the state and hundreds nationwide, organized in response to gun control legislation many view as too restrictive or outright unconstitutional.

In Minnesota, the target is two bills passed by the state House of Representatives one expanding background checks to online sales and gun shows, and red flag legislation that would allow police officers to seize a persons firearms if a judge determined they were a threat to themselves or others.

Thus far, six Minnesota counties have passed sanctuary resolutions, including nearby Wadena County, indicating county leaders would fight back against these kinds of laws. Starry said he and thousands of others want Crow Wing County to join that list, and the activists got one step closer Tuesday. Midway through the parade of residents approaching the microphone, Board Chairman Paul Koering said the county board would host a public hearing at 6 p.m. March 19 in the Crow Wing County Land Services Building meeting rooms. He added he would also champion the desired resolution, putting it up for a vote at the March 24 county board meeting.

--------------------------------

What: Public hearing on proposed resolution that would make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment-dedicated county.

When: 6 p.m. March 19.

Where: Crow Wing County Land Services Building, meeting rooms 1 and 2, 322 Laurel St., Brainerd.

--------------------------------

Although a show of hands indicated a large majority of those in the room sympathized with a sanctuary resolution, at least four people who spoke said they opposed such action. Barb McColgan of Brainerd questioned the need for such a resolution and expressed concern over the county potentially dedicating public funds collected from all county residents to advance the views of one particular group.

Barb McColgan spoke Tuesday, March 10, about her concerns of just selecting one amendment of the constitution and not placing the emphasis on the whole document at the Crow Wing County Board meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

I guess my question is, this is in our Constitution, we are going to have to follow the state laws and federal laws. And so I dont see a purpose for this. It seems to me like were looking at what one special interest group wants, McColgan said. Couldnt we just as well have a resolution to support the First Amendment, freedom of speech or freedom of religion? And, you know, we can go on and on, and why dont we just resolve to support the entire Constitution, instead of breaking it apart? I feel that this resolution is divisive. Its an issue that isnt going to change anything if its passed.

Emotions ran high at times as residents explained the importance of the county boards support of the Second Amendment to them.

Brainerd High School student Boston Hackbart said the issue was a big one to him, most of his classmates and fellow service members in the Army National Guard. While sharing those thoughts, Hackbart appeared to be overcome by emotion. After several seconds of silence while Hackbart collected himself, Starry joined him at the podium.

This young man has never been politically active and something generated that in him, Starry said. ... This movement to try to protect liberty, to try to protect due process, it matters enough that he got up here trying to do this, which in my opinion is fricking amazing.

Pam Johnson, a resident of northeastern Crow Wing County, told commissioners when she was in danger from her abusive husband years earlier, a red flag law would not have protected her. She said he bought a gun not from a store, but from the street corner.

You can say somebodys mentally unstable. You can say, hey, you know, a guy beats his wife. Hes got a restraining order, he said this and that, he cant have a gun. Go down to your corner and buy one. Its that easy, Johnson said.

Several others pointed to the potentially dangerous implications or ineffectiveness of red flag legislation. Arguments included the idea people could lose their guns because of false claims by a vindictive ex-spouse, for example, or fears over how mental health problems may be defined and by whom.

Megan Pence along with her son Caleb and daughter Isabel talks to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the board meeting. Several people gathered at the meeting to talk about their concerns of the recent Red Flag laws that are being proposed about firearm ownership in the state. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Megan Pence, accompanied by two of her five children, said shes concerned she could be a target of red flag legislation, despite her desire to protect her family.

I have three kids with disabilities. Some of those disabilities put me in very vulnerable situations, Pence said. I also have a long background of depression and anxiety. And red flag laws start to make me nervous if were going to start saying who can and cant carry a firearm, who can and cant protect their kids. Then I might be one of the first that cant carry a firearm.

But the county board has no purview over bills in the state Legislature what commissioners do have, however, is the ability to send a message on behalf of Crow Wing County residents, activists said.

Brainerd resident Darin Schadt said hes not the type to get political, but this issue moved him to get involved.

The people in the Cities are not listening to what people got to say up here. Were being left behind because the seven-county metro has all the votes, and it aint right, Schadt said. So thats why were all standing here coming to you people to send a message down to them, This aint right, were not putting up for it. And we don't want it. Its up to you guys to say no, our constituents up here do not want these things.

See original here:

Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment - Brainerd Dispatch

Cooper’s Eye on the Left: Biden’s amped up Second Amendment response suggests he needs a little more coffee – Chattanooga Times Free Press

Biden off the graph, again

A Michigan autoworker wasn't even sure Joe Biden was planning to take questions at a recent appearance, but when he got the opportunity he asked about a concern he had his Second Amendment rights.

"I ... asked him how he wanted to get the vote of the working man when a lot of us, we wield arms," Fiat-Chrysler worker Jerry Wayne said. "We bear arms and we like to do that. And if he wants to give us work and take our guns, I don't see how he is going to get the same vote."

Biden, for some reason, couldn't give him a straight answer.

"You're full of s---," the former vice president said. "I support the Second Amendment." He later said, "I'm gonna slap you in the face."

At the same appearance, Biden referred to an AR-15 as an AR-14.

"I thought I was pretty articulate and respectful," Wayne told "Fox & Friends." "I didn't try to raise any feathers, and he kind of just went off the deep end."

Pass the Kung-Pao Chicken

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Party's gift to Republicans, weighed in on the coronavirus last week, saying many restaurants "are feeling the pain of racism" because people are avoiding Chinese restaurants out of fear of contracting the illness.

They're not "patroning" Chinese or Asian restaurants, she said.

If she'd checked, the 30-year-old Ocasio-Cortez might have realized those not "patroning" those restaurants are probably not "patroning" Mexican, French or American restaurants, either.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee captured the continued wonder of Americans at her comments on Twitter.

"This is like an SNL ("Saturday Night Live") parody," he tweeted. "She is like literally like not aware of like literally much of like anything, like not even the fact there's like literally no word 'patroning' and she like is literally clueless as to what like racism literally means. And she is in Congress. Literally!"

A divided household

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, and his girlfriend, singer-actress Rosario Dawson, are going their separate ways. Politically, that is.

Booker, a presidential candidate until dropping out in January, endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden recently, saying in a tweet he "won't only win, he'll show there is more that unites us than divides us."

Dawson wasn't having any of that, though.

"I got to vote for Bernie again and I did," she said on Facebook. " ... Make this election one for the history books. Turn out needs to be historic to drive home the message that we stand for something bigger and better than we have now. ... So please stay in the game, no matter what, and continue the fight our ancestors fought with fewer means and resources ... and make the path that much better, healthier and clearer for the generations to come."

Dawson did support Booker during his abbreviated run.

Couldn't be her math

It's now clear why many people called out New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay after her recent on-air math gaffe with MSNBC "11th Hour" host Brian Williams racism.

At least, that's her story.

Gay and Williams chuckled on air that with the $500 million failed Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg spent on his campaign, he could have given every American all 327 million of them $1 million. And have some left over.

It was actually more like $1.53, but who's counting?

But Gay said those people who called the pair on the boo-boo, "a trivial math mistake," were a "racist Twitter mob." Her op-ed reply in the New York Times was titled "My People Have Been Through Worse Than a Twitter Mob."

Her people? She is black, and Williams is white. Nevertheless, she persisted.

"When you're a black woman in America with a public voice," she said, "a trivial math error can lead to a deluge of hate."

One Twitter reply to her may have said it best:

"I literally have no recollection of what you look like," it read, "and I would venture to say that if you think that being off by $999,998.48 is a trivial mistake, I can understand why you are a Democrat."

See the original post:

Cooper's Eye on the Left: Biden's amped up Second Amendment response suggests he needs a little more coffee - Chattanooga Times Free Press

State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight – Daily Comet

The State Bond Commission got ink around the world and praise from right-wingers by proclaiming in August 2018 Louisiana would not do business with two of the nation's largest banks because of their gun policies, which a majority on the panel considered anti-Second Amendment.

A few months later one of the two targeted banks -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- won a bond job from the state.

That happened again March 5 when the other targeted bank -- Citigroup Global -- bid the lowest interest rate of 2.175% to win the handling of the sale of the $264.6 million 2020 issuance of General Obligation Bond. Last year's interest rate was 3.22%. That means Louisiana taxpayers will pay tens of millions of dollars less over the life of the loan.

But the awarding of this lucrative state contract came only two weeks after the Bond Commission went out of its way Feb. 20 to again preclude Citigroup from doing business with Louisiana.

"Hypocrisy" claimed the left in emails and social media posts. "Fake news" claimed the right.

The easy answer, however, is the difference between bonds that require competitive bidding and those that can be negotiated. General obligation bonds are used to fund state construction projects, usually found in the annual capital outlay bill. Legally, that work must go to the lowest bidder.

Bank of America, which handles 18% of the state's general obligation bonds, and Citibank, which administers 5%, are two of the largest players in the bond market, which is how governments leverage taxpayer dollars to finance construction projects.

Bonds also are sold on a negotiated basis, as was the case with last year's GARVEE projects. That bond sale was used to fund another lane, each way, on Interstate 10 in Baton Rouge and a dedicated lane from the I-10 into the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

"In a negotiated sale, the state decides who can best represent its interests. Citibank was one of seven banks excluded from the pool," Treasurer John Schroder's office explained.

Though usually noted, it's a distinction lost when proponents focus their arguments on protecting 2nd Amendment rights by excluding banks with policies that fetter their retail and manufacturing clients from selling guns to some consumers.

Attorney General Jeff Landry wouldn't come to the phone, but issued a statement Thursday, through his press office, blaming The Advocate, with which he has been feuding because of reporting about a company he owns that imports foreigners to work on Louisiana projects. "Until they (The Advocate) can comprehend basic financial transactions and representations, the only thing I can say is that I will continue to protect the people of Louisiana's 2nd Amendment rights from liberal interests like this paper," said Landry, a member of the Bond Commission.

Treasurer Schroder, who chairs the Bond Commission, also refused to discuss the issue personally, but his press office sent definitions of competitive and negotiated sales. "By law, anybody can bid and we take the lowest bidder, no matter who the bank is," Schroder was reported in The Advocate as saying prior to the general obligation bond bids arriving on March 5.

Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said in an interview last week that Schroder and Landry have taken an inconsistent position by banning banks from some state business because of political positions while including them for others.

"They gave the state the best deal," said Dardenne, also a member of the Bond Commission. "It stands to reason they would be competitive with other issuances as well. The Bond Commission's job is to get the best rate, to save taxpayers money."

He's more concerned, however, about the use of staffers to grade the proposals in a way that kept Citigroup from qualifying in February for the underwriters' pool to handle negotiated bonds. Bank of America didn't submit a proposal.

Graders for the treasurer, the attorney general and the speaker of the House -- all three of whom voted to not hire Citigroup and Bank of America because of gun policies -- gave Citigroup across the board grades of 0, 1, or 3 for categories such as "relevant experience," "track record" and "previous services to the state," according to the grading sheets. No mention of political policies was included on the grading sheets.

Those scores were added to the relatively high grades awarded by the Division of Administration, Senate president, and Department of Transportation & Development.

When averaged out, Citigroup came in ninth with a total score of 55.00. The number eight proposal was graded at 55.19 total. The majority on the Bond Commission drew the line at eight proposals, leaving Citigroup out of the pool.

"It was a blatant, a clear attempt to use staffers to achieve a political statement," Dardenne said.

Here is the original post:

State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight - Daily Comet