header logo image


Page 12«..11121314..2030..»

Archive for the ‘Genetic Engineering’ Category

Search for cure for common parasitic infection focus of $5.5 million NIH grant – Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

Visit the News Hub

Toxoplasma infection affects about 2 billion people globally

Parasitologist L. David Sibley, PhD (standing), the Alan A. and Edith L. Wolff Distinguished Professor of Molecular Microbiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, talks with postdoctoral researcher Alex Rozenberg, PhD, (left) and staff scientist Joshua Radke, MD. The three are part of an international effort led by Sibley to find drugs to cure toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease characterized by vision problems and brain complications.

L. David Sibley, PhD, the Alan A. and Edith L. Wolff Distinguished Professor of Molecular Microbiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, has spent decades unraveling the secrets of Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite spread by cats and contaminated water and food. People infected with Toxoplasma can generally control the infection, but the parasite remains in their bodies for life and can reactivate to cause toxoplasmosis, a disease characterized by vision problems and life-threatening complications in the brain.

Sibleys discoveries have put him at the forefront of the field of parasite biology. A few years ago, he was busy fielding interview requests from journalists about his latest high-profile paper when he opened an email from a woman in Heidelberg, Germany.

I would like to ask you, wrote the woman, after explaining that her husband was dying of toxoplasmosis, how far (near?) is the possibility of human therapy based on your work?

To Sibley, the email was a wake-up call.

We always say that we do basic science so that one day there might be an improvement in human health, but we dont always push hard enough to convert our discoveries into benefits for patients, Sibley said. After thinking hard about this issue, my colleagues and I came up with the idea of trying to find chemical compounds that eliminate the chronic stages of the parasite, rather than just control it, like current drug therapies do. We know a lot about the biology of this parasite. My lab has spent 30 years figuring out all the tricks the parasite uses to block the immune system. We have developed sophisticated genetic tools and animal models to monitor infection. All this has led to a pile of high-profile papers, and recognition, but has not really had an impact on people who suffer from this infection. I thought, Why not see if we can identify small molecules that might lead to a curative drug?

That plaintive email eventually led Sibley and colleagues at the California Institute for Biomedical Research (Calibr) in La Jolla, Calif.; the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass.; and the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in New Delhi, India to launch an effort to identify chemical compounds that eliminate the chronic stages of Toxoplasma and have the potential to be developed into drugs to eradicate the infection. As principal investigator, Sibley has received a $5.5 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support the research.

Toxoplasma is a parasite that naturally cycles between mice and cats. An infected cat excretes millions of the parasite in its feces in a form known as oocysts, contaminating the soil and water. A mouse gets infected by eating food such as fruit or seeds contaminated with oocysts, and a cat eats the mouse, completing the cycle.

Humans and other animals are accidental participants in this process. Herbivorous animals like cows and sheep can become infected as they graze. People become infected by eating undercooked meat from such animals or unwashed vegetables, or by drinking contaminated water. Some people become infected by failing to wash their hands after cleaning cats litter boxes. Once inside a persons digestive tract, the parasite emerges from the cyst, burrows through the intestinal wall and spreads to the muscle, heart, brain and eyes. There, it develops into a cyst form and remains for the rest of the persons life.

About a quarter of the worlds population is thought to be infected with Toxoplasma. Most people do not have symptoms because a healthy immune system keeps the parasite in check. In people with compromised immune systems, though, the parasites do not stay in their cysts and instead begin to multiply, causing debilitating, sometimes fatal, damage to the brain, eyes and other organs. Women who become infected during pregnancy may pass the infection to their fetuses, resulting in severe birth defects.

Drugs for toxoplasmosis only target the parasite in the active phase, leaving cysts untouched. Since parasites may emerge from the cysts at unpredictable times, people must continue taking the drugs for prolonged periods, sometimes more than a year. Even so, the risk of relapse is high. Supplementing current therapies with a drug that eliminates the cysts not only would speed up treatment, it would cure the infection.

Nobodys ever really looked for drugs that target the latent, cyst phase, Sibley said. You cant just take drugs that work against other microbial infections and repurpose them. Thats been tried and it doesnt work very well. Its hard to kill the cyst form. Thats why they form cysts: to protect themselves when they are in an inhospitable environment. Were going to have to really dig into the biology and thats difficult and takes time. Since the potential monetary payoff will likely be small, big pharma just isnt interested. If potential drugs are going to be found, they will have to be started by academic labs.

The research project is already underway. A group led by Stuart Schreiber, PhD, a chemical biologist at the Broad Institute, screened some 80,000 small molecules for their ability to inhibit parasite growth and identified several promising leads. A group of structural biologists at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology led by Amit Sharma, PhD, is analyzing how the initial leads interact with their target enzyme. A detailed understanding of the molecular structure will inform efforts to optimize the compounds. Medicinal chemist Arnab Kumar Chatterjee, PhD, leads a group at Calibr that is creating new molecules based on the promising leads but with improved potency, safety, bioavailability and other features. And Sibleys lab at the School of Medicine is responsible for the biological testing, making sure the team stays focused on compounds that actually have the capacity to treat the cyst stage.

The compounds weve started working on may not ultimately lead to a drug that works, Sibley said. There are no guarantees in this kind of work. But I think what we can do is establish a path forward. We can identify appropriate targets, establish the potency, and define the safety profile that youd need for an effective clinical candidate. Then, maybe more people will pick up on our leads and do the very difficult work that is necessary to get drug candidates evaluated in humans and get one of those candidates approved as a medicine, so people dont have to suffer and die from this devastating illness.

Washington University School of Medicines 1,500 faculty physicians also are the medical staff of Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Childrens hospitals. The School of Medicine is a leader in medical research, teaching and patient care, ranking among the top 10 medical schools in the nation by U.S. News & World Report. Through its affiliations with Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Childrens hospitals, the School of Medicine is linked to BJC HealthCare.

The rest is here:
Search for cure for common parasitic infection focus of $5.5 million NIH grant - Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Read More...

Joy Adzovie: Genetically Modified Crops is the solution to global food insecurity – Myjoyonline.com

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

Genetically Modified Crops (GM crops) have generated a lot of controversies over the years. They have sparked debates among farmers and consumers alike with people always particularly paying attention to labeled GM and non-GM commodities on the market.

Some describe is as genetic modification. Some call it genetic engineering. Some call them genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Others describe them as biotechnology products, although biotechnology is a broader term. But all of them refer to the same thing.

A lot of ethical concerns have arisen about GM technology over the years. A very common claim made by some anti-GM activists is that you cannot play God which implies that scientists are defying the natural order of creation. Others are concerned about possible health risks associated with the consumption of GM foods although they have been proven scientifically to be safe, 20 years after their introduction.

In fact, in countries like USA, Brazil and South Africa, more than 80% of all soya beans, maize and cotton are GM crops. But there has been no single evidence of any of these crops negatively impacting the health of consumers in those countries. Before GM food is released for consumption, it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny which has zero tolerance for errors.

So, what exactly are GM crops?

In a bid to optimize yield, farmers have been breeding suitable varieties of crops through conventional selection for several centuries. This has made most wild ancestors of crops such as teosinte of maize go into extinction leaving the elite cultivars which look bigger and develop more desirable traits over the generations. This method of breeding is known as selective breeding or artificial selection which is globally accepted but currently inefficient to feed a fast-growing population anticipated to reach 9.6 billion in the next couple of decades. The exponential rise in population is inversely related to available land area hence the need for a more strategic approach to efficiently utilize the limited land resource to feed the growing global population. Also, pests and diseases, climate change, amidst other abiotic factors severely constrain crop production.

Biotechnology (which includes genetic modification) is an applied science that harnesses the natural biological capabilities of microbial, plants and animal cells for the benefit of mankind. It has changed the quality of life through improved medicine, diagnostics, agriculture and waste management, as well as offered opportunities for innovation and discoveries.

Genetic engineering is used to efficiently and precisely modify targeted plants using advanced biotechnological techniques. Advances in molecular biology have helped eliminate certain gaps in breeding such as reducing time to successfully introduce (introgress) a gene of interest into a commercial crop variety through a process called speed breeding and eradicating linkage drags associated with conventional breeding.

The principle is a simple one. To genetically improve or enhance a crop such as sweet potato which is susceptible to nematode attack, another crop such as tomato that is resistant to nematode attack is identified and the gene of interest is isolated. The gene isolated from the tomato is then introduced into the sweet potato. The host plant becomes a transgenic or genetically modified plant which expresses the desired trait (resistance to nematode) in subsequent generations.

Genetic engineering has had several uses such as in biofortification of crops to increase the concentration and availability of nutrients in crops hence solving hidden hunger problem faced by several African countries. The technology has also been used in the enhancement of plant architecture to optimize land usage and increase yield per area of land cultivated; and improved crops with heightened tolerance or resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses including diseases and weather.

Benefits of GM crops

Some analysis shows that between 1996 and 2015,GM technology increased global production of corn by 357.7 million tons, soybean by 180.3 million tons, cotton fiber by 25.2 million, and canola by 10.6 million tons. GM crops also significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due to this higher productivity. In 2015 alone, they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact of cultivating forests or wild lands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from higher agricultural yield.

Unfortunately, in Africa, only a few countries including South Africa and South Sudan have allowed for the growing of GM crops and are enjoying from these benefits. Ghana has not allowed for the local production of GM crops although parliament passed a law in 2011 to allow for their introduction.

Genetic engineering is a viable way to eradicate hunger and ensure food security in the coming decades hence is pivotal to achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 on eliminating hunger. Yield losses due to changing or fluctuating climate, pests, and diseases, drought, acidic or saline soils and, heat stress can all be remedied by growing genetically modified crops. GM technology is a blessing to mankind and promises a hunger-free future especially in such unsettling times with the COVID-19 pandemic. Lets embrace it.

The author is a Teaching Assistant at the University of Ghana, Graduate, Faculty of Agriculture.

Original post:
Joy Adzovie: Genetically Modified Crops is the solution to global food insecurity - Myjoyonline.com

Read More...

Ziopharm Oncology Announces Initiation of Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Rapid Personalized Manufacturing CAR-T Technology in Patients with Relapsed CD19+…

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

BOSTON, July 09, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ziopharm Oncology, Inc. (Ziopharm or the Company) (Nasdaq:ZIOP), today announced the initiation of a phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate CD19-specific CAR-T, using its Rapid Personalized Manufacturing (RPM) technology, as an investigational treatment for patients with relapsed CD19+ leukemias and lymphomas. The trial is now open for enrollment at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

In this trial, the Company utilizes its non-viral Sleeping Beauty genetic engineering technology to infuse CAR-T the day after electroporation. Ziopharms RPM CD19-specific CAR-T therapy results from the stable, non-viral insertion of DNA into the genome of resting T cells to co-express the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR), membrane-bound IL-15 (mbIL15) and a safety switch.

We are pleased to expand the scope of our clinical development with MD Anderson, as we seek to evaluate our RPM technology using CD19-specific CAR-T cells, said Laurence Cooper, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Ziopharm. RPM is a promising manufacturing solution, as T cells from the bloodstream are genetically reprogramed with DNA plasmids from the Sleeping Beauty system and then simply administered the next day.

Our CAR-T therapy can be administered at low cell doses, which may control cytokine release syndrome and is appealing for the treatment of patients including those with CD19-expressing malignancies that have relapsed after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT). There are limited effective treatment options for such patients as evidenced by the low rate of remission and poor long-term survival, Dr. Cooper added.

Up to 24 patients with advanced CD19+ leukemias and lymphomas who have relapsed after allogeneic BMT will be enrolled in this investigator-initiated trial (NCT03579888). The primary endpoint of the study is to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of donor-derived genetically modified CD19-specific T cells manufactured using the RPM process. An additional study is planned through Ziopharms joint venture with Eden BioCell to evaluate the RPM technology using patient-derived (autologous) CD19-specific CAR-T in Greater China.

Research reveals three-year survival for adults with CD19+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia after allogeneic BMT ranges from 30% to 65%.1 For patients with other CD19+ cancers, allogeneic BMT can provide three-year survival rates between 30% to 75%.1 Few patients experience a durable remission following allogeneic BMT, regardless of the treatment modality, with some having a median survival of only 2 to 3 months.2

About Ziopharm Oncology, Inc.Ziopharm is developing non-viral and cytokine-driven cell and gene therapies that weaponize the bodys immune system to treat the millions of people globally diagnosed with a solid tumor each year. With its multiplatform approach, Ziopharm is at the forefront of immuno-oncology with a goal to treat any type of solid tumor. Ziopharms pipeline is built for commercially scalable, cost effective T-cell receptor T-cell therapies based on its non-viral Sleeping Beauty gene transfer platform, a precisely controlled IL-12 gene therapy, and rapidly manufactured Sleeping Beauty-enabled CD19-specific CAR-T program. The Company has clinical and strategic collaborations with the National Cancer Institute, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. For more information, please visit http://www.ziopharm.com.

Forward-Looking Statements DisclaimerThis press release contains forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts, and in some cases can be identified by terms such as "may," "will," "could," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," and "believes." These statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the progress, design and timing of the Company's research and development programs, the potential benefits of the Companys therapies, and the Companys expectations regarding the number of patients in its clinical trials. Although Ziopharms management team believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, investors are cautioned that forward-looking information and statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and generally beyond the control of Ziopharm, that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements. These risks and uncertainties include among other things, changes in our operating plans that may impact our cash expenditures, the uncertainties inherent in research and development, future clinical data and analysis, including whether any of Ziopharms product candidates will advance further in the preclinical research or clinical trial process, including receiving clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or equivalent foreign regulatory agencies to conduct clinical trials and whether and when, if at all, they will receive final approval from the U.S. FDA or equivalent foreign regulatory agencies and for which indication; the strength and enforceability of Ziopharms intellectual property rights; competition from other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as risk factors discussed or identified in the public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission made by Ziopharm, including those risks and uncertainties listed in Ziopharms Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Ziopharm with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are providing this information as of the date of this press release, and Ziopharm does not undertake any obligation to update or revise the information contained in this press release whether as a result of new information, future events or any other reason.

Investor Relations Contacts:Ziopharm Oncology:Chris TaylorVP, Investor Relations and Corporate CommunicationsT: 617.502.1881E: ctaylor@ziopharm.com

LifeSci Advisors:Mike MoyerManaging DirectorT: 617.308.4306E: mmoyer@lifesciadvisors.com

Media Relations Contact:LifeSci Communications:Patrick BurseyT: 646.876.4932E: pbursey@lifescicomms.com

1 D'Souza A, Fretham C. Current Uses and Outcomes of Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT): CIBMTR Summary Slides, 2018. Available at https://www.cibmtr.org

2 Keil F, Prinz E, Kalhs P, et al. Treatment of leukemic relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation with cytotoreductive chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy or second transplants. Leukemia 2001; 15:355-361.

More here:
Ziopharm Oncology Announces Initiation of Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Rapid Personalized Manufacturing CAR-T Technology in Patients with Relapsed CD19+...

Read More...

Genetically Modified Crops: The Solution To Global Food Insecurity – Modern Ghana

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

Genetically Modified Crops (GM crops) have generated a lot of controversies over the years. They have sparked debates among farmers and consumers alike with people always particularly paying attention to labeled GM and non-GM commodities on the market.

Some describe it as genetic modification. Some call it genetic engineering. Some call them genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Others describe them as biotechnology products, although biotechnology is a broader term. But all of them refer to the same thing.

A lot of ethical concerns have arisen about GM technology over the years. A very common claim made by some anti-GM activists is that you cannot play God which implies that scientists are defying the natural order of creation. Others are concerned about possible health risks associated with the consumption of GM foods although they have been proven scientifically to be safe, 20 years after their introduction.

In fact, in countries like the USA, Brazil, and South Africa, more than 80% of all soya beans, maize and cotton are GM crops. But there has been no single evidence of any of these crops negatively impacting the health of consumers in those countries. Before GM food is released for consumption, it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny which has zero tolerance for errors.

So, what exactly are GM crops?

In a bid to optimize yield, farmers have been breeding suitable varieties of crops through conventional selection for several centuries. This has made most wild ancestors of crops such as teosinte of maize go into extinction leaving the elite cultivars which look bigger and develop more desirable traits over the generations. This method of breeding is known as selective breeding or artificial selection which is globally accepted but currently inefficient to feed a fast-growing population anticipated to reach 9.6 billion in the next couple of decades. The exponential rise in population is inversely related to available land area hence the need for a more strategic approach to efficiently utilize the limited land resource to feed the growing global population. Also, pests and diseases, climate change, amidst other abiotic factors severely constrain crop production.

Biotechnology (which includes genetic modification) is an applied science that harnesses the natural biological capabilities of microbial, plants and animal cells for the benefit of mankind. It has changed the quality of life through improved medicine, diagnostics, agriculture and waste management, as well as offered opportunities for innovation and discoveries.

Genetic engineering is used to efficiently and precisely modify targeted plants using advanced biotechnological techniques. Advances in molecular biology have helped eliminate certain gaps in breeding such as reducing time to successfully introduce (introgress) a gene of interest into a commercial crop variety through a process called speed breeding and eradicating linkage drags associated with conventional breeding.

The principle is a simple one. To genetically improve or enhance a crop such as sweet potato which is susceptible to nematode attack, another crop such as tomato that is resistant to nematode attack is identified and the gene of interest is isolated. The gene isolated from the tomato is then introduced into the sweet potato. The host plant becomes a transgenic or genetically modified plant which expresses the desired trait (resistance to nematode) in subsequent generations.

Genetic engineering has had several uses such as in biofortification of crops to increase the concentration and availability of nutrients in crops hence solving hidden hunger problem faced by several African countries. The technology has also been used in the enhancement of plant architecture to optimize land usage and increase yield per area of land cultivated; and improved crops with heightened tolerance or resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses including diseases and weather.

Benefits of GM crops

Some analysis shows that between 1996 and 2015, GM technology increased global production of corn by 357.7 million tons, soybean by 180.3 million tons, cotton fiber by 25.2 million, and canola by 10.6 million tons. GM crops also significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due to this higher productivity.

In 2015 alone, they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact of cultivating forests or wildlands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from higher agricultural yield.

Unfortunately, in Africa, only a few countries including South Africa and South Sudan have allowed for the growth of GM crops and are enjoying these benefits. Ghana has not allowed for the local production of GM crops although parliament passed a law in 2011 to allow for their introduction.

Genetic engineering is a viable way to eradicate hunger and ensure food security in the coming decades hence is pivotal to achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 on eliminating hunger. Yield losses due to changing or fluctuating climate, pests, and diseases, drought, acidic or saline soils and, heat stress can all be remedied by growing genetically modified crops. GM technology is a blessing to mankind and promises a hunger-free future especially in such unsettling times with the COVID-19 pandemic. Lets embrace it.

See original here:
Genetically Modified Crops: The Solution To Global Food Insecurity - Modern Ghana

Read More...

LA’s ‘Wet Markets’ Could Be On The Chopping Block – LAist

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

A cashier at L.A. Fresh Poultry weighs some chicken. (Chava Sanchez/LAist)

Our news is free on LAist. To make sure you get our coverage: Sign up for our daily newsletters. To support our non-profit public service journalism: Donate Now.

Zoila Isabel Sandoval sits on a hard, wooden chair in front of the spice rack at L.A. Fresh Poultry, waiting to place her order with a clerk. The basket of her rolling walker is piled with groceries. She's in a good mood. Today is her son's 40th birthday and they're going to celebrate with a big family lunch. She plans to make several Guatemalan-style dishes, including arroz con pollo chapina and pollo en jocon, a tomatillo-based stew. To do that, she needs six freshly slaughtered chickens.

Sandoval grew up in the farm town of San Rafael Las Flores in southern Guatemala, where she and her mother raised chickens and pigs at home.

"I liked seeing them grow, especially when they had little chicks or piglets," Sandoval says in Spanish.

After moving to Los Angeles two decades ago, she struggled to find a place where she could buy freshly slaughtered chickens.

"I have been eating like this ever since I was in my mother's womb," she says with a laugh.

When she discovered L.A. Fresh Poultry, a 2,000-square-foot market not far from her MacArthur Park apartment, she felt a sense of relief.

The store sells live chickens, turkeys, quails, ducks, squabs and rabbits, which its butchers will slaughter on site. In the eyes of the law, this will probably make L.A. Fresh Poultry a "wet market" a business that may soon be forbidden in the city of Los Angeles.

On June 10, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion that could signal the beginning of the end for wet markets. The motion asks the L.A. Department of City Planning, the Department of Building and Safety and the City Attorney's office to come up with "a precise definition" of "wet market" and provide recommendations about which "establishments and practices should be prohibited."

Bob Blumenfield, one of the two city councilmembers who sponsored the motion, told us the information he's requesting is not an outright wet market ban yet. Rather, it's a "report on the feasibility of such an ordinance." But, he added, "It's the first step to prohibit the sale of living creatures for human consumption in the city of Los Angeles."

Although city officials haven't provided a definition for "wet market," the state of California defines "live animal market," an equivalent term, as "a retail food market where, in the regular course of business, animals are stored alive and sold to consumers for the purpose of human consumption." A further explanation, spelled out in California Penal Code PEN 597.3, says, "'Animal' means frogs, turtles, and birds sold for the purpose of human consumption, with the exception of poultry."

L.A. city officials are still in the process of working with L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer to write the ordinance, according to Councilmember Paul Koretz, the motion's other sponsor. "The focus is primarily on animals that have unknown implications in terms of diseases they could spread," Koretz told us, although he acknowledges there is no guarantee the ordinance would be limited to animals that are commonly tied to illnesses.

Although no wet market or butcher shop has been the source of a COVID-19 outbreak in L.A., "There may be hygienic questions in terms of how they operate, and questions of animal cruelty in terms of how [animals] are kept and slaughtered," Koretz said. He told us he has no firsthand experience shopping at wet markets in L.A.

Ren Rowland, the chairwoman of animal rights organization PawPAC, supports the motion. She told us that whether wet market animals are wild (think bullfrogs or turtles) or domestic (think chickens, ducks, rabbits), "They also endure these terrible experiences of being transported and trafficked in these different containers in cages, in trucks and planes."

"We don't advocate for any markets to close for business," Rowland said. "We just believe that we need to stop the practice of the on-site slaughter."

The city of L.A., which has approximately 4 million residents, has maybe two dozen stores that slaughter and sell animals on their premises, according to a list provided by Blumenfield's staff. Blumenfield says the list isn't exhaustive and could potentially include businesses that are not wet markets. Regardless, these businesses make up a tiny fraction of L.A.'s nearly 1,200 markets and grocery stores.

Koretz told us he doesn't know of any major food-borne illness outbreaks that began at L.A. wet markets, "but there are some people that have become sick from eating some of the more exotic foods." He added that his knowledge of cruelty issues is secondhand.

So why the motion that could put an end to wet markets? And why do it now? One word: coronavirus.

"The fact that this virus potentially started in a wet market [in China] caused us to look at ourselves in Los Angeles, and do we have these kinds of wet markets that are cruel and potentially dangerous," Blumenfield said.

No one has conclusively determined the origins of COVID-19. Many scientists believe it originated in nature in one animal species (possibly bats) then jumped to another species (such as pangolins) before wreaking havoc on humans. In one theory, that transfer happened in a seafood and animal market near Wuhan, China.

The phrase "wet market" can mean a lot of things. Most of them merely sell fresh meat, fish and other perishable food. Others, like the one near Wuhan, also sell wild animals such as bats and civets. Although scientists may never be able to pinpoint the virus's origin, that hasn't stopped politicians or conspiracy theorists or racists from making "wet market" a pejorative term and blaming people or cultures commonly associated with them for the coronavirus pandemic.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly used the term "Chinese virus" to describe the COVID-19. As hate crimes against Asian Americans continue to rise, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany recently defended Trump's use of the term "kung flu," saying, "It's not a discussion about Asian Americans, who the president values and prizes as citizens of this great country. It is an indictment of China for letting this virus get here."

At the start of 2020, most Americans had never heard of wet markets. A few months later, they were Public Health Enemy #1. Even Canadian Lite Rocker Bryan Adams got in on the action.

By April, the Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council's Hate Tracker had received more than 1,400 reports of verbal abuse, assault and shunning directed at Asian Americans, or people who look Asian.

Racism triggered by the so-called wet market-coronavirus connection even trickled down to the business sector. In late January, as the coronavirus became a growing global concern, Chinese restaurants started to see a major slump in customers.

The L.A. City Council's motion to ban wet markets which only applies within the city's boundaries and not in the San Gabriel Valley, where there are about a dozen such markets won't only impact Asian Americans. It will impact Muslims, Latinos, Armenians and anyone else who prefers meat from freshly slaughtered animals.

Koretz says he understands how the motion could be seen as discriminatory, but he views that interpretation as the result of a top-down leadership problem. "My only discomfort is with President Trump unnecessarily trying to utilize the hate against anybody different," he said, adding that Trump's divisive and racist language is an "unfortunate side element to this issue."

But Koretz maintains that there's a valid reason for the motion: "We're seeing how devastating this particular virus can be. And this practice, even though it is culturally associated with certain communities, the potential diseases will not be associated with any community. This is targeted towards health."

To Zoila Sandoval, the idea of buying meat that has been slaughtered elsewhere then frozen, swathed in plastic and shipped from hundreds of miles away is hard to accept.

Two times a week since L.A. Fresh Poultry opened 14 years ago, she has made the 20-minute walk from her home on Vermont Avenue to the store. The chance to buy freshly slaughtered animals is precisely why she comes here.

"It's killed here," she says. "It's not frozen and stored for I don't know how long. It's fresh and healthier."

She's not alone. Outside of wet markets, there's plenty of demand for freshly slaughtered, non-factory-farmed, humanely killed animals, whether it's the organic steaks of Belcampo Meat Co. or the organic, air-chilled thighs of Mary's Free-Range Chicken. Never mind the urban hipsters who home-raise chickens, sometimes for food.

Aside from a giant fiberglass rooster (and his small rabbit companion) perched on the roof, L.A. Fresh Poultry is an unassuming store next to the Virgil Avenue on-ramp of the 101. Behind the counter, bills from different countries have been stuck to the wall around a sign that reads, "I love Egypt."

Painted on another wall outside the store, a colorful parade of creatures including Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny beckons potential customers. "Why buy frozen when you can buy fresh?" reads the mural. Indeed, in addition to the foodstuffs that any such store carries, L.A. Fresh Poultry has a live animal storage room, where chickens, rabbits and quails are kept in cages.

The market has been a neighborhood staple since opening in 2006. It serves customers seven days a week, from 8:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. This is owner Abdel Salam Elhawary's second such store. The first, Al Salam Pollera in East L.A., opened nearly 40 years ago, and is still thriving. He says approximately 80% to 85% of his customers are Mexican immigrants and the rest originally come from Guatemala or El Salvador. Elhawary also has a third store, Van Nuys Live & Fresh Poultry, which he opened in 2012.

A 68-year-old Egyptian immigrant who once taught French in his home country, Elhawary came to Los Angeles in 1980 and worked in a bank for nearly a decade before getting into the grocery game.

He started his business so Muslims could have more access to halal meats. For meat to be certified halal, whoever is doing the slaughtering must follow certain rules. The animal can't be unconscious. The butcher needs to use an extremely sharp instrument to prevent snags and the prolonging of any suffering. Allah's name must be said during the slaughter. Then, the animal must be hung upside down so the blood can drain. (By way of comparison, in industrial slaughterhouses, chickens might be shackled then electrocuted to death while sheep and pigs might be gassed into unconsciousness before they're slaughtered.)

"We have a Muslim community," Elhawary says, "it's about 40,000 to 50,000 Muslims around the [Koreatown] area. Mostly, the Bangladesh people come, and the Middle Eastern and others."

Hollywood resident Haji Ceesay, 53, is one of the market's many customers. Ceesay, a Muslim who comes from The Gambia, moved to Los Angeles in 1991. Ceesay prefers to consume freshly slaughtered animals for religious and cultural reasons.

"Back home that's what we do," Ceesay says. "We buy live chicken and it's different than the frozen ones here."

Ceesay left the store that day with six chickens.

These days, Elhawary says Muslims make up about 40% of his customers. He says the rest of his clients are Angelenos who originally came from Mexico, Central America, Armenia or Korea. He's as surprised as anyone by the diversity of his clientele, but he's happy to have the customers.

After 40 years in business, Elhawary isn't upset about the provision in the ordinance that would require him to stop selling live birds, such as quail and squab. Demand is low. The provision that would require him to stop slaughtering is another matter.

If that goes into effect, "I am gonna die," Elhawary says. "All my life is doing this. It's not only my shop. It's all over. Millions of people love to eat the fresh one."

"Millions" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's undeniable that live animal markets fill a need for thousands of residents, most of whom, by almost any account, are immigrants and/or people of color.

Sam Sammars, an L.A. Fresh Poultry customer who lives in East L.A., says he discovered the market in 2014 and has been coming once or twice a week since then. For him, it's worth the trip. The meat here is fresher than store-bought factory meat, and the prices are good $15 to $16 for a large, freshly slaughtered chicken.

"It tastes so natural, as if you're in the farm," he said while waiting in line to place his order.

Sammars grew up on a farm in Columbus, Ohio, where there weren't many supermarkets in the area, so he got used to the taste of fresh everything fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and fresh meat. Now 35, he says conventional farming and meat production, with their pesticides, genetic engineering, hormones and antibiotics, produce food that isn't as nutritious.

He said that if markets are prohibited from selling live and freshly slaughtered animals without the law making any distinction between chickens and ducks vs. frogs, exotic birds and wild animals, "It would be very strongly devastating."

At typical grocery stores and supermarkets, most meat comes from livestock that has been raised on "factory farms" (or what the USDA calls Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), then slaughtered at industrial slaughterhouses and transported to markets by refrigerated trucks.

"Wet markets are selling a live animal or slaughtering it in front of you. That's very different," Blumenfield says. "When animals are just brought in and killed for human consumption, it completely avoids the regulatory system."

In fact, the state of California regulates how live animal markets, custom slaughterhouses and retail poultry plants can operate. The facilities are inspected by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to make sure they abide by health and safety regulations, which are designed to prevent the inhumane treatment of animals and the spread of diseases. The L.A. County Department of Public Health, for its part, regulates the retail portion of such businesses in accordance with the California Retail Food Code.

Regardless of the oversight process, Blumenfield also points out that the motion stems from a "cruelty issue."

"The idea is: Can we stop this cruel practice in Los Angeles?" he says, referring to slaughtering of rabbits, frogs and birds on site. "A wet market is the opposite of what you would find in a humane society."

Chef Wes Avila doesn't see wet markets that way. He says he used to buy 50 to 80 chickens per week from wet markets in Chinatown when he launched Guerrilla Tacos as a food truck, in 2014.To Avila, the complaints about wet markets aren't about ethics, they're about aesthetics. They just make some people uncomfortable.

"People want to pretend that meat comes from some magic pig tree or chicken tree. That's not the way it happens. It has to come from somewhere."

According to Elhawary, the chickens at his markets come from farms in Fresno or Ramona and he makes sure all the animals he sells are healthy.

"When they have bruises from the transportation, we trim it and throw the bad parts away. We use sharp knives, and we do the chicken fast and accurately. We don't let the chicken suffer," Elhawary says.

Nevertheless, activists who support the closure of wet markets prioritize another concern the transportation process. Rowland, of PawPAC, says people who want to maximize their profits will transport as many live animals as possible in trucks or planes, which is dangerous and inhumane.

Rowland says she doesn't believe slaughtering animals in industrial slaughterhouses then transporting the meat to grocery stores is necessarily more humane, safer or healthier.

But, she says, "There are no factory farms in the city of Los Angeles and so because of that, we don't have to address that issue."

The proposal to ban wet markets in L.A. is one part of Rowland's larger goal: putting a stop to any activities that cause animals suffering or torture. She says she's starting with California but wants that message to sweep the world.

Councilman Koretz, for his part, is waiting on the report so he can decide "whether it's a practical thing to pursue."

Although the report was supposed to come out by July 10 30 days after the motion was passed it has not yet been completed. A staffer at Councilman Koretz's office said the city expects to see the report in late July or early August.

If officials want to move forward with the proposal, the City Council will have to pass another motion directing City Attorney Feuer to draft the law.

While officials wait for the city's feasibility report, Elhawary worries. If the proposed measure moves forward, he says he may organize a demonstration with his customers. He fears that if he has to stop selling freshly slaughtered poultry, his three markets will go out of business.

In the meantime, Zoila Sandoval has been watching as the workers at L.A. Fresh Poultry process her order. After she's requested her six chickens at the counter, two licensed butchers grab them from the cages that are not visible to customers. They take the birds to the killing room, where they're slaughtered, drained and plucked. Then, two more workers remove the giblets, wash the chickens and pass them through an open doorway to a clerk.

One of the shop's two butchers, Merare Nataneal, has spent 12 years honing his craft. At 66, he worries the ordinance, if passed, will put him on the unemployment line.

"This is my work, and I don't want to lose it," Nataneal says in Spanish. "It's an uncomfortable position knowing that they might want to close this type of business down."

Behind the counter, a clerk weighs, wraps and bags the freshly killed birds. After paying at the register, Sandoval leaves L.A. Fresh Poultry under the gaze of Foghorn Leghorn, six still-warm birds piled in the basket of her walker as she rolls down Virgil Ave, heading home to make lunch for her son.

Excerpt from:
LA's 'Wet Markets' Could Be On The Chopping Block - LAist

Read More...

Perspective on Pharma: Moving from academia to industry – EPM Magazine

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

In this Perspective on Pharma feature, Jung Doh, market development scientist at Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, explains how they entered the pharmaceutical industry after an unexpected opportunity arose.

As an early career scientist with a good number of years of graduate and post-doctoral training (two post-docs, actually), I made an unexpected leap: from academiawhere I thought I would spend my entire professional lifeto industry. And though it wasnt a move Id initially planned, Im the first to say that Im incredibly happy to have ended up here, since its afforded me research and personal growth opportunities I didnt even know I wanted.

After I received my doctorate in biology, I completed a post-doc in HIV research and a second, NASA-funded post-doc in the effects of microgravity on genomes. My dreamand a very concrete goal for many yearswas to become a professor at a research university, running my own lab in an area I was passionate about.

But then life intervened: my wife was offered a teaching position in Indianapolis that she couldnt pass up, so we relocated. After a few months of fruitless application to teaching and research positions at local universities, I started looking elsewhere. There are a lot of pharma and biotech companies in Indianapolis, so I started exploring some of them. In the interview process, (and much to my surprise), I discovered that they shared many of the same passions and goals I did: to benefit human health and life in fundamental and lasting ways.

The company where I ended up and still work, Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, was particularly interesting to me, since one of their key focuses was on next generation sequencing (NGS). Toward the end of my Ph.D. and in my post-doc training, NGS was becoming more routine, and I was fortunate to be able to learn and apply the techniques in my own research.

So I joined Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, which offers a range of scientific research instruments used to study complex biological problems and to advance scientific breakthroughs, first as a marketing application scientist, and then expanding into a dual role as application scientist and proof of principle scientist. In the latter, I worked with customers to develop modified protocols and tools to help research be done more efficiently. I then became product manager for our genomics product line, and as of this year, I have yet another new role, as market development scientist. In this role, I engage with the scientific community to learn from them, as well as support them to perform research better, faster, and with superior results and outcomes. I also bring the learnings and techniques gained from these collaborations to create collateral to offer other labs, or help our internal team develop product offerings for a specific need.

After making the leap into industry, I never looked back. There are, of course, benefits to both sectors. In academia, theres a certain degree of freedom and job securityonce youre tenured, that is. But it takes a lot to get tenured these daysthe funding and grants and a constant stream of publicationsparticularly in biology and related disciplines.

Though industry may seem more constrained at first glance, in many ways, theres as much or more opportunity, since there are a plethora of techniques to learn and apply in novel ways. And since technology evolves so rapidly, especially in genetic engineering and diagnostics, it seems like there are always new methods to master.

Related to this aspect, and alluded to earlier, is the strong sense that my and my colleagues work is genuinely translating into helping people across the globe. I got an inkling of that in the interview process, but its also been a palpable part of my work here. With the current pandemic, for instance, the company came together, and, within a matter of weeks, we were able to offer labs RNA extraction solutions for the virus, which are so critical right now. I felt honoured to be part of a company doing such great work, with flexibility and speed. It definitely speaks to the versatility of the industry.

Beyond the scientific, Ive learned about areas seemingly outside of science, but that are actually integral parts of the business. When I was product manager, for instance, I learned how to manage people, run meetings, build financial models, approach marketing and sales, and many other facets of the business. I had no formal business training going in, but you learn by doing, from your manager and peers. I ended up really loving all these other parts of the business of sciencetheyre challenging, but incredibly rewarding, because they push you beyond your comfort zone into uncharted areas. For that, industry has opened up areas that I didnt even know would be important, let alone fun and rewarding.

Finally, Ive been surprised and heartened by the strong sense of family that exists within a company. Part of this is felt through the opportunities for development, which is evident in all the stages I went through and all the roles Ive had. Theres a sense that staff are supported to grow as scientists and as people, which has made my accidental leap into industry all the more fulfilling.

For young scientists, theres a lot to think about when making decisions about what to study and what track to follow. I would encourage people to not get too hung up on tracks, but to stay open to the possibilitiesin other words, dont get too stuck on academia as the only option just because its where youve done your training. What really matters is having a passion for what you do, and following your interests. Genetic engineering is an area thats exploded in recent years, and will likely grow in the coming years. Ive been lucky that my own work has translated so tangibly into helping people, and at a large scalebut the same is true for many other areas in medical science. So carry onyou may end up in a totally different place from where you started, and thats not a bad thing at all.

See original here:
Perspective on Pharma: Moving from academia to industry - EPM Magazine

Read More...

COVID-19 Research: Women Are Changing the Face of the Pandemic – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

The pristine X-ray crystallography data gathered by Rosalind Franklin played a crucial role in the discovery of DNAs structure. Yet when the discovery was recognized by the Nobel Committee in 1962, the winners of the Nobel Prize did not include Franklin, who had died in 1958. Only recently has Franklin received some of the recognition that she deserves for her essential contribution to one of the biggest discoveries of the past century.

We still have a lot of work to do, unfortunately, notes Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunologist at Yale School of Medicine and a fierce advocate for women in science. Things have definitely gotten better since [Franklins] days she tells GEN. But we still have a huge disparity in women representationespecially at the senior level. Iwasaki adds that we have to address what she thinks is the root cause of the problemthe academic culture and the unconscious (or conscious) bias against women and people of color that prevents these brilliant people from moving up the academic ladder.

To mark the centenary of Franklins birth, GEN sought to highlight scientists at the forefront of COVID-19 researchsome of the most influential research currently being conductedwho are women. In this article, GEN speaks with researchers who are leading efforts to track SARS-CoV-2 genomes, to uncover host factors influencing COVID-19 progression, to develop saliva-based COVID-19 tests, and more.

Working as a pediatrician in China, Qian Zhang, MD, wanted to understand why some children are more susceptible to infections than others. Children are exposed to hundreds of pathogens every day, Zhang tells GEN, but only a very small proportion get really severe infections. Zhang has been researching differences in susceptibility for the past decade. Notably, she performed postdoctoral work at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) with Helen Su, MD, PhD. Afterward, Zhang became a postdoctoral fellow at the Rockefeller University, in the laboratory of Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD.

Working with patient samples, researchers in the Casanova laboratory look for rare, deleterious mutations that might govern susceptibility to infection. In particular, they look for monogenic variants, where a single defect makes an individual far more susceptible to infection. Zhangs hypothesis for COVID-19 is that patients who are susceptible to less virulent respiratory pathogens will also be susceptible to COVID-19. By taking an unbiased approach, Zhang and colleagues may find genetic factors that have never been identified before.

Normally, Zhang analyzes children because it is in childhood that people usually experience infection for the first time. But COVID-19 is different, she notes, because this infection is the first time for everyone.

Zhang previously led the influenza team in the Casanova laboratory. So, taking on COVID-19 is a natural shift. She adds that many commonalities between the two lung infections have been established, and that many tools developed for flu research can be used in COVID-19 work. Besides, there simply arent any more flu patients coming in.

Zhang asserts that her group, like others, has adapted its work to the pandemic. Investigators normally work on well-defined infections. COVID-19, however, isnt so well defined. Too little about it is known. For example, without key pieces of data such as a fatality rate, investigators who look for genetic lesions may be unaware of the lesions prevalence. We have to change our analysis while the data are coming in, Zhang explains.

How much hesitation did Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, have in moving into COVID-19 research? None, she says. I knew the importance of speed and urgency. She notes that she had learned the value of these attributes from her experience jumping into Zika.

Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at the Yale School of Medicine and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, has spent the past few months trying to understand the immune response of COVID-19 patients. Iwasakis laboratory is working to develop real-time analyses of immune markers and cytokines that could sharpen patient assessments and even inform treatmentdecisions.

The biggest surprise, so far, has been the role of interferon (IFN) in this disease, asserts Iwasaki. For other viruses, such as influenza and rhinovirus, type 1 IFN has a protective role for the host. But SARS-CoV-2 seems different. Studies in a mouse model have shown that IFN contributes to the inflammatory response without shutting down viral replication. According to Iwasaki, this is unusual. In other viral infections, IFN can shut down the virus. But Iwasaki thinks that the IFN here is being induced a little bit too late or in too small of an amount.

Iwasakis main goal is to understand what type of immune response confers protective immunity versus the types that lead to disease. Because patients have diverse responses to SARS-CoV-2, the researchers are working to build disease trajectories that reflect patient-specific aspects of the immune responsecytokine or antibody production, T-cell response, viral load, etc. By conducting longitudinal sampling and following patients trajectories, the researchers hope to predict how patients will fare when they are admitted to the hospital. Ideally, she envisions a panel that could be ordered by a physician that would allow patients to be treated with a more personalized medicine approach, based on their immune profiles.

This analysis has never been done so extensively for an infectious disease, Iwasaki asserts, because we never had the urgency to do this for other viral pathogens. In 2020, thankfully, the technology exists to do this type of analysis in real time.

Another area Iwasaki has recently explored is sex differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection. By studying male and female immune responses, her group found one clue as to why males are reportedly more susceptible to COVID-19. In a preprint posted in medRxiv, Iwasaki and colleagues described how they investigated sex differences in viral loads, antibody titers, and cytokines in COVID-19 patients, and how they found that T-cell activation was significantly more robust in women than in men. Men who dont develop a good T-cell response have worse disease outcomes.

Emma B. Hodcroft, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel, recalls agreeing to keep her supervisors project going while he traveled. She was to take charge in early February. Continuity was important because they had just started uploading sequences of SARS-CoV-2 into the online genomics engine Nextstraina collaboration started in 2014 to track flu virus diversity and help predict the next flu strain.

Because Nextstrain has hubs in Europe and the United States, the absence of data uploads at the University of Basel would hamper runs during the European daytime. She has, in her own words, never looked back.

The pipeline analysis that Nextstrain runs makes phylogeny from viral genome mutations. Phylogenetics is a field full of limitations, Hodcroft notes. She adds that the field is particularly troublesome because its beautifully dangerousthe picture that is drawn is always less certain than it looks. While it is tempting to start telling stories about these sequences, she says, one must be cautious. The roughly 40,000 cases currently in the system is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of COVID-19 cases. There is much more likelihood that we havent sampled someone than we have, she admits.

As borders reopen and travel resumes, continued genomic analysis, Hodcroft tells GEN, could uncover details about virus transmission, including transmission routes. She will be keeping a close watch while cautiously communicating new findings. These data are of interest to a large and growing audience, and members of this audience may misinterpret (intentionally or not) what they hear. Deciphering the uncertainty that surrounds the field of phylogenetics requires expertisesomething not all scientists who have ventured into the world of COVID-19 phylogenetics possess.

Hodcroft gets upset when misinterpreted data spark a storyline that needs to be debunked. I dont think that telling these false stories that panic the public helps anybody, she declares. There is plenty to be worried about with this virus.

COVID-19 is the second SARS epidemic Rachel Graham, PhD, has worked on since she started her graduate work in a coronavirus lab in 2002. Currently working in a large coronavirus laboratory at University of North Carolina (UNC) led by Ralph S. Baric, PhD, she says that Barics group has scaled up from what was a busy program to an extremely busy program.

Graham uses large sequence sets to study how the virus transcriptional program contributes to replication and virulence. As the virus mutates, its subgenomic RNAs are produced in different ways, indicating that the transcription itself may be a virulence factor. She says that as the population acquires more herd immunity, researchers may see a lot of transcriptional differences in the virus, and these differences could result in changes in virulence. SARS-CoV-2 will be the first virus where this relatively new idea in virology will be examined in detail.

Lisa Gralinski, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at UNC, has been studying coronaviruses for 12 years. Her current work centers around virus host interactions, specifically in animal models such as the humanized ACE2 transgenic mouse. The mouse was developed at UNC in the mid-2000s after the first SARS outbreak. Researchers had even started the paperwork to cryopreserve the mouse just before COVID-19 struck. Quickly adjusting to COVID-19, they changed course and started as many breeding pairs as possible.

Graham and Gralinski may be new to the UNC faculty, but they are veterans in a rapidly growing field. Gralinski notes that six months ago, few people worked in coronavirus. Unlike SARS, SARS-CoV-2 is not currently a select agentwhich means that more people are free to work on it. Both Graham and Gralinski welcome more hands on deck, but theyve been alarmed by some of the ways that people are working with SARS-CoV-2 in their Biological Safety Level 3 (BSL3) labs. SARS-CoV-2 requires special precautions and security due to the high titers used in experiments.

In early March, Anne L. Wyllie, PhD, an associate research scientist in epidemiology at Yale, was chatting with her colleague, Nathan D. Grubaugh, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology. He was lamenting the level of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in patient samples. Wyllie drew his attention to a method she had been using to detect Streptococcus pneumoniae from saliva samples of asymptomatic carriers.

Her method, which used Thermo Fishers MagMAX Kit for Nucleic Acid Extraction, had worked so well for Wyllie that she suggested that Grubaugh use it to test for SARS-CoV-2. Wyllie recalls that when Grubaugh and colleagues compared the methods, Wyllies method blew the other one out of the water. Ultimately, the MagMAX Kit and the King Fisher platform (which happens to be named Frankie in the lab, in honor of Rosalind Franklin) became the Grubaugh laboratorys method of choice. Wyllie is now co-lead on the COVID-19 project with Grubaugh.

Wyllie was the lead author on a preprint uploaded to medRxiv showing that saliva samples offer a more sensitive and consistent alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 testing. Saliva samples, the paper argued, should be considered a viable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs to alleviate COVID-19 testing demands. This could be key to meeting public testing demands.

We knew a pandemic would come and we knew we would have to be ready, says Viviana Simon, MD, PhD, professor of microbiology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. A decade after starting her virology laboratory in 2006, Simon and her colleagues built the Virology Initiative in 2017, which allowed real-time access to samples from patients with viral infections. The goal, she explains, was to study emerging viruses in New York Cityviruses such as Zika, chikungunya, and dengue. Having the initiative established allowed the laboratory to spring into action when the pandemic hit. Simon notes that a virology infrastructure capable of such responsiveness would not be easy to build in the middle of a pandemic.

Simon remarks that there was never any doubt that there would be a pandemic: We thought that it would be a respiratory virus and figured that it would be an avian influenza strain. Any pandemic would almost certainly come through New York City, which serves as a gateway not just for people, but for viruses from all over, she says.

Simon tells GEN that her team heard rumors about a new virus in December and began preparing. The moment the first sequences were released in mid-January, she recalls, We ordered primers. And then? Simon and colleagues waited and waited, she says, for the first case to show up. The first COVID-19 case was diagnosed at Mount Sinai on February 29. Only then could the Simon team grow the virus and sequence it.

Simons team has analyzed the genetic diversity of SARS-CoV-2 circulation in New York City and how the virus was introduced. The team is also interested in assessing the durability of antibodies and determining the degree to which antibodies are protective.

The size of Simons laboratory has doubled, primarily due to a temporary influx of postdoctoral researchers and technicians, volunteers that come from laboratories shut down by COVID-19. This COVID task force jumped in to support the COVID-19 research being done at Mount Sinai. Simon remarks that when temporary personnel start returning to their own laboratories, she will be busy hiring more people.

The dedicated researchers highlighted in this article have been working almost nonstop for months, motivated by a shared passion to beat back a virus that has taken over the world. These researchers represent different scientific backgrounds, and they are tackling different facets of the virus. But they would no doubt recognize common elements in their professional development. For example, the challenges that come with being women in male-dominated fields. Hopefully, it will not take decades to recognize and celebrate the contributions of some of these outstanding scientists.

Original post:
COVID-19 Research: Women Are Changing the Face of the Pandemic - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Read More...

Yeast Market Trend, CAGR Status, Growth, Analysis and Forecast to 2028 – 3rd Watch News

Thursday, July 9th, 2020

Brewing or beer making represents a massive and highly lucrative sector. According to a study, global alcohol consumption has constantly been on the rise, and the consumption of beer accounts for the highest volume share. Yeast, being the cardinal ingredient used in the production of beer, provides the right proportion of texture and flavor to beer during its production. As a result, increasing demand and consumption of beer has been elevating the globalyeast market, which is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 5.4% during the forecast period 2018-2026. The market valuation has been estimated to be over US$ 10,200 Mn by 2026 end.

Yeast Innovation: The Future of Brewery

The brewing industry has overcome a slew of challenges and moved beyond times when technological breakthroughs were not applied to the beer crafting process. According to a research, one small, low-capital innovation, within the reach of all beer makers is enhancing and improvising the yeast they use in their beer. Even though yeast is partially responsible for imparting the flavor and aroma to beer, brewers often compare yeast to hops. This leaves yeasts dynamic nature untapped, which can be used for product enhancements.

Get Sample Copy Of This Report @https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/samples/23347

Research has shown that non-GMO development techniques such as selective breeding can be used to optimize the brewing strains. Ultimately, brewers can enhance the quality of beer by innovative yeast that can be fully customized pertaining to the brewery and its beer with the specific desired parameters in fermentation performance, processing, storage, flavor, and aroma, without compromising quality or brand identity.

Alternatives to Traditional Straining to Drive Innovation in Yeast Market

Studies on the beer and yeast market have pointed at various possibilities that would drive the use of yeast in beer making. For instance, to develop brewers yeast, market players could use hop-accentuating enzymes in high volume which will change the aroma and flavor profiles of the different hop varieties used in beer. Additionally, brewers can add a trait to increase fermentation temperature ranges which would produce desired flavor profiles at lower temperatures, eliminating the problem of off odors that occur at higher temperatures.

Request For Methodology @https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/methodology/23347

Genetically Engineered Yeast to Offer Excellent Taste to Beer

From great-tasting to cloudy and off-taste beers, yeast accounts for up to a third of a brews final flavor. Brewing yeast has its own genetic limitations. For researchers across the globe, brewing yeast is at the forefront of genetic research and synthetic biology, which is pushing the boundaries of genetic engineering. Geneticists can now tweak the genetic code of brewing yeast to suppress or express certain beer characteristics. From taking out the gene responsible for the butter-flavored molecule diacetyl to using specific gene for banana and clove flavors made by hefeweizen yeast brewers would now be able to use this ability of genetically modified (GM) yeast for the production of beer.

Whether it is straining of yeast or making use of genetically engineered yeast, increased consumption of alcoholic beverages in the world, with beer leading the consumption segment, has witnessed several yeast innovations in recent years, favoring the market growth. For more insights, speak to our expert food analysts at Persistence Market Research to know more about the yeasts market and its impact on the end-user industry.

Read more:
Yeast Market Trend, CAGR Status, Growth, Analysis and Forecast to 2028 - 3rd Watch News

Read More...

GMOs: Pros and Cons, Backed by Evidence – Healthline

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

GMOs, short for genetically modified organisms, are subject to a lot of controversy.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GMO seeds are used to plant over 90% of all maize (corn), cotton, and soy grown in the United States, which means that many of the foods you eat likely contain GMOs (1).

Although most notable organizations and research suggest that GMO foods are safe and sustainable, some people claim they may harm your health and the environment.

This article helps explain what GMOs are, provides a balanced explanation of their pros and cons, and gives guidance on how to identify GMO foods.

GMO, which stands for genetically modified organism, refers to any organism whose DNA has been modified using genetic engineering technology.

In the food industry, GMO crops have had genes added to them for various reasons, such as improving their growth, nutritional content, sustainability, pest resistance, and ease of farming (2).

While its possible to naturally give foods desirable traits through selective breeding, this process takes many generations. Also, breeders may struggle to determine which genetic change has led to a new trait.

Genetic modification significantly accelerates this process by using scientific techniques that give the plant the specific desired trait.

For example, one of the most common GMO crops is Bt corn, which is genetically modified to produce the insecticide Bt toxin. By making this toxin, the corn is able to resist pests, reducing the need for pesticides (3).

GMO crops are incredibly common in the United States, with at least 90% of soy, cotton, and corn being grown through genetic techniques (4).

In fact, its estimated that up to 80% of foods in supermarkets contain ingredients that come from genetically modified crops.

While GMO crops make farming much easier, there is some concern around their potential effect on the environment and their safety for human consumption specifically surrounding illnesses and allergies (5).

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USDA maintain that GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption (6).

GMOs are food items that have been made using genetic engineering techniques. They comprise 90% of soy, cotton, and corn grown in the United States and are deemed safe for human consumption.

GMO foods may offer several advantages to the grower and consumer.

For starters, many GMO crops have been genetically modified to express a gene that protects them against pests and insects.

For example, the Bt gene is commonly genetically engineered into crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans. It comes from a naturally occurring bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis.

This gene produces a protein that is toxic to several pests and insects, which gives the GMO plants a natural resistance. As such, the GMO crops dont need to be exposed to harmful pesticides as often (7).

In fact, an analysis of 147 studies from 2014 found that GMO technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37% and increased crop yields by 22% (8).

Other GMO crops have been modified with genes that help them survive stressful conditions, such as droughts, and resist diseases like blights, resulting in a higher yield for farmers (9, 10, 11).

Together, these factors help lower the costs for the farmers and consumers because it allows a greater crop yield and growth through harsher conditions.

Additionally, genetic modification can increase the nutritional value of foods. For example, rice high in beta carotene, also called golden rice, was developed to help prevent blindness in regions where local diets are chronically deficient in vitamin A (12).

Moreover, genetic modification may be used simply to enhance the flavor and appearance of foods, such as the non-browning apple (13).

In addition, current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption (14).

GMO foods are easier and less costly for farmers to grow, which makes them cheaper for the consumer. GMO techniques may also enhance foods nutrients, flavor, and appearance.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe, there is some concern around their long-term safety and environmental impact (14).

Here are some of the key concerns around GMO consumption.

There is some concern that GMO foods may trigger an allergic reaction.

This is because GMO foods contain foreign genes, so some people worry that they harbor genes from foods that may prompt an allergic reaction.

A study from the mid-1990s found that adding a protein from Brazil nuts to GMO soybeans could trigger an allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. However, after scientists discovered this, they quickly abandoned this GMO food (15).

Although allergy concerns are valid, there have been no reports of allergic reactions to GMO foods currently on the market.

According to the FDA, researchers who develop GMO foods run tests to ensure that allergens arent transferred from one food to another (16).

In addition, research has shown that GMO foods are no likelier to trigger allergies than their non-GMO counterparts (17).

Yet, if you have a soy allergy, both GMO and non-GMO soy products will prompt an allergic reaction.

Similarly, theres a common concern that GMO foods may aid the progression of cancers.

Because cancers are caused by DNA mutations, some people fear that eating foods with added genes may affect your DNA.

This worry may stem partly from an early mice study, which linked GMO intake to a higher risk of tumors and early death. However, this study was later retracted because it was poorly designed (18, 19, 20).

Currently, no human research ties GMO intake to cancers.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated that theres no evidence to link GMO food intake to an increased or decreased risk of cancer (21).

All the same, no long-term human studies exist. Thus, more long-term human research is needed.

Although GMO crops are convenient for farmers, there are environmental concerns.

Most GMO crops are resistant to herbicides, such as Roundup. This means that farmers can use Roundup without fear of it harming their own crops.

However, a growing number of weeds have developed resistance to this herbicide over time. This has led to even more Roundup being sprayed on crops to kill the resistant weeds because they can affect the crop harvest (22, 23, 24).

Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are subject to controversy because animal and test-tube studies have linked them to various diseases (25, 26, 27).

Still, a review of multiple studies concluded that the low amounts of glyphosate present on GMO foods are safe for human consumption (28).

GMO crops also allow for fewer pesticide applications, which is a positive for the environment.

That said, more long-term human research is necessary.

The main concerns around GMOs involve allergies, cancer, and environmental issues all of which may affect the consumer. While current research suggests few risks, more long-term research is needed.

Although GMO foods appear safe for consumption, some people wish to avoid them. Still, this is difficult since most foods in your supermarket are made with ingredients from GMO crops.

GMO crops grown and sold in the United States include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, summer squash, and a few apple varieties (29).

In the United States, no regulations currently mandate the labeling of GMO foods.

Yet, as of January 2022, the USDA will require food manufacturers to label all foods containing GMO ingredients (6).

That said, the labels wont say GMO but instead the term bioengineered food. It will display either as the USDA bioengineered food symbol, listed on or near the ingredients, or as a scannable code on the package with directions, such as Scan here for more information (6).

Presently, some foods may have a third-party Non-GMO project verified label, which indicates that the product contains no GMOs. However, this label is voluntary.

Its also worth noting that any food labeled 100% organic does not contain any GMO ingredients, because U.S. law prohibits this. However, if a product is simply labeled organic, it may contain some GMOs (30).

In the European Union (EU), foods with more than 0.9% GMO ingredients must list genetically modified or produced from genetically modified [name of food]. For foods without packaging, these words must be listed near the item, such as on the supermarket shelf (31).

Until the new regulations come into place in the United States, there is no clear way to tell if a food contains GMO ingredients.

However, you can try to avoid GMO foods by eating locally, as many small farms are unlikely to use GMO seeds. Alternatively, you can avoid foods that contain ingredients from the GMO crops listed above.

Until the 2022 USDA rule takes effect, its hard to determine which foods contain GMOs in the United States. You can avoid GMOs by limiting GMO ingredients, eating locally, looking for third-party non-GMO labels, or buying 100% organic.

GMOs are foods that have been modified using genetic techniques.

Most foods in your local supermarket contain GMO ingredients because theyre easier and more cost-effective for farmers, which makes them cheaper for the consumer.

In the United States, foods grown using GMO techniques include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, summer squash, and a few varieties of apples.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption, some people are concerned about their potential health effects. Due to a lack of long-term human studies, more research is needed.

In the United States, its currently not mandatory to label foods that contain GMOs. However, as of 2022, all foods that contain GMO ingredients must have the term bioengineered food somewhere on the packaging or a scannable code to show that it has GMO ingredients.

View original post here:
GMOs: Pros and Cons, Backed by Evidence - Healthline

Read More...

In college, Elon Musk thought these 5 things would change the world – CNBC

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

The internet

Musk believed the internet, nascent in the '90s, would "fundamentally change humanity," he said on the podcast.

"I would not regard this as a profound insight but rather an obvious one," Musk said.

He compared the internet to the human nervous system: "If you didn't have a nervous system, you wouldn't know what's going on. Your fingers wouldn't know what's going on. Your toes wouldn't know what's going on. You'd have to do it by diffusion," he said.

"The way information used to work was by diffusion. One human would have to call another human or write them in a letter. [That was] extremely slow diffusion. And if you wanted access to books, and you did not have a library, you don't have it. That's it."

He knew the internet could change all that.

And while Musk only had minimal access to the internet at the time (only to use it for his physics studies, he said), he knew the internet would be a "fundamental and profound change."

"Now, you have access to all books instantly, and you can be in a remote mountaintop location and have access to all of humanity's information if you got a link to the internet," he said on the podcast. "Now suddenly, human organisms anywhere would have access to all the information instantly."

Musk believed "making life multi-planetary and making consciousness multi-planetary" would change the world, he said on the podcast.

As a child, Musk was influenced by a variety of science fiction booksand he believed he'd one day "[build] spaceships to extend the human species's reach," according tothe book"Elon Musk." (Musk previously said that theseven-book "Foundation" science fiction series by scientist and author Isaac Asimov, for example, was "fundamental to the creation of his aerospace company, SpaceX.")

On May 30, SpaceXsuccessfully launched two NASA astronautsinto orbit for the first time. It was a milestone forhuman spaceflightand got Musk one step closer to achievinghis Mars ambitions.

Just as a character in the 1997 movie Gattaca undergoes genetic engineering to pursue his dream of space travel, according to Musk, when he was younger he believed being able to change human genetics could change the world.

And it's happening today, with technology like Crispr, Musk said on the podcast.

"It will become normal, I think, to change the human genome for getting rid of diseases or propensity to various diseases," he said. "That's going to be like the first thing you'd want headed out. If you've got a situation where you're definitely going to die of some cancer at age 55, you'd prefer to have that edited out."

"There's the Gattaca sort-of extreme thing where it's not really edited out but it's edited in for various enhancements and that kind of thing," he said, "which probably will come too."

"I'm not arguing for or against it," Musk said. "I'm just saying it's more likely to come than not down the road."

As a teenager, Musk felt a "personal obligation" for the fate of mankind and felt inspired to create "cleaner energy technology" one day, according to the book"Elon Musk."

So he believed that sustainable energy would change the future.

"Sustainability, actually, was something that I thought was important before the environmental implications became as obvious as they are," he said on the podcast. "If you mine and burn hydrocarbons[compounds that form the basis of natural gas, oil and coal], then you're going to run out of them. It's not like mining metals.... We will never run out of metals, but we will run out of hydrocarbons."

He said the future may bring a carbon taxthat would raisethe cost of burning fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, which is a "no brainer."

In 2004, Musk invested in and became a co-founder ofelectric car companyTesla.Hebecame CEO in 2008. On Wednesday, Tesla became the world's most valuable automakerwhen the electric vehicle company's market capitalization surpassed Toyota's for the first time.

"AI is a really major one" too, Musk said on the podcast.

In 2019,at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, Musk (who co-founded non-profit AI research lab OpenAIbut laterleft the company's board) said computers will "surpass us in every way," including scary things, likejob disruptionfrom robots or even apotentialAIracethatleadstoa third World War.

AI is "capable of vastly more than almost anyone knows and the rate of improvement is exponential," he saidhe said at the 2018 South by Southwest tech conference.

Musk also founded machine intelligence venture Neuralink, because he believes humans must merge with AI to avoid becoming irrelevant.

"We do want a close coupling between collective human intelligence and digital intelligence,"he said at the SXSW conference, "and Neuralink is trying to help in that regard by trying creating a high bandwidth interface between AI and the human brain."

Check out: The best credit cards of 2020 could earn you over $1,000 in 5 years

Don't miss:

See original here:
In college, Elon Musk thought these 5 things would change the world - CNBC

Read More...

Improve alignment of research policy and societal values – Science Magazine

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

Historically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation (R&I) policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time (1). But there is persistent and growing concern about whether and how ethical and societal values are integrated into R&I policies and governance, as we confront public disbelief in science and political suspicion toward evidence-based policy-making (2). Erosion of such a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, automation and robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many policy efforts have emerged in response to such concerns, one prominent example being Europe's Eighth Framework Programme, Horizon 2020 (H2020), whose focus on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) provides a case study for the translation of such normative perspectives into concrete policy action and implementation. Our analysis of this H2020 RRI approach suggests a lack of consistent integration of elements such as ethics, open access, open innovation, and public engagement. On the basis of our evaluation, we suggest possible pathways for strengthening efforts to deliver R&I policies that deepen mutually beneficial science and society relationships.

Go here to read the rest:
Improve alignment of research policy and societal values - Science Magazine

Read More...

Genome Editing Market to Exhibit Rapid Surge in Consumption in the COVID-19 Crisis 2025 – 3rd Watch News

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

[98 pages report] This market research report includes a detailed segmentation of the global genome editing market by technology (CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, and Others), by application (Cell Line Engineering, Genetic Engineering, and Others), By end-user (Research Institutes, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies, and Contract Research Organizations), by regions (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Rest of the World).

Request For Report[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/sample/9845

Overview of the Global Genome Editing Market

Infoholics market research report predicts that the Global Genome Editing Market will grow at a CAGR of 14.4% during the forecast period. The market has witnessed steady growth in the past few years with the development in technology and the introduction of highly sensitive, robust, and reliable systems in the market. The market is fueled due to increase in genetic disorders, increasing investment and funds, and technological advancements in genome editing.

The market continues to grow and is one of the increasingly accepted market in many countries worldwide. Vendors are focusing towards obtaining funds and collaborating with universities to enlarge their research and development capabilities. The majority of the revenue is generated from the leading players in the market with dominating sales of ThermoFisher Scientific, GenScript Corp., Sangamo Therapeutics, Lonza Group, and Horizon Discovery Group plc.

According to Infoholic Research analysis, North America accounted for the largest share of the global genome editing market in 2018. US dominates the market with majority of genome editing companies being located in this region. However, China has not been too far behind and has great government support for the research in genome editing field.

Genome Editing Market by Technology:

In 2018, the CRISPR segment occupied the largest share due to specific, effective, and cost-effective nature of the technology. Many companies are focusing on providing genome editing services. For instance, in January 2019, Horizon Discovery extended CRISPR screening service to primary human T cells.

Get Complete TOC with Tables and[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/discount/9845

Genome Editing Market by Applications:

In 2018, the cell line engineering accounted the maximum share followed by genetic engineering. Increase in the number of people suffering with genetic disorders has driven the growth of the genome editing market.

Genome Editing Market by End Users:

In 2018, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies gained the highest market share for genome editing market due to increased pervasiveness of cancer and infectious diseases are driving research goings-on in biotechnology & pharmaceutical companies segment.

Genome Editing Market by Regions:

The market is dominated by North America, followed by Asia Pacific and Europe. The major share of the North America market is from the US due to quick adoption of new and advanced technologies.

Genome Editing Market Research Competitive Analysis The market is extremely fragmented with several smaller companies struggling for market share. Big pharmaceutical establishments have also united with venture capitalists to provide funding to the start-ups. In 2015, Bayer financed $335 million and in the very same year, Celgene combined with Abingworth invested $64 million in CRISPR Therapeutics. The NIH recently granted 21 somatic cell genome editing grants of almost $86 million over the next half a decade. These endowments are the foremost to be granted through the Somatic Cell Genome Editing (SCGE) program that was initiated in January 2018 with NIH Common Fund.

The companies are collaborating and licensing to increase their capabilities in the market. CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, Meganuclease, ARCUS, and RTDS are some of the key technology areas concentrated by key players in the market. Since 2015, the deals on the CRISPR technology has drastically increased.

Key vendors:

Key competitive facts

Benefits The report provides complete details about the usage and adoption rate of genome editing market. Thus, the key stakeholders can know about the major trends, drivers, investments, vertical players initiatives, and government initiatives towards the healthcare segment in the upcoming years along with details of the pureplay companies entering the market. Moreover, the report provides details about the major challenges that are going to impact the market growth. Additionally, the report gives complete details about the key business opportunities to key stakeholders in order to expand their business and capture the revenue in specific verticals, and to analyze before investing or expanding the business in this market.

<<< Get COVID-19 Report Analysis >>>https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/covid-19-analysis/9845

Key Takeaways:

Original post:
Genome Editing Market to Exhibit Rapid Surge in Consumption in the COVID-19 Crisis 2025 - 3rd Watch News

Read More...

Minister ties smart farming to food security – The News International

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

ISLAMABAD: Minister for National Food Security and Research Fakhar Imam on Saturday said the government was working hard in applying genetic engineering, crop diversification, and biotechnology in agriculture sector to ensure countrys food security.

The government is committed to double the income of the farmers and this can be achieved only if they use technology and opt for crop diversification, he said.

There is also a dire need to move towards precision agriculture technology, big data, and quality assurance to meet international quality parameters.

The minister said the government wanted to focus on agricultural research, education, and extension to promote export-focused production and that could not be avoided anymore as it was vital for agro-based industrial development.

He said the universities and research departments should be groomed and advanced technology be applied for the benefit of agriculture, adding, there was no doubt Pakistan was an agro-based country but we had not focused on it as we should have over the years.

We should continue to work together towards climate change resilient research, mechanisation in pulses cultivation and processing, improving seed replacement rate to fill the gap of technology adoption in the farming fields.

He said the government would take all-out measures to facilitate the farmers as development of the agriculture sector was among its priorities.

Agriculture is not only the basis for countrys economy, but it also ensures the supply chain of foods to the masses. That is why it is of paramount importance to focus on agriculture sector to avoid food security issues, the minister said.

He explained the agriculture sector was faced with multiple issues including water scarcity, low quality seeds and pesticides.

Moreover, the locust swarms and climate change, were also emerging threat for the sector as it had become a huge challenge for the crops the same way COVID-19 had become a threat to human life, Imam added.

Food availability will be ensured through increase in production of food items, he said, adding, Improved farm techniques will also be promoted and issues like land and water management will also be addressed.

Read more:
Minister ties smart farming to food security - The News International

Read More...

The biotech IPO boom is becoming ‘historic’ as four more throw their hats in – Endpoints News

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

Four more US biotechs filed to go public Friday as yet more companies clamber to get through a yawning IPO window and onto a market thats signaled its willingness to reward nearly any new drugmaker.

The new entrants are led by ALX Oncology and the biological analytics biotech Berkeley Lights, each of whom filed to raise $100 million. The autoimmune company Pandion Therapeutics also filed for $75 million, and Kiromic Biopharma, a tiny immuno-oncology startup based in San Antonio, filed for $25 million.

These companies will try to capitalize on a 2020 biotech IPO boom that the investment firm Renaissance Capital recently called historic. The spree began in January and, after a brief interlude when the pandemic first hit the US and Europe, has only picked up in the last two months. The 23 companies that have gone public averaged an 80% return on their offering price, according to Renaissance Capital numbers. Every single one priced above their midpoint or upsized their offering.

Unlike most of their fellow newly or would-be public biotechs, Berkeley Lights will enter the market with significant revenue on the books. The company doesnt make drugs but instead has built a digital cell biology platform that can analyze living cells from a variety of different dimensions and, in principal, accelerate drug development. Theyve partnered with Sanofi and Pfizer on antibody discovery and last year, signed a $150 million pact with Ginkgo Bioworks to help the synthetic biology unicorn advance its genetic engineering capabilities.

All told, the company earned $51 million in revenue last year. Unlike a drug developer, they have no cash earmarked for specific pipeline products, and said they will use proceeds for research, potential acquisitions and general corporate purposes.

For ALX Oncology, a successful offering would mean their second $100 million tranche of the year. In February, the California biotech raised $105 million to help advance its sole pipeline candidate: an antibody designed to target CD-47. Thats the same dont-eat-me signal targeted by Irv Weissmans Forty Seven Inc., the biotech Gilead paid $5 billion for in January. ALXs pitch is that their antibodys FC receptor is engineered to not attract macrophages, reducing toxicity. The biotech will use their proceeds to push the drug through its ongoinghead and neck squamous cell carcinomaand gastric cancer trial and begin new trials for it in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. A portion is also earmarked for CMC work.

Founded out of Polaris in 2018, Pandion Therapeutics was tapped last year for an up-to $800 million partnership to help a reorganizing Astellas develop antibodies for auto-immune disorders. That deal included $45 million upfront and the company also earned $80 million from a Series B in April. The new funding will be used to push their lead molecule through Phase I/II trials in ulcerative colitis while also backing preclinical research, particularly on a pair of antibodies meant to turn on the PD-1 checkpoint and tamp down the immune system.

Kiromic, meanwhile, is in part just trying to stay alive. With less than $2 million 5 million when a subsequent $3 million Series B is included in the bank at years end, they acknowledged in their S-1 that theres substantial doubt regarding the Companys ability to continue as a going concern. In this climate, though, thats worked out just fine for other companies. Applied Molecular Transport went publicin May with the same concerns. They ultimately raised $177 million.

View original post here:
The biotech IPO boom is becoming 'historic' as four more throw their hats in - Endpoints News

Read More...

Fakhar Imam stresses importance of biotechnology, crop diversification for food security – Associated Press of Pakistan

Sunday, July 5th, 2020

ISLAMABAD, Jul 4 (APP):Minister for National Food Security and Research Fakhar Imam Saturday said that government was working hard in applying genetic engineering, crop diversification and biotechnology in agriculture sector to ensure food safety in the country.His government was committed to double the income of the farmers and this can be achieved only if farmers use technology and opt for crop diversification, he said while speaking to PTV news channel.He said there is a dire need to move towards precision agriculture technology, big data and quality assurance to meet international quality parameters.The PTI government wants to focus on agricultural research, education and extension to promote export-focused production that cannot be avoided anymore as it is vital for agro-based industrial development, headded.Imam stated that universities and research departments should be groomed and advanced technology be applied for the benefit of agriculture.The minister said there was no doubt that Pakistan was an agro-based country but we had not focused on it as we should have over the years.We should continue to work together towards climate change resilient research, mechanization in pulses cultivation and processing, improving seed replacement rate to fill the gap of technology adoption in the farmers fields.He said the government would take all-out measures to facilitate the farmers as development of the agriculture sector was among its priorities.Imam said agriculture is not only the basis for countrys economy but it also ensures the supply chain of foods to the masses. That is why it is of paramount importance to focus on agriculture sector to avoid food securityissues.He further explained that the agriculture sector of the country was being faced with multiple issues including water scarcity, low quality seeds and pesticides.Moreover, the locust swarms and climate change, were also emerging threat for the sector as it had become a huge challenge for the crops the same way COVID-19 had become a threat to human life.Food availability will be ensured through increase in production of food items, he said, adding, improved farm techniques will also be promoted and issues like land and water management will also be addressed.He said the present government of PTI had also formulated different policies, which would became especially important in the wake of climate change and water shortages.

Excerpt from:
Fakhar Imam stresses importance of biotechnology, crop diversification for food security - Associated Press of Pakistan

Read More...

Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida this summer – WFLA

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

(THE CONVERSATION) This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received anexperimental use permitfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to releasemillions of GM mosquitoes(labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Genetic engineering for disease control

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures,American chestnut treesthat can survive blight andmosquitoes that cant spread diseaseare examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances ingenetic decodingandgene editingemerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoes toyield inviable offspringor make themunsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted bymosquito-borne diseaseseach year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) waswithdrawn in 2018aftera referendum in 2016indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes inBrazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

Thepublic forumon Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

Time to reassess risk assessment?

However, it is difficult toassess how EPA regulatorsweighed and considered public comments and how much of theevidence used in final risk determinationswas provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lackpolitical accountabilityand are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with afor-profit technology companywhen cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approachesarent being conducted.

Another concern is thatrisk assessmentstend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameters such as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in people and neglect other importantbiological,ethicalandsocialconsiderations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

Steps to make risk assessment more open and comprehensive

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S.database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts andecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community andtrack the gene flowbetween GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S.EPAs recent announcementthat it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed;diverse expertise and local community representationwould secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

This article was updated to correct the date that Oxitec withdrew its OX513 trial application to 2018.

[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here:https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-could-be-released-in-florida-and-texas-beginning-this-summer-silver-bullet-or-jumping-the-gun-139710.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Brian Allan,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Chris Stone,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Holly Tuten,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Jennifer Kuzma,North Carolina State University, andNatalie Kofler,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Read more:
Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida this summer - WFLA

Read More...

Outlook into the Cell Culture Protein Surface Coating Global Industry to 2025 – Featuring PerkinElmer, Promega & Qiagen Among Others -…

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Cell Culture Protein Surface Coating Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2020-2025" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global cell culture protein surface coating market is currently experiencing strong growth. Looking forward, the publisher expects the market to grow at a CAGR of around 12% during 2020-2025.

A cell culture protein surface coating helps in enhancing the adhesion and proliferation of different cells, such as leukocytes, neurons, epithelial and fibroblasts, in vitro isolation and cultivation process.

The inner surface of a flask or petri dish is generally coated with extracellular matrix or proteins like laminin, collagen, fibronectin and vitronectin. Cell culture enables researchers to grow animal or plant cells in a favorable artificial environment, which further assists in understanding the roles of proteins in cell attachment, migration and function. It also aids in developing model systems for research, studying cellular functions, stem cell research, drug discovery and genetic engineering.

Owing to the growing prevalence of chronic diseases, the interest of scientists and various biotechnology companies in cancer and stem cell research is escalating around the world. Stem cells are effective in treating cancer, brain diseases, cell deficiency therapy, and cardiovascular diseases. This represents one of the significant factors, which is strengthening the global cell culture protein surface coating market growth.

Apart from this, the adoption of 3D cell cultures has increased in recent years, which has also contributed to market growth. A 3D cell culture refers to a process that assists in growing biological cells in a controlled environment, wherein these cells can interact with their surroundings. Furthermore, inflating income levels and increasing healthcare expenditures are projected to strengthen the market growth in the upcoming years.

Companies Mentioned

Key Questions Answered in this Report:

Key Topics Covered:

1 Preface

2 Scope and Methodology

3 Executive Summary

4 Introduction

4.1 Overview

4.2 Key Industry Trends

5 Global Cell Culture Protein Surface Coating Market

5.1 Market Overview

5.2 Market Performance

5.3 Market Forecast

6 Market Breakup by Protein Source

6.1 Animal-derived Protein

6.2 Human-derived Protein

6.3 Synthetic Protein

6.4 Plant-derived Protein

7 Market Breakup by Type of Coating

7.1 Self-Coatings

7.2 Pre-Coatings

8 Market Breakup by Application

8.1 Scientific Research

8.2 Industrial Production

9 Market Breakup by Region

9.1 North America

9.2 Asia Pacific

9.3 Europe

9.4 Latin America

9.5 Middle East and Africa

10 SWOT Analysis

10.1 Overview

10.2 Strengths

10.3 Weaknesses

10.4 Opportunities

10.5 Threats

11 Value Chain Analysis

12 Porters Five Forces Analysis

12.1 Overview

12.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers

12.3 Bargaining Power of Suppliers

12.4 Degree of Competition

12.5 Threat of New Entrants

12.6 Threat of Substitutes

13 Price Indicators

14 Competitive Landscape

14.1 Market Structure

14.2 Key Players

14.3 Profiles of Key Players

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/v7pik4

Continued here:
Outlook into the Cell Culture Protein Surface Coating Global Industry to 2025 - Featuring PerkinElmer, Promega & Qiagen Among Others -...

Read More...

The Future of Sports – Bleacher Report

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

Each night, around 7 o'clock, I drift off into a little daydream. This has been the case for weeks now. My beloved Mets are jogging onto the grass at Citi Field, taking their positions; their ace, Jacob deGrom, making a beeline to the mound. I am up out of my seat, applauding, gazing out onto the field. I look up to the sky, and that's it, really. The scene tends to slip away from there. I look down to see the gates of my apartment's window guard and the emptied streets of Manhattan beyond them. I really am clapping, but it's got nothing to do with baseball. It's in support of local nurses and doctors at work or changing shifts. Across New York City, this ritual plays out night after night (the clapping for health care workersnot the Mets fantasies, I don't think).

There's a crossing of wires at play, like my precious sports memories are mingling with the signatures of my life during the COVID-19 eraclapping, quarantining, boredom. Will it stay this way? For a while, at least, I think it will.

As MLB, the NBA and other leagues near their returns, I find myself fascinated by questions pertaining to the virus and the ways it will ripple through our leagues. How many players will contract it? How will leagues' models evolve as they move forward? Even for mea lifelong overcommitted fan who sends excessive, neurotic text threads (unresponded to) during regular-season gamesI think most of the drama in sports will come not from daily games but from daily tests results. This is the virus overpowering the once-invincible sports machine.

Already, so much of the mystique of sports has been lost. I miss the steady, circular rhythm of leagues in-season, the way they appeared day after day, overlapping only a few sacred times a year as if choreographed by the moon instead of computers and marketing teams. I miss the shameless self-importance of teams playing no matter what. (Spring training continued for 10 days after the first cases of COVID-19 appeared in Florida.) It was simply more fun back when we could view athletes as impervious superheroes rather than as bored video-gamersor, worse, as medical patients. There is something uncomfortable about having seen a dominant, intimidating player like Rudy Gobert briefly exposed as reckless and unhygienic. Games will return soon enough, but what about the underlying myths that lend them relevance and depth?

The NBA's bubble-based return, set for July 30, cuts against team fandomso driven by proximityby moving everyone to Disney World. It admits that the game could go on without us, the fans, rowdy old faithful, by playing in near silence. Game rules are changing, too, yielding to the virus' demands. There are smaller coaching staffs to protect older people from exposure, and expanded rosters for when the inevitable happens. Every league is making compromises: MLB might ban its most endearing prop, the sunflower seed, and tweak its most fundamental, unique feature, the nine-inning game.

These leagues are right to weigh these measures and to take them. They are preventing tragedies, not creating them. But the bending of tradition makes me wonder about the future of sports, about how things just changed overnight, and how they might change again in 10 years or 50. Maybe that will be the enduring impact of COVID-19 when it comes to sportsthat it opened the gates to change.

Naturally, this is where things get strange. Stick it out anyway. Consider the ways that fans and leagues are already adapting to this odd time, this time of no sports, and then imagine what comes next, and what after that. One small bit of innovation leads to an unpredictable new one, and on it goes. Very quickly, this evolution brings us into the realm of science fiction.

We might be there already. While games were on hold, the public embraced something that in the past seemed both silly and dystopian: game simulations. Las Vegas offered sim-game betting lines; we hosted virtual Madden watch parties right here at B/R. They were and are an obvious placeholder for real sports. Still, their popularity made me curious about their power down the road, if animated graphics improve enough to match real sports. Technologically speaking, could that day be coming? I asked an expert.

Nicholas Bostrom is a professor at Oxford and a pioneer of the simulation theory, which posits that we may be living in a knockoff version of Earth created by a more advanced (real-life) society. (Assuming that computers will someday be able to produce unlimited realistic simulations of life, we might be wise, he suggests, to already "think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.") Bostrom published Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? way back in 2003. Today, few are better equipped to tell us about the future of sims. So, Professor, how good can they get?

"Eventually we will have completely realistic virtual reality simulations that would be indistinguishable from physical reality," he says. "I don't see why in theory you couldn't have a purely artificial creature that was competing against another in a way that would create a sports event."

You might be wondering what the point of this would be once sports return. Well, consider the NBA's most exhausting debate topic: load (or injury) management. Back when there were regularly scheduled games, we wasted much time meditating on the notion of, say, Kawhi Leonard taking a night off, letting his teammates dominate the lowly Cavaliers or Knicks in front of a crowd that paid to see him play. It's obvious that if there were fewer games, the need to skip some of them would decrease. Fewer games would also soothe another of the league's concerns: players' lack of sleep amid a busy travel schedule.

Simulations could merge these issues and resolve them at once. Why not simulate lopsided games like Clippers-Cavs, providing rest for Leonard and everybody else involved? Each year, each team could sim 10 or 12 games, allowing a 70- or 72-game schedule for playersalready a desired ballparkand a full 82-game slate for the league's partners, like TV networks and casinos, who would package the simulated visuals and box scores.

Maybe this idea seems a little far out, but the NBA rarely minds. It is already welcoming the ideas of the future, from the four-point shot to aerospace revolution.

Indeed, Commissioner Adam Silver has long seen supersonic flight as the key to a truly global league. With it, Portland could face Sydney and return four hours later, in time for bed. We already have an Atlantic Division with teams from America's Northeast; how about adding a Transatlantic Division featuring Brazil, Spain and Nigeria? For now, the problem is a logistical one. "Under existing airline technology, the planes aren't fast enough to at least play in the current framework of our regular season," Silver told USA Today in 2017. Fortunately, with help from Elon Musk, Richard Branson and more, supersonic jets are on their way. Just one of many game-changers to come.

Robots have perfected three-point shooting and will someday make flawless floor-spacers. Salaries paid in cryptocurrency will provide a cap loophole and threaten the league's financial structure. Augmented reality on-screen willsomehowincrease complaints about players' shot selection. Advanced tracking through biometric data will grow into a major concern regarding personal privacy. How much should bidding teams know about a free agent's body? Who gets to dictate the right body fat percentage for somebody else or whether a balky ankle is strong enough to play on? And, as the Wall Street Journal once asked: If a fan gains access to a player's medical status and uses it to wager on a game, is that insider trading? (If the answers to these questions seem like a privacy violation, then consider how quickly athletes' COVID-19 test results became expected public information, even though they're irrelevant so long as sports are on hold. If there is already a demand to know whether Ezekiel Elliott, a running back, is experiencing an inability to smell, then there's no doubting the future demand for intimate insight about his legs.)

Yes, the future can seem vast and spookythough not to Thomas Frey. Frey is an author and member of the Association of Professional Futurists. His job is to burst with ideas, and he's bursting all right, riffing on the future of medicine, tech, sports, you name it. He envisions not only the events of the future but also the issues that will counter those eventsthe future's future. "Drone racing is kind of a hot area right now," he says, "but my sense is that the drone racing eventually gets so fast that you can't even see it, and so I'm not sure that sport sticks around." Dang. What else? Frey wants to elevate existing sportsthe ones played on the groundthrough the control and reduction of gravity. (Think NFL meets Quidditch or Slamball with no need for trampolines.) He wonders about anti-aging, tooin this case, what 3,000-year lifespans might mean for athletic primes.

Other revolutions are impossible to imagine playing out (unless you happen to be a member of the APF). "We're close to reviving extinct species like woolly mammoths," Frey notes, before pondering the cruelty of secluding them from other, natural-born animals. An idea strikes him. "Creating a sport with woolly mammoth riders going around the trackthat would seem bizarre today," he says. "But I would definitely pay to go see that."

Of course, there is not only the matter of tweaking (or inventing) sports, but also that of tweaking the players themselves. One of Frey's favorite topics is genetic engineeringthe process of tinkering with human genes before birth. "We're reinventing people. We're making people more durable. We're giving rights to CRISPR [the bio-tech giant], who will give us superbabies who grow up to be superhumans," he says. OK then. Frey thinks it's inevitable that, someday, we'll be able to genetically manufacture superior athletes: bigger, faster, smarterto an uncanny degree. He wonders about "downloading the human brain" and uploading it into the mind of another person. In time, if this all gets easy and silly enough, a supertoddler could have the basketball IQ of LeBron James. (Just imagine the recruiting violations that would follow.)

Bostrom has explored genetic engineering as well. "The enhancement options being discussed," he wrote in 2003, "include radical extension of human health-span, eradication of disease, elimination of unnecessary suffering" and more. A superhuman ability to ward off illnesssay, a coronaviruswould certainly come in handy. So too would advancements that eliminate athletic limitations. Imagine how a perfect set of knees would have changed the careers of Greg Oden, Brandon Roy and others; imagine Shaquille O'Neal with a sprinter's endurance; imagine Jimmer Fredette at 7'3".

Sounds pretty greator actually it sounds like it would look pretty great, visually. But would this be good for sports? Is it ethical? Or the right spirit? And how would this impact the lives of the athletes we love?

Every tech innovation takes something away from the humans it replaces or (ostensibly) aids. Flawless three-and-D bots entering the NBA would not only change the game but also eliminate dozens or hundreds of lucrative jobs. Supersonic travel, alluring as it may be, could have untold effects on passengersespecially international-league athletes, flying overseas day after day. Genetic engineering could draw a devastating, permanent line between the haves and the have-nots.

When it arrives in full force, Frey says, crafting a given attribute"20/10 vision, a perfect heart"may well cost tens of thousands of dollars. There's no telling what else will be at the disposal of fortunate young athletes then (though Frey, of course, has some ideas, including advanced VR headsets).

Already, financial inequality pervades all of sports. Young basketball players need to be able to cover the costs of trainers and AAU travel teams to earn recognition; it's probably not a coincidence that the children of well-off former players are entering the league at a higher rate than ever. Young baseball players need not only training but also equipment, toomitts, balls, bats, helmets, cleats. (Cleveland pitcher Mike Clevinger recently blamed these costs for the sport's declining popularity among young athletes.) Golf, football, hockeyevery major sport operates behind a financial barrier to entry. In 2018, The Atlantic noted that "just 34 percent of children from families earning less than $25,000 played a team sport at least once a day in 2017, versus 69 percent from homes earning more than $100,000." (Those numbers came from a study by the Aspen Institute, which found that the gap was rapidly growing.)

Imagine a world in which the NBA MVP is an 8'6" trust-fund kid. It seems awfully shallow. Could a souped-up superhuman celebrate the award with the same tenderness as Kevin Durant did in 2014? Even if they did, would we bother to cry along with them? There is no great story in sports without long odds and a dash of relatability.Genetic engineering would destroy the enduring notion of the underdog. It would dull the sweetness of our games, the unpredictability, the misery, the reward. What, then, would be left?

"I'm not particularly excited about sports enhancements," Bostrom says, speaking broadly. "We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking everything that makes the sport easier or makes performance better makes the sport more enjoyable. I think we should think of these things more as, You're designing a game. Think creatively about what would make the most fun game. It's not always the easiest thing."

So far, leagues have mostly welcomed new tech as it arrives, a concerning trend. Consider the modern obsession with instant replay.

Think back to the men's NCAA title game last April. With the season on the line, the ball was knocked out of a Texas Tech dribbler's hands and flew out of bounds. For anybody who has ever picked up a basketball and played a game on any level, it was instantly recognizable as Tech's ball. But after several minutes of replaywhich included referee consultant Gene Steratore saying, "At times, guys, I will tell you, when you start running replay really, really slow, you get a little bit of distortion in there as well, so you've gotta be cognizant to that," suggesting that looking more closely may bring us further from the truththe ball was given to Virginia, the underlying logic being that the most important thing is to get the call right. Is it? What about the flow of the game, the sanity of the viewer, the unspoken understandingsI knocked it out; it's your ballthat run between players and fans, deepening the sport?

This, I will always believe, is the good stuff. Even Bostromwho is so technical that he at one point connects sports fandom to ancient Greek war and says, "You can speculate that, from an evolutionary point of view, being able to detect small differences in fitness would be valuable"agrees these intangibles are worth protecting. Even at the cost of, say, letting simulations run wild.

"You can't predict how an actual game will play out just by sort of measuring the circumference of the biceps and the speed on the treadmill of the athletes," Bostrom says. "And I think if you could predict it, in some sense it could reduce interest. It's not the same as seeing the struggle, the human spirit, the grit, the audience cheering them on."

The question, then, is not so much whether replay or sims or any other technical advance are helpful or efficient but whether we have the ability to recognize when they are aiding sports versus when they are harming them, and when the time is right to rein them in.

"Rather than just allowing everything that makes the performance better," Bostrom says, "we should think more about changes that make the game more fun and rewarding for both the players and the audience."

Are we doing this now? It's hard to say. The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating change and the acceptance of change. It is clouding the rule-changing thought process. Already, long-standing traditions and powerful illusions have been altered across sports. After years of debate within baseball about the designated hitter, it will be implemented leaguewide as part of MLB's plan for a safe return. It is but a footnote to a much more complex story, which is fine. But also, how does the DH protect anybody from the coronavirus?

The NBA's bubble league will introduce its own oddities, though not everyone will be there to experience them firsthand. Several players have already tapped out of the NBA reboot, some fearing the virus, some having tested positive for it, some unwilling to separate from their loved ones. Others are sitting out so they can focus on social justice reform after expressing concerns that basketball could detract from those efforts. For those traveling to Disney World, it will be a lonely undertaking. Players themselves "are not permitted to enter each other's hotel rooms." Card games, if they do occur, will be monitored closely, and decks will be swapped out frequently.

Every league is drawing its own unprecedented game plan. The NFL is planning to cover the seats closest to the sidelines to keep fans away from players (though the league of course will advertise on the tarp). The NHL will reportedly route its action through two hub cities, Toronto and Edmonton. The measures that college sports will need to takeassuming anybody is on campus come Septemberfigure to be the most drastic of all.

Tech innovation will accompany each return: temperature screenings, artificial crowd noise, broadcasting from home. As quarantine warps our collective sense of time, it feels as though we've known these quirks forever. But not long ago they would have seemed quite strange, impossible, unwelcome, like somebody somewhere out there was toying with our settings.

Leo Sepkowitz joined B/R Mag in 2018. Previously, he was a Senior Writer at SLAM Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter: @LeoSepkowitz.

Read this article:
The Future of Sports - Bleacher Report

Read More...

Viewpoint: Conservation isn’t enough. We need technology to blunt the impacts of climate change – Genetic Literacy Project

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

As a species, humans are fortunate in their adaptive capacity. The technologies that make us better equipped to live in a warming world heating, air conditioning, drinking water infrastructure, and the like are part and parcel to modernity, accessible to much, though still too little, of the global population. While we can expect these technologies to become more widespread in emerging economies, there will certainly be a multitude of socioeconomic and political challenges to overcome.

Non-human nature, by contrast, is sharply limited in its capacity to adapt to climate change, and even the best-case mitigation scenarios will put massive pressure on ecosystems. In a 2C world, a full25 percentof species are at risk of regional extirpation (double that in a 4.5C world). Already, climate-related local extinctions have occurred in hundreds of species. These impacts are terrifying and poorly understood. There have been and will continue to be ecosystem thresholds that we cant predict such as the massive pine beetle outbreaks that decimated drought-stricken western forests and biodiversity loss could be worse than projected.

The time is ripe for a conversation about how humans could help adapt the natural world through more direct forms of intervention, a conversation that does not sit comfortably with the values of traditional environmentalism, which regard such intervention with reflexive wariness.

To date, the conservation community has been understandably focused on protecting habitat and reducing emissions to shield non-human life from the impacts of climate change. And while adaptation in the natural world is not a new concept there have beennumerous studies and recommendationsmade in this space direct, technology driven interventions such as translocation, genetic modification, biocontrols, and the use of human infrastructure to support ecosystems have not been part of the mainstream conversation.

Traditional conservation approaches are no longer enough

Climate change will amplify ecosystem stressors like disease, habitat degradation, and invasive species, and indeed already has. Research shows that the effectiveness of disease resistance genes may vary depending on the climate.Big blue-stem, the dominant grass species in tallgrass prairie ecosystems, had higher infection rates when exposed to larger but more infrequent precipitation events, and longer periods of drought. Pathogens may also shift their range as a result of changing conditions, as may also be true ofneedle blight, a fungal disease that impacts ponderosa pine.

Restoring degraded habitat is becoming more challenging as a result of climate change.Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, one of the largest tracts of tidal salt marsh on the West Coast, is the subject of ongoing research to determine the most effective way to restore and maintain the landscape in the face of sea level rise.

Invasive species are another threat being amplified by climate change. Many invasives are able to spread faster as the growing season is extended by earlier spring snowmelt and later fall frost onset. These harmful species are sometimes better able to match shifts in season timing than native species,for example, the invasive plant speciespurple loosestrifeis now blooming in Massachusetts much earlier than its native counterparts. This resilience can be a serious problem as it enhances the ability of invasives to outcompete native species.

On top of amplifying existing stressors, climate change is also triggering more direct impacts in especially vulnerable ecosystems. Already, the majority of tropical coral reefs are projected tosuffer significant losseseven if global warming is limited to 1.5C. The Great Barrier Reef suffered unprecedented bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, whichdamaged two thirdsof the reef, and is in the midst ofyet another the third in five years leaving little time for recovery.

Likewise, kelp forests are being decimated by aseries of connected eventstriggered by warming temperatures. These ecosystems already weakened by marine heatwaves are being devoured by booming populations of sea urchins, precipitated by warmer waters. In northern California, more than 90 percent of bull kelp was lost along 217 miles of coastline, and huge losses have also occurred off the coast of Japan, the Aleutian Islands, and Tasmania.

We need to employ intentional and direct interventions in addition to existing strategies to ensure we pursue every opportunity to prevent biodiversity loss.

Extensive terrestrial impacts are occurring as well. Globally, insect populations have plummeted, and worsening climate change could mean some40 percentof all insect species could go extinct in the coming decades. This will negatively impact the numerous insectivores that depend on them as a food source, and it threatens agricultural sectors dependent on pollinators.

While mitigating climate change and minimizing these existing stressors will be critical first steps to ensuring ecosystems are best able to withstand the worsening impacts of climate change, they are no longer enough to counter the magnitude of the threat. We need to employ intentional and direct interventions in addition to existing strategies to ensure we pursue every opportunity to prevent biodiversity loss.

Translocation

As climate change begins to shift habitats and change the range that species occupy, protected lands and wildlife corridors though critical tools wont always be sufficient. While some species are able to traverse rugged landscapes and cover vast distances, the same cannot be said for many other plants and animals. Amphibians, small mammals, and other species that are endemic to isolated areas are especially vulnerable. If species are not able to naturally disperse as their ranges shift in a changing climate, wildlife managers may need to take a more active role in physically introducing them into new areas.

Historically, wildlife managers have focused on restoring species to their past ranges, and have reintroduced captive-bred individuals to boost endemic populations. But translocation can be used for more than these past practices. It can be used to move species that are unable to disperse naturally, or else can be used as a form of ecological correction by introducing a species to fill a void created by a local extinction of a different species.

The practice is controversial, as people worry that a translocated species will become invasive in its new habitat (or transfer new pathogens) and decimate the ecosystem as a result. Predator translocation is often the most expensive and controversial of these efforts, though it is also often one of the most valuable in terms of improving ecological health by controlling herbivore populations and slowing the spread of wildlife disease.

While there is a risk of unforeseen consequences, there have also been success stories. For example, in England,the marbled white butterflywas successfully translocated to previously unoccupied habitat and was able to establish a viable population without impacting other endemic species. And theAldabra giant tortoisewas introduced to Mauritian islands to replace an extinct Mauritian tortoise species and successfully fulfilled the same seed-dispersal and vegetation-control role the original species filled.

Genetic modification

Restoration efforts will be limited as a result of climate change. Setting funding aside for restoring sand dunes damaged by hurricanes and forests damaged by wildfires will help. But restoring ecosystems to their previous state may no longer be sufficient in some areas. As impacts worsen and vulnerable species are not able to adapt quickly enough on their own, scientists may be able to prevent local extinctions by intervening via genetic modification either through genetic selection or engineering.

TheAmerican Chestnutis a paradigmatic example of a species that will most likely requiregenetic modificationbefore recovery efforts can be successful. These trees once grew up to 100 feet tall and had 10 foot diameter trunks. But in the early 1900s an imported fungus decimated the native Eastern chestnut forests wiping out 99.9 percent of the species and over 100 years later the species still hasnt recovered. That may change. By inserting a gene from wheat into a wild chestnut embryo, scientists are striving to give the vulnerable trees the ability to produce enzymes that detoxify the fungus, and these efforts have already begun to prove successful as modified experimental trees are able to withstand infection.

The black-footed ferret, another example, is extremely vulnerable to Sylvatic plague and suffers from a severe lack of genetic diversity. While captive breeding programs have been successful, these limitations make it difficult to establish populations in the wild. Genetic modification may make it possible to reintroduce lost genetic diversity and convert the vaccine for the Sylvatic plague into a permanent inheritable trait.

Genetic modification offers a host of opportunities to strengthen species that are being wiped out by worsening climate impacts as well. In forested areas damaged by bark beetle outbreaks and severe fires, it would be more effective to reforest with trees that are genetically predisposed to withstand infestations (or drought, or disease, depending on the threats identified in the region). Similar strategies are being employed across many tropical reefs, as scientistscultivate resilient lines of coralin the hopes that they will prove more resistant to the warmer temperatures and increased ocean acidification.

Such strategies could help ensure restoration investments are more secure against future impacts, highlighting the need for the field of conservation genetics as a backstop to the risk of future extinctions. Scientists can bank genetic material, map genomes, and reprogram tissue culture cells for genetic rescue efforts. TheSan Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Researchhas a genetic bank with over 10,000 living cell cultures, oocytes, sperm, and embryos representing nearly 1,000 taxa, and theSvalbard Global Seed Vaultholds over one million seed varieties in order to protect cultivated and wild plant biodiversity.

Human made infrastructure to support ecosystem function

Human infrastructure also has a role to play in conservation, especially for helping species adapt to changing precipitation patterns. In areas where changing precipitation patterns lead to more extreme rainfall events, certain manmade infrastructure can help manage runoff in order to avoid soil erosion in sensitive habitats, and can help protect the habitat of vulnerable species. For example, albatross in Tasmania are struggling to survive as chicks are killed bywarmer temperaturesand nests are washed away by sea-level rise and more frequent and severe precipitation events. Scientists are transportingartificial nestsmade of concrete and coconut fiber by helicopter to the nesting sites in order to increase the chicks chances of survival. So far, scientists have found that pairs using the artificial nests had a 20 percent higher success rate than those using natural nests.

In ecosystems hit especially hard by drought we may be able to transport additional water to help maintain function. InKenya, arid landscapes are predisposed to extended periods with little precipitation, but climate change is exacerbating poor land management to extend these dry periods even further which could spell disaster for vulnerable wildlife. Further, lack of water increases conflict between wildlife and people as ranchers struggle to support their own herds. By installing boreholes, water pipes, strategic dams, and other human made infrastructure to bring water from aquifers to the surface and manage current supply, land managers can help ensure wildlife are able to survive changing precipitation patterns.

Biocontrols

Failed biocontrol efforts are often given as cautionary tales against ecosystem intervention. In the early 2000s, the US releasednon-native beetlesto control the spread of an invasive plant called tamarisk. At the time, managers believed the beetle would only inhabit a limited range and would not be able to disperse widely an assumption that proved untrue. The beetle did spread, with the unforeseen cost of decimating the habitat of the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. There are numerous other stories, such as the extreme failures of cane toad introduction in Australia, and mongoose introduction in Hawaii.

But while there are risks associated with biocontrol interventions, there have also been remarkable success stories. The gypsy moth, which was first brought to the US to breed with the native silkworms, escaped through an open lab window in 1868 and began to decimate deciduous trees across North America. Afungus, found to infect the moths, was discovered in Japan and brought back to the US, and eventually a strain of the fungus was found to effectively spread through the moth population. A coordinated program calledSlow the Spread Program (STS)was funded by Congress in 2000 and has reduced the spread of gypsy moths by more than 70 percent.

Using pathogens and predator species to control the increased spread of invasive species in the face of a changing climate raises several red flags. The thought of a disease jumping host species is almost as frightening as climate change itself, especially given the rapid spread of COVID-19, which scientists believe originated in a live animal market. But biocontrols have been used extensively in agriculture, and highly specialized pathogens and predator species are unlikely to expand beyond the intended target. Scientists are continuing to look for new tools to expand the use of biocontrols beyond the agriculture sector to the natural environment.

Expanding options for conservation

Healthy ecosystems increase human adaptive capacity. Healthy insect populations support the agriculture sector, healthy wetlands provide flood control and clean water, healthy forests provide stable long term carbon storage, and healthy oceans offer a critical source of protein for many developing countries. But as we observed above, humans are unique in our capacity to augment ecosystem services via direct, technology-driven interventions, which is why the impacts of climate change pose a far greater threat to wildlife and ecosystems than to people. Imported pollinators, engineered water infrastructure, and farmed seafood are just a few examples. We have only dimly begun to conceptualize the adaptive limits of the natural world, but we should employ all available tools to protect not just ourselves, but our non-human neighbors.

Lauren Anderson is a climate and energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute. Follow her on Twitter @LaurenRAnders1. Zeke Hausfather is the Director of Climate and Energy at the Breakthrough Institute. Follow him on Twitter @hausfath

This article was originally published at the Breakthrough Institute and has been republished here with permission. Follow the Breakthrough Institute on Twitter @TheBTI

Read the original post:
Viewpoint: Conservation isn't enough. We need technology to blunt the impacts of climate change - Genetic Literacy Project

Read More...

Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market 2020 By Components, Application, Leading Players, Industry Updates, Business Prospects, Forthcoming…

Thursday, July 2nd, 2020

The Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market report offers users the detailed study of the market and its main aspects. There are different marketing strategies that every marketer looks up to in order to ace the competition in the Global market. Some of the primary marketing strategies that is needed for every business to be successful are Passion, Focus, Watching the Data, Communicating the value To Your Customers, Your Understanding of Your Target Market. There is a target set in market that every marketing strategy has to reach. Some of the important aspects analyzed in the report includes market share, production, key regions, revenue rate as well as key players. This Genome Editing/Genome Engineering report also provides the readers with detailed figures at which the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market was valued in the historical year and its expected growth in upcoming years. Besides, analysis also forecasts the CAGR at which the Genome Editing/Genome Engineering is expected to mount and major factors driving markets growth.

This study covers following key players:Thermo Fisher ScientificMerckHorizon DiscoveryGenscriptSangamo BiosciencesIntegrated Dna TechnologiesLonzaNew England BiolabsOrigene TechnologiesTransposagen BiopharmaceuticalsEditas MedicineCrispr Therapeutics

Request a sample of this report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/sample-request/84415?utm_source=Ancy

A significant development has been recorded by the market of Genome Editing/Genome Engineering, in past few years. It is also for it to grow further. To analyze the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market, the analysis methods used are SWOT analysis and PESTEL analysis. To identify what makes the business stand out and to take the chance to gain advantage from these findings, SWOT analysis is used by marketers. Whereas PESTEL analysis is the study concerning Economic, Technological, legal political, social, environmental matters. For the analysis of market on the terms of research strategies, these techniques are helpful. Various important factors such as market trends, revenue growth patterns market shares and demand and supply are included in almost all the market research report for every industry.

Access Complete Report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/global-genome-editing-genome-engineering-market-growth-analysis-by-trends-and-forecast-2019-2025?utm_source=Ancy

Market segment by Type, the product can be split intoCRISPRTALENZFN

Market segment by Application, split intoCell Line EngineeringAnimal Genetic EngineeringPlant Genetic Engineering

A systematized methodology is used to make a Report on the Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market. For the analysis of market on the terms of research strategies, these techniques are helpful. All the information about the Products, manufacturers, vendors, customers and much more is covered in research reports. The market tends to be highly competitive in nature as the number of vendors present in the market is too high.

The Genome Editing/Genome Engineering market has its impact all over the globe. On Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering industry is segmented on the basis of product type, applications, and regions. It also focusses on market dynamics, Genome Editing/Genome Engineering growth drivers, developing market segments and the market growth curve is offered based on past, present and future market data. The industry plans, news, and policies are presented at a Global and regional level.

For Enquiry before buying report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/enquiry-before-buying/84415?utm_source=Ancy

About Us:Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a single point aid for all your market research requirements. We have vast database of reports from the leading publishers and authors across the globe. We specialize in delivering customized reports as per the requirements of our clients. We have complete information about our publishers and hence are sure about the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialization. This helps our clients to map their needs and we produce the perfect required market research study for our clients.

Contact Us:Hector CostelloSenior Manager Client Engagements4144N Central Expressway,Suite 600, Dallas,Texas 75204, U.S.A.Phone No.: USA: +1 (972)-362-8199 | IND: +91 895 659 5155

See the original post:
Global Genome Editing/Genome Engineering Market 2020 By Components, Application, Leading Players, Industry Updates, Business Prospects, Forthcoming...

Read More...

Page 12«..11121314..2030..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick