Daily Archives: April 18, 2020

An unprecedented amount of research has been focused solely on understanding the novel coronavirus that has taken nearly 150,000 lives across the globe. And while scientists have gotten to know some of the most intimate details of the virus called SARS-CoV-2, one question has evaded any definitive answers Where did the virus come from?

Live Science contacted several experts, and the reality, they said, is that we may never know where this deadly coronavirus originated. Among the theories circulating: That SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally, after passing from bats to a secondary animal and then to humans; that it was deliberately engineered and then accidentally released by humans; or that researchers were studying a naturally-occurring virus that subsequently escaped from a high-security biolab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. The head of the lab at WIV, for her part, has emphatically denied any link to the institute.

Just today (April 18), the vice director of WIV Zhiming Yuan CGTN, the Chinese state broadcaster, said "there is no way this virus came from us," NBC News reported. "We have a strict regulatory regime and code of conduct of research, so we are confident."

Furthermore, the notion that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered is pure conspiracy, experts told Live Science, but it's still impossible to rule out the notion that Chinese scientists were studying a naturally-occurring coronavirus that subsequently "escaped" from the lab. To prove any of these theories takes transparent data and information, which is reportedly not happening in China, scientists say. Several experts have said to Live Science and other media outlets have reported that the likeliest scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally occurring.

Related: 13 coronavirus myths busted by science

"Based on no data, but simply [a] likely scenario is that the virus went from bats to some mammalian species, currently unknown despite speculation, [and] spilled over to humans," said Gerald Keusch, associate director of the Boston University National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories. This spillover event may have happened before the virus found its way into a live animal market, "which then acted as an amplifying setting with many more infections that subsequently spread and the rest is history," Keusch said. "The timeline is fuzzy and I don't think we have real data to say when these things began, in large part because the data are being held back from inspection," Keusch told Live Science.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is most closely related to coronaviruses found in certain populations of horseshoe bats that live about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away in Yunnan province, China. The first known outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in humans occurred in Wuhan and initially was traced to a wet seafood market (which sold live fish and other animals), though some of the earliest cases have no link to that market, according to research published Feb. 15 in the journal The Lancet.

Related: 11 (sometimes) deadly diseases that hopped across species

What's more, despite several proposed candidates, from snakes to pangolins to dogs, researchers have failed to find a clear "intermediate host" an animal that would have served as a springboard for SARS-CoV-2 to jump from bats to humans. And if horseshoe bats were the primary host, how did the bat virus hop from its natural reservoir in a subtropical region to the bustling city of Wuhan hundreds of miles away?

These questions have led some people to look elsewhere in the hunt for the virus's origin, and some have focused on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

In 2015, WIV became China's first lab to reach the highest level of bioresearch safety, or BSL-4, meaning the lab could host research on the world's most dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and Marburg viruses. (SARS-CoV-2 would require a BSL-3 or higher, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Labs like these must follow strict safety guidelines that include filtering air, treating water and waste before they exit, and requiring lab personnel to shower and change their clothes before and after entering the facility, Nature News reported in 2017.

These types of labs do spur concerns among some scientists who worry about the risks involved and the potential impact on public health if anything were to go wrong, Nature News reported.

Related: The 12 deadliest viruses on Earth

WIV was not immune to those concerns. In 2018, after scientist diplomats from the U.S. embassy in Beijing visited the WIV, they were so concerned by the lack of safety and management at the lab that the diplomats sent two official warnings back to the U.S. One of the official cables, obtained by The Washington Post, suggested that the lab's work on bat coronaviruses with the potential for human transmission could risk causing a new SARS-like pandemic, Post columnist Josh Rogin wrote.

"During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory," the officials said in their cable dated to Jan. 19, 2018.

When reports of the coronavirus first popped up in China, the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger reportedly suspected a potential link to China labs. In mid-January, according to a New York Times report, Pottinger asked intelligence agencies like the C.I.A., particularly individuals with expertise on Asia and weapons of mass destruction, to investigate this idea. They came up empty-handed, the Times reported.

Meanwhile, the lab at the center of these speculations had long been sounding the alarm about the risk of the SARS-like coronaviruses they studied to spawn a pandemic.

The head of the lab's bat-coronavirus research, Shi Zhengli, published research on Nov. 30, 2017 in the journal PLOS Pathogens that traced the SARS coronavirus pandemic in 2003 to a single population of horseshoe bats in a remote cave in Yunnan province. The researchers also noted that other SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in that cave used the ACE2 receptor to infect cells and could "replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells," they wrote. (Both SARS and SARS-CoV-2 use the ACE2 receptor as the entry point into cells.)

Zhengli and her colleagues stressed the importance of monitoring and studying the SARS coronaviruses to help prevent another pandemic.

"Thus, we propose that monitoring of SARS-CoV evolution at this and other sites should continue, as well as examination of human behavioral risk for infection and serological surveys of people, to determine if spillover is already occurring at these sites and to design intervention strategies to avoid future disease emergence," they wrote.

Related: 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history

The WIV lab, along with researchers in the U.S. and Switzerland, showed in 2015 the scary-good capability of bat coronaviruses to thrive in human cells. In that paper, which was published in 2015 in the journal Nature Medicine, they described how they had created a chimeric SARS-like virus out of the surface spike protein of a coronavirus found in horseshoe bats, called SHC014, and the backbone of a SARS virus that could be grown in mice. The idea was to look at the potential of coronaviruses circulating in bat populations to infect humans. In a lab dish, the chimeric coronavirus could infect and replicate in primary human airway cells; the virus also was able to infect lung cells in mice.

That study was met with some pushback from researchers who considered the risk of that kind of research to outweigh the benefits. Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, was one of those scientists. Wain-Hobson emphasized the fact that this chimeric virus "grows remarkably well" in human cells, adding that "If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory," Nature News reported.

None of this can show the provenance of SARS-CoV-2.

But scientists can start to rule out an idea that the pandemic-causing coronavirus was engineered in that lab or further created as a bioweapon. Researchers say the overwhelming evidence indicates this is a natural-borne virus that emerged from an animal host, likely a bat, and was not engineered by humans.

Related: 28 devastating infectious diseases

"This origin story is not currently supported at all by the available data," said Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. Lauring pointed to a study published March 17 in the journal Nature Medicine, which provided evidence against the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab.

In that Nature medicine study one of the strongest rebukes of this idea Kristian Andersen, an associate professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, and his colleagues analyzed the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses in animals. They found that a key part of SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein that the virus uses to attach to ACE2 receptors on the outsides of human cells, would almost certainly have emerged in nature and not as a lab creation.

"This analysis of coronavirus genome sequences from patients and from various animals suggests that the virus likely arose in an animal host and then may have undergone further changes once it transmitted and circulated in people," Lauring told Live Science.

That may rule out deliberate genetic engineering, but what about other scenarios that point to bats as the natural hosts, but WIV as the source of the outbreak?

Although researchers will likely continue to sample and sequence coronaviruses in bats to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, "you can't answer this question through genomics alone," said Dr. Alex Greninger, an assistant professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and an assistant director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington Medical Center. That's because it's impossible to definitively tell whether SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab or from nature based on genetics alone. For this reason, it's really important to know which coronaviruses were being studied at WIV. "It really comes down to what was in the lab," Greninger told Live Science.

However, Lauring said that based on the Nature Medicine paper, "the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape,'" he said.

As for what viruses were being studied at WIV, Zhengli says she did a thorough investigation. When she first was alerted to the viral outbreak in Wuhan on the night of Dec. 30, 2019, Zhengli immediately put her lab to work sequencing the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from infected patients and comparing the results with records of coronavirus experiments in her lab. She also looked for any mishandling of viral material used in any experiments, Scientific American reported. She didn't find any match between the viruses her team was working with from bat caves and those found in infected patients. "That really took a load off my mind," she told Scientific American. "I had not slept a wink for days."

At the beginning of February, Zhengli sent a note over WeChat to reassure her friends that there was no link, saying "I swear with my life, [the virus] has nothing to do with the lab," the South China Morning Post reported Feb. 6. Zhengli and another colleague, Peng Zhou, did not reply to a Live Science email requesting comment.

The Wuhan lab does work with the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, which is a bat coronavirus called RaTG13, evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes, of the Charles Perkins Center and the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney, said in a statement from the Australian Media Center. But, he added, "the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change." (That means that in the wild, it would take about 50 years for these viruses to evolve to be as different as they are.)

Though no scientists have come forth with even a speck of evidence that humans knowingly manipulated a virus using some sort of genetic engineering, a researcher at Flinders University in South Australia lays out another scenario that involves human intervention. Bat coronaviruses can be cultured in lab dishes with cells that have the human ACE2 receptor; over time, the virus will gain adaptations that let it efficiently bind to those receptors. Along the way, that virus would pick up random genetic mutations that pop up but don't do anything noticeable, said Nikolai Petrovsky, in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders.

"The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus," Petrovsky said in a statement from the Australian Media Center. "Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection, there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention."

If that virus infected a staff member and that person then traveled to the nearby seafood market, the virus could have spread from there, he said. Or, he added, an "inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility" could have infected humans directly or from a susceptible intermediary, such as a stray cat.

Though we may never get a definitive answer, at least in the near-term, some say it doesn't matter.

"No matter the origin, evolution in nature and spillover to humans, accidental release from a lab, or deliberate release or genetic manipulation of a pathogen in the lab the way you develop countermeasures is the same," Keusch told Live Science. "Since one can never say 100% for anything, I think we always need to be aware of all possibilities in order to contravene. But the response to develop what is needed to respond, control and eliminate the outbreak remains the same."

Live Science senior writer Rachael Rettner contributed to this report.

Originally published on Live Science.

Read more:
Wuhan lab says there's no way coronavirus originated there. Here's the science. - Livescience.com

The novel coronavirus likely originated in bats, but the pathogen may have then hopped into dogs before infecting humans, a new study suggests.

But not everyone agrees with that hypothesis. One expert told Live Science that "there are a lot of weaknesses" in the study and that the data don't support the study's conclusions.

Before the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 made the jump to humans, two other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, evolved in bats and passed through other animals on their way to people. SARS-CoV passed through civets and MERS-CoV through camels, and the molecular structure of SARS-CoV-2 suggests that the virus also passed through an intermediate animal, but scientists don't yet know which one.

In February, authors of a preliminary study published to the preprint database bioRxiv suggested that pangolins may bridge the gap between bats and humans, since SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses that infect pangolins sport similar spike proteins a structure on the surface of the virus that allows it to infect cells. But other scientists argued that, despite their spike proteins, pangolin coronaviruses bear many differences to SARS-CoV-2 that make pangolins unlikely to be the source of infection, The New York Times reported.

With the mystery unresolved, biology professor Xuhua Xia of the University of Ottawa in Canada launched his own investigation into how the coronavirus passed from bats to people. His analysis, published April 14 in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, offered a new solution: dogs.

Xia reached his conclusion by scanning the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses for a specific feature known as a CpG site, a sequence of genetic code in which the compound cytosine (C) is followed by the compound guanine (G). The human immune system sees CpG sites as a red flag, signaling that an invasive virus is present. A human protein called zinc finger antiviral protein (ZAP) latches onto the CpG sites on the viral genetic code and recruits help to break down the pathogen, according to UniProt, an online protein database. The theory follows that, the fewer CpG sites, the less vulnerable a virus will be to ZAP.

Related: 10 deadly diseases that hopped across species

Xia found that SARS-CoV-2 carries fewer CpG sites than the other known coronaviruses that first evolved in animals, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. In addition, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, the bat coronavirus RaTG13, contains fewer CpG sites than related bat coronaviruses, according to the analysis. "This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in a new host (or new host tissue) with high ZAP expression," which would place evolutionary pressure on the virus to shed CpG sites, Xia wrote.

Essentially, in order to survive and reproduce, a pathogen like SARS-CoV-2 needs to be able to evade the hosts immune fighters, and in this case it would mean getting rid of CpG sites that could alert ZAP proteins to the virus.

Unfortunately, little data exists on exactly how much ZAP appears in different animal tissues, Xia told Live Science. So he worked backwards, looking for animal coronaviruses with low CpG levels. He found a coronavirus that primarily infects the canine intestine, and thus inferred that the dog gut might contain adequate ZAP levels to drive viral evolution in this way.

"Only canids seem to have the tissue generating low-CpG CoVs during my study," Xia said. If a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 breached the canine intestine, then this would have "resulted in rapid evolution of the virus" to lose CpG sites and become better equipped to infect humans, he wrote in the paper. Beyond the low CpG levels, the paper did not note other genetic similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and the dog coronavirus, but suggested that the canine gut might provide the right environment for such viruses to evolve.

But why the dog intestine? Some research suggests that ZAP mRNA, which contains instructions to build the protein, appears in both the dog lung and colon but that higher concentrations accumulate in the lungs, Xia said. It may be that a glut of ZAP in the lungs guards the organ from coronaviruses, while the lower concentrations of ZAP in the colon leave the gut open to severe infection, though there are reasons to be cautious in coming to this conclusion, Xia said.

But does this hypothesis make sense?

"I think the data do not support these conclusions," Pleuni Pennings, an assistant professor of ecology and evolution at San Francisco State University, who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email. Pennings, whose research group has examined the CpG levels of many viruses, pointed out several weaknesses in the study's logic.

In a 2018 study published in the journal PLOS Genetics, Pennings surveyed CpG levels in the HIV virus and investigated how the pathogen evolves within individual people. She then led a similar study of several other viruses including Dengue fever virus, influenza, and hepatitis B and C to learn how often these bugs lose or gain CpG sites through mutations. Her group found that, in general, mutations that add CpG sites tend to be found in viral samples taken from people less often than mutations that remove CpG sites from the genome.

CpG-creating mutations may be costly to viruses in that they alert the body to infection, so over time, evolutionary forces minimize their appearance, Pennings said. That said, many viruses still carry CpG sites, so the mutations may carry some benefit "even if it comes with a slight cost," she added. So SARS-CoV-2 is not unusual in that way.

"There are many viruses with lower [CpG] values than SARS-CoV-2," Pennings said. "When you look at all viruses, the [CpG] value is not strange at all," she said.

Xia did find that SARS-CoV-2 contains fewer CpG sites than other animal-borne coronaviruses, and assuming that finding is correct, then it raises the question of why that came to be, she added.

But even if there is an evolutionary reason to explain why SARS-CoV-2 lost CpG sites, that evolutionary reason may not give the virus a special advantage for infecting humans, Pennings said.

In his paper, Xia noted that studies have "shown an association between decreased CpG in viral RNA genomes and increased virulence," meaning low-CpG viruses appear associated with more severe infection. However, although evolution favors mutations that delete CpG sites, and there's a general trend tying fewer CpG sites to more severe infection, "it doesnt mean that viruses with low numbers of CpG sites are necessarily more virulent," Pennings said. For example, the BK virus contains very few CpG sites and resides in the kidneys of an estimated 60% to 80% of adults, but typically only triggers symptoms in immunosuppressed people, she noted. (The virus was named the initials of the first person it was isolated from.)

If the CpG levels present in SARS-CoV-2 are somehow related to disease severity, "then this would provide an efficient way for vaccine development," Xia said. In this hypothetical scenario, scientists could eliminate CpG sites from the coronavirus genome in a lab dish, thereby weakening the bug to the point that it could safely be incorporated into a vaccine. But as of yet, no correlation has been drawn between CpG and the relative severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Several pangolin coronaviruses included in Xia's study also contained few CpG sites, on par with SARS-CoV-2 and the bat virus RaTG13. Given other genetic differences between human and pangolin coronaviruses, however, the ancestor shared between this low-CpG pangolin coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 would likely have existed over 130 years ago, Xia said. "We expect a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor to be much more recent," he said.

But did dogs serve as an intermittent host for the coronavirus? At this point, there's little evidence to suggest so.

Originally published on Live Science.

Here is the original post:
New study suggests COVID-19 hopped from dogs to humans. Here's why you should be skeptical. - Live Science

The University of Washington School of Medicine will study pharmacogenetics in patients with COVID-19.

It will work with Washington, D.C.-based Vanda Pharmaceuticals to collect whole-genome sequencing data from more than 1,000 patients with coronavirus infection. The two will sequence the viral genomes to explore host susceptibility, clinical outcomes of whole-genome sequencing, host-virus interactions, and disease severity.

"We believe this collaboration will help answer critical questions and hopefully outcomes in the fight against COVID-19," Alex Greninger, assistant director of the virology division at the UW School of Medicine, said in a statement.

Financial and other details of the collaboration were not disclosed.

The collaboration with UW's virology lab will be part of a larger program from Vanda, dubbed Calypso, to study the role of human genetic variation in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease progression.

"The study has the potential to provide new insights into virus-host interactions that could lead to more effective public health strategies and the design and development of vaccines and therapeutics," Sandra Smieszek, head of genetics at Vanda, said in a statement. "With the vast amount of data we expect to collect, the team will aim to discern the factors associated with severity and other critical, clinical characteristics of the infected individuals."

Vanda on Wednesday also announced it was working with Northwell Health's research arm to conduct a clinical trial of a drug to treat severe pneumonia in COVID-19 patients.

This story first appeared in our sister publication, Genomeweb.

Go here to read the rest:
University of Washington to study COVID-19 pharmacogenetics - ModernHealthcare.com

Gene Therapy R&D and Revenue Forecasts 2020-2030

Retroviruses, Lentiviruses, Adenoviruses, Adeno Associated Virus, Herpes Simplex Virus, Poxvirus, Vaccinia Virus, Naked/Plasmid Vectors, Gene Gun, Electroporation, Lipofection, Cancer, Rare Diseases, Cardiovascular Disorders, Ophthalmologic Conditions, Infectious Disease, Neurological Disorders, Diabetes Mellitus

LONDON, April 17, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The gene therapy market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 32% in the first half of the forecast period. In 2019, the cancer treatment submarket accounted for 55.8% of the gene therapy drug market. Visiongain estimated that gene therapy for rare diseases will be the driver for market growth in the first half of the forecast period.

How this report will benefit youRead on to discover how you can exploit the future business opportunities emerging in this sector.

In this brand-new 215-page report you will receive 157 charts all unavailable elsewhere.

The 215-page Visiongain report provides clear detailed insight into the gene therapy market. Discover the key drivers and challenges affecting the market.

By ordering and reading our brand-new report today you stay better informed and ready to act.

To request sample pages from this report please contact Sara Peerun at sara.peerun@visiongain.com or refer to our website: https://www.visiongain.com/report/gene-therapy-rd-and-revenue-forecasts-2020-2030/#download_sampe_div

Report Scope

Gene Therapy market forecasts from2020-2030

This report assesses the approved gene therapy products in the market and gives revenue to 2030

Provides qualitative analysis and forecast of the submarket by indication for the period 2020-2030: Cancer Cardiovascular disorders Rare diseases Ophthalmological diseases Infectious Diseases Neurological Disorders Diabetes Mellitus Other therapeutic uses

Profiles leading companies that will be important in the development of the gene therapy market. For each company, developments and outlooks are discussed and companies covered in this chapter include: UniQure Biogen Bluebird Bio Spark Therapeutics Applied Genetics Technologies Corporation Oxford Biomedica GenSight Biologics & Other Companies

Assesses the outlook for the leading gene treatment R&D pipeline for 2019 and discusses technological progress and potential. Profiles appear for gene therapy drug candidates, with revenue forecasts for four leading agents: Collategene (AMG0001, AnGes MG/Vical) BC-819 (BioCancell) BC-821 BioCancell SPK-CHM Spark Therapeutics SPK-FIX Spark Therapeutics/Pfizer SPK-TPP1- Spark Therapeutics Lenti-D (Bluebird Bio) LentiGlobin (Bluebird Bio) VM202-DPN ViroMed

Provides qualitative analysis of trends that will affect the gene therapies market, from the perspective of pharmaceutical companies, during the period 2020 to 2030. SWOT analysis is provided and an overview of regulation of the gene therapy market by leading region given.

Our study discusses factors that influence the market including these: Translation of research into marketable products modifying human DNA gene transfer for therapeutic use, altering the nuclear genome Genomic editing technology and other supporting components Collaborations to develop and launch gene-based products acquisitions and licensing deals Supporting technologies for human genetic modification, gene replacement and targeted drug delivery Gene therapies for ophthalmologic diseases next-generation medicines Regulations in the United States, the European Union and Japan overcoming technological and medical challenges to pass clinical trials.

Story continues

To request a report overview of this report please contact Sara Peerun at sara.peerun@visiongain.com or refer to our website: https://www.visiongain.com/report/gene-therapy-rd-and-revenue-forecasts-2020-2030/

Did you know that we also offer a report add-on service? Email sara.peerun@visiongain.comto discuss any customized research needs you may have.

Companies covered in the report include:

4DMT (4D Molecular Therapeutics)AbeonaAGTC (Applied Genetics Technologies Corporation)AMT (Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics) AnGes MGAsklepios BioPharmaAstraZenecaAudentes TherapeuticsAvalanche BiotechBayer HealthcareBeijing Northland Biotech CoBenda PharmaceuticalBenitec BiopharmaBioCancellBiogenBiogen IdecBluebird BioBMS (Bristol-Myers Squibb)Broad Institute/Whitehead InstituteCelgeneCell Therapy CatapultCellectisChiesi Farmaceutici Clearside BiomedicalConvergence PharmaceuticalsDaiichi Sankyo Dimension TherapeuticsEditas MedicineFondazione TelethonFrancis Crick Institute Genable Technologies LtdGenethonGenSight BiologicsGenVecGoogleGSK (GlaxoSmithKline)Henry Ford Health SystemHSCI (Human Stem Cells Institute)HSR-TIGET (San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy), ImaginAbImmune Design Corp InoCardInovioIntellia TherapeuticsInvetechKite PharmaKolon GroupKolon Life ScienceLysogeneMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation NeuralgeneNightstaRxNorthwestern Memorial HospitalNovartisOXB (Oxford Biomedica)PfizerPNP TherapeuticsPrecision Genome Engineering Inc aka PregenenProNaiProtek GroupRaffaele HospitalREGENX BiosciencesRenova TherapeuticsRocheRoszdravnadzorSangamo BiosciencesSanofiSarepta TherapeuticsShanghai Sunway BiotechShenzhen SiBiono GeneTechSotex Pharm Firm Spark TherapeuticsSynerGene TherapeuticsTakara BioTAP BiosystemsThermo Fisher ScientificTissueGeneToolGenUC BerkeleyUC San Francisco uniQureUS Business Innovation Network Vertex PharmaceuticalsVical IncorporatedViroMedVM BiopharmaVoyage Therapeutics

List of Organisation Mentioned ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology)ASI (Agency for Strategic Initiatives) CAT (Committee for Advanced Therapies) CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research)CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use)CHOP (The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia)DCGI (Drugs Controller General of India)DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services)EMA (European Medicines Agency)FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)INSERM (Institut National de la Sant et de la Recherche Mdicale) IRB (Institutional Review Boards) MFDS (Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) MHLW (Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare)MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency)Ministry of Health Commission NHS (National Health Service)NICE (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)NIH (National Institutes of Health) OHRP (Office for Human Research Protections)PMDA (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency) RCGM (Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation) Russian Ministry of Healthcare and Social DevelopmentSFDA (State Food and Drug Administration of China) SMC (Scottish Medicines Consortium) The Fund for Promotion of Small Innovative Enterprises in Science and TechnologyThe IGI (Innovative Genomics Initiative)The Innovative Genomics Initiative The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute WFH (World Federation of Hemophilia)WHO (World Health Organization)

To see a report overview please e-mail Sara Peerun on sara.peerun@visiongain.com

Related reports:

Translational Regenerative Medicine Market Forecast 2020-2030

Global Precision Medicine Market Forecast 2019-2029

Global Stem Cell Technologies and Applications Market 2019-2029

Generic Drugs Market Forecast 2019-2029

Biobanking Market Forecasts 2019-2029

Global Liquid Biopsy Market Forecast to 2029

Next-Generation Biologics Market Forecast to 2029

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/visiongain-report-the-gene-therapy-market-is-projected-to-grow-at-a-cagr-of-32-in-the-first-half-of-the-forecast-period-301040367.html

SOURCE Visiongain

Original post:
Visiongain Report: The Gene Therapy Market is Projected to Grow at a CAGR of 32% in the First Half of the Forecast Period - Yahoo Finance