StemCell Therapy

Text Size:A- A+

Bengaluru/New Delhi: As the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread across the world, the cyberspace has been abuzz with claims that the Covid-19 strain in India is a less virulent mutation than the one travelling abroad. BJP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and gastroenterologist D. Nageshwar Reddy are among those who have made such claims.

While Swamy quoted an American friend in a tweet last week to say the Covid-19 strain in India can be defeated more effectively by our bodys natural defense mechanism than the strains abroad, Reddy in an interview floated similar claims without quoting any research.

Some users responded to Swamys tweet posting a link to a study that they claimed supported his notion. But this study, which is yet to be peer reviewed, has faults of its own, including use of limited data.

A number of experts in the field have termed such assertions baseless. Dr Gagandeep Kang, executive director at the Translational Health Science & Technology Institute in Faridabad, called Reddys comments appalling & misleading.

As such claims circulate online, ThePrint highlights the science of virus mutation and whether you should be worried.

Also read:WHO says coronavirus outbreak in Europe could be approaching peak

The overarching problem is the use of the term Indian SARS-CoV-2 strain that is in itself misleading.

A strain is a sub-type of a virus, characterised by different cell surface proteins, eliciting a different immune response from other strains. A mutation, however, is very minor genetic errors in genome sequences made during replication that doesnt fundamentally change the nature or behaviour of the virus.

So far, only two isolates from India have been genetically sequenced. Both are from coronavirus patients in Kerala who had arrived from Chinas Wuhan in late January. The strains are nearly identical to the ones sequenced in Wuhan and cannot be identified as a separate Indian strain.

Anu Raghunathan, a scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Researchs (CSIR) National Chemical Laboratory in Pune, told ThePrint that the researchers of the aforementioned study used computational biology to analyse the genomic data from different strains around the world.

Theinitial attempt of the team from the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biology, New Delhi, at analysing the virus strain is not sufficient to conclude that all Indian strains would have only one unique mutation, said Raghunathan.

The mutations themselves are composed of changes in base pairs.

The novel coronaviruss genome is made up of 30,000 base pairs, while a human genome contains over 3 million. The small numbers make it easy for scientists to track changes and new lineages as they evolve.

To understand what these mutations mean for India, the country will have to sequence a much larger set of the viral isolates from the patients here.

Rakesh K. Mishra, director of CSIRs Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, told ThePrint that his institute has the capacity to run the genome sequencing of the isolates from at least 500 people within a couple of weeks. This can help scientists decide the correct course of action for treating the disease.

For example, if a virus mutates too fast, vaccines being developed now will potentially become useless, and pharmaceuticals will have to constantly keep up with the mutations by developing new vaccines all the time, a financially unviable prospect.

Also read:China now wants people to shop, eat out while rest of the world locks down

Regularly switching up the genetic code is an essential part of how a virus evolves. Some viruses, such as the coronaviruses that cause flu, change their genetic code extremely rapidly. This is the main reason why its so difficult to find a vaccine for coronaviruses. They evolve quickly, making vaccines defunct.

The flu vaccine, now available and recommended especially for older people, needs to be taken annually for this reason. By the time the next season comes along, the vaccine is no longer effective on the circulating form of the virus.

Coronaviruses are ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses, containing just RNA strands (single or double) as its genetic material. They have about 26,000 to 32,000 bases or RNA letters in their length.

RNA viruses mutate continuously. Such a mutation is what made SARS-CoV-2s jump from animals to humans possible.

The virus multiplies inside living organisms cells by creating copies for the RNA. However, the process it uses to make these copies is not perfect, and often introduces tiny errors in the sequence of letters much like a game of Chinese whispers.

The errors that do not help the survival of the virus eventually get eliminated, while other mutations get embedded. It is these mistakes that help scientists track how the virus travelled around different geographic locations.

For example, by genetically sequencing over 2,000 isolates of samples from different countries, scientists tracked how the novel coronavirusspread to different countries, and how the virus evolved and geographically mutated in different areas.

The word mutations often conjures images of humans with superpowers thanks to Hollywood movies but it doesnt mean the virus acquires superpowers. The genetic changes are normal in the evolution of the virus. In some cases, the changes are extremely rapid because the replication is not rigorous or thorough.

The only problem with mutations is the problem of development of vaccines, which would require constant upgrade.

Also read:Why asymptomatic coronavirus carriers arent as contagious but still a big danger

The novel coronavirus, unlike its cousins, mutates slowly. It seems to have a proofreading mechanism in place that reduces the error rate and slows down the speed of mutation. But the mutations are completely random.

One mutation that supports the virus replication and transmission from human to human or any other host sustains whereas the virus that cannot infect many eventually dies out, explained Shweta Chelluboina, clinical virologist at the Interactive Research School for Health Affairs in Pune.

These are random events and such a phenomenon has caused the outbreak in the first place.The newcoronavirushad mutated successfully enoughthat it jumped from animal tohuman, allowingit to infect manywith still no containment in sight, said Chelluboina.

There were reports earlier about how the novel coronavirus has mutated into two strains so far the original S-type which originated in Wuhan, and the subsequent L-type that evolved from the S-type and is more prevalent in countries like the US. Scientists at the Peking Universitys School of Life Sciences and the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai announced these findings.

The L-type is the more aggressive one, and spreads rapidly but is no more or less virulent than the S-type. The researchers urged everyone to take preventive measures because the mutation indicates that more could be coming.

But these arent really two strains as such. A strain is a genetic variant characterised by different forms of surface proteins. But the L-type and the S-type are not quite different enough to call them strains just yet. They are just mutations, referred to as types, according to the study.

To explain the lower population of S-type, the authors of the study suggested that human-adopted measures of curbing contact contained the S-type to the Wuhan region, and allowed the L-type to spread elsewhere uncontained. While the S-type emerged around the time the virus jumped from animals to humans, the L-type emerged soon after that within humans, the team suggested.

Experts think there is also a definite sampling bias for the L-type, which was just sampled more, and uniformly, resulting in higher representation. The mutations were discovered in a preliminary study, as cautioned by the authors as well, and was performed on a limited population of 103 samples.

The study is not peer-reviewed yet, and as most Covid-related studies are under the open community, is a pre-print for now. It was uploaded on 4 March.

These findings strongly support an urgent need for further immediate, comprehensive studies that combine genomic data, epidemiological data, and chart records of the clinical symptoms of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), said the study.

The science is evolving rapidly, as more and more genome data is collected from around the world.

Newer research data gathered from genetic sequences uploaded to open source website NextStrain.org indicate that anywhere from eight to 18 different sequences of the coronavirus are making their way around the globe, according to researchers who have genetically sequenced over 1,400 isolates from around the world. These are extremely tiny differences within the viruses in their nucleotide sequences, and none of the sequenced groups seem to be growing any more or less lethal than others.

Most importantly, none of them are new strains despite their coverage as such in the mediaand subsequent clarifications by Nextstrain, who have the data for 2,243 SARS-CoV-2 genomes, of which 1,150 have minor mutations.

On Nextstrain, nearly every virus reveals a slightly different genome. But there are very few mutations and none are strong or vital enough to affect the way the virus spreads, attacks, or lives. The sequences are all named by location where they were first sequenced.

It is very common that during an outbreak, especially during a global pandemic, the genome sequence of earlier isolates from one particular geographical location will differ from that of the later isolates collected elsewhere, said Sreejith Rajasekharan, virologist and post doc at the International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) in Trieste, Italy, over an email.

This is what is observed in the current pandemic as well. The first sequence collected from positive patients in Rome, Italy was from a Chinese tourist. This and the one collected after, from an Italian citizen returning from China resemble those that were isolated in China, said Rajasekharan.

However, the ones isolated later in Lombardia and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (in Italy) match the European clad and not the one from China.

The mutations in the virus are like moving targets, which cant be hit because they keep changing their genetic sequence.

Genome sequencing on a large scale can tell us whether viral isolates are different in different countries from what we saw from China. So this will help us decide whether the treatments being contemplated in those places will be applicable for our strains or not, Rakesh Mishra said.

It will also help decide if the different strains vary so much that developing vaccines may not be viable, Mishra said.

Some behaviours are unique in different strains like how we know that aged people are at high risk but we saw in India young people have also died, said Chelluboina. Some variations in the virus cause the virus to behave in a certain way.

The sequencing will provide a fundamental understanding of how to address the problem without it, the treatments are based on what is known of other viruses which may or may not work for the novel coronavirus, and also likely take up a long time.

That is why it is important to understand the sequence of the virus in local infections to know which countries have a similar virus, so that we can attempt to better predict the outcome, added Chelluboina.

However, Rajasekharan added, The general public needs not be concerned in this regard as the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is quite stable, and therefore the rate of mutation is low.

The novel coronavirus will continue to mutate and pose a challenge to researchers developing a vaccine. Nonetheless, the idea of viruses mutating is not something that needs to worry people in terms of their health when it comes to Covid-19.

Also read:Seasonal flu far more common than coronavirus, but its vaccine is not popular in India

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

See the original post:
How the novel coronavirus is mutating, and if you should be concerned - ThePrint

A virus spreads by replicating itself each time it replicates, it could change a little. Mapping the genome of each changed form of the virus, therefore, helps track where it came from and how. The Translational Bioinformatics Group at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology in New Delhi studied the genomes of the virus from five locations Wuhan, India , Nepal, Italy and the US to identify what is unique to the novel coronavirus and what difference geographical location makes. A country-specific mutation would explain the severity of illness, the extent and timing of exposure to symptomatic carriers and, consequently, hold the clue to a containment strategy. For instance, the study found the presence of unique mutations identified in the genome from Italy are responsible for the sudden upsurge in the number of affected cases and deaths, combined with other factors a speculation which may be verified with more evidence. Any strategy to counter the virus, then, would have to factor this in.Mutations help viruses survive in hosts and influence its virulence (how it attaches, infects and multiplies in a host). The mutations could be favourable or detrimental to the viruses, depending on the type of mutation. If a mutation results in a more virulent virus, its transmission is enhanced, Dr Dinesh Gupta, group leader of the study which published its preliminary findings in a preprint paper, told TOI.

Mutations help viruses survive in hosts and influence its virulence (how it attaches, infects and multiplies in a host). The mutations could be favourable or detrimental to the viruses, depending on the type of mutation

So what did they find? In the samples the group studied, the sequence from Nepal showed no variation at all. And the maximum mutations were seen in the Indian sequence, six. Mutations bring about variations in viral genomes as the virus evolves to survive in its host. A mutation may be good or bad. Very fast mutations produce viruses which are not able to survive. The viruses that do survive, adapt and transmit are the ones that are sequenced and analysed, Dr Gupta said.

Of the six mutations in Indian genome, only one was unique to India

Mutations in Indian genome

Spike surface glycoprotein (unique to India): A virus protein which helps a virus attach itself to a host cell and enter it

ORF1ab: Polyprotein which is cleaved to form 16 smaller proteins, each known as non-structural protein (Nsp)

Nsp2: Believed to hamper signalling process in host cell

Nsp3: Protein which breaks down other proteins

Helicase or Nsp12, unwinds DNA molecules

ORF8 protein: Helps virus in human adaptation

For specific conclusions, however, Dr Gupta said, a wider base of study would be needed. The current data of just two sequences from Indian samples is too small to make a definitive statement, and requires more sequences to be analysed. He also clarified that one finding of the preliminary report that the microRNA hsa-miR-27b (small RNA molecules that can influence the expression of virus proteins) was found to have a target only in the Indian genome in the first study could not be replicated. We didn't find any target for the miRNA hsa-miR-27b in the second sequence, whereas the miRNA was predicted to uniquely target the spike glycoprotein in the first sequence, he said.

Read more:
India What we know about the genome of the virus in India A mutation unique to - Times of India

What is a vaccine?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) a vaccine is understood to be any preparation intended to generate immunity against a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. This may be, for example, a suspension of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. Most vaccines are given by an injection, but some are given orally (by mouth) or sprayed into the nose.

In a previous article we had talked about the immune system, which is like the bodys defense army. One is born with a capacity to respond to what the body recognizes as foreign, as a threat (such as a virus, a bacterium, a fungus, or a parasite). That primary responsiveness is quick, but it is not specific and, therefore, sometimes not enough, the threat manages to get past that barrier. We call that first, fast and nonspecific immunity innate immunity.

The body has another way of defending itself, specially designed for each type of threat. Lets say that the body has, from birth, a group of cells ready to design and produce specific weapons for each pathogen. This second army works on what we call acquired immunity.

Since there is a wide variety of pathogens, [1] these cells do not produce these specific weapons until the pathogen enters the body, they recognize it, and they can design exactly the weapon that will harm it. This response is more specific, but it takes longer to start working.

One of the most powerful weapons in this army are the antibodies (also known as immunoglobulins). Antibodies are molecules (glycoproteins) that synthesize cells of the immune system (lymphocytes), these antibodies are synthesized with the exact composition that allows it to specifically (very specifically) bind to a part of the pathogen.

Antibodies have two main functions: they mark these pathogens to be attacked and eliminated by other cells of the immune system, or they bind to a specific part of the pathogen that blocks its ability to enter and harm cells in the body.

Antibodies are generated against specific substances of the pathogens; these substances are called antigens. They are that part of the pathogen that, by interacting with the cells of the immune system, provokes the immune response, which is why identifying them is an important part in the production of vaccines.

Once this army that participates in acquired immunity, designs this production line against a specific pathogen, it already leaves it there programmed (immunological memory), so if this pathogen attacks us again all these specific weapons are ready, the response is faster, if you get sick it is usually much less serious, and many times you do not get sick because the immune system of your body fought the threat and eliminated it before it could harm you and cause symptoms.

Thats what a vaccine does, getting in contact with the pathogen (or parts of it), in a safe (non-disease-causing) way, but enough to trigger your immune response and leave all your weapons ready so if that pathogen attacks you naturally, your response is quick, specific and protective.

What types of vaccine are there?

There are different types of vaccines. Some of them contain the complete infectious agent (live attenuated vaccines and inactivated or dead vaccines). In live attenuated vaccines, an attenuated or weakened form of the disease-causing pathogen (such as chickenpox or smallpox vaccines) is used. So that it elicits a very strong immune response, most of these vaccines need a single dose to immunize you for life. However, when using an attenuated form of the pathogen it should be used with caution in people with weakened immune systems, and it has specificities for its preservation (they should always be kept cold).

Inactivated vaccines use the inactivated version of the pathogen (for example, against polio or rabies). They use a harmless version of the pathogen, but usually do not provide an immunity as strong as live vaccines, which is why multiple doses are often required.

On the other hand, vaccines with toxoids (against diphtheria and tetanus, for example) are those that use the toxins (toxic substances) released by the pathogen when they are the cause of the disease. It generates immunity against this harmful toxin, not against the pathogen itself.

There is another group of vaccines with greater biotechnological complexity: conjugate and recombinant vaccines. These employ fragments of the pathogens molecular structure, which elicit a protective immune response, which is the goal of all vaccines.

They are very safe vaccines, that can be used in anyone and offer a very strong immune response directed at key parts of the pathogen. Conjugates combine these parts of the infectious agent (virus or bacteria) with other molecules that increase their immunogenic capacity (for example, vaccines against some meningococci and pneumococci), while recombinants (such as vaccines against hepatitis B, human papilloma virus or herpes zoster) involves introducing into any vectorit is usually a virus or bacterium that does not cause diseaseregions of the pathogen that we know to be immunogenic; that is, they have the capacity to activate the immune system.

Among the novel techniques being used for the production of vaccines are DNA vaccines, nanoparticle vaccines, among others.

Those involving genetic engineering, the so-called DNA vaccines, have had a major boost with technological development that has succeeded in sequencing (knowing the genetic information) of many pathogens very quickly. The sequence of the current coronavirus, for example, was obtained in just days. Researchers use an organisms genome (its genetic information) to extract the genes that are most likely to match known antigens that could be used in a vaccine.

Once identified, those genes can be combined and inserted into a different, rapidly multiplying organism, such as yeast, to produce experimental antigens, which are then studied to determine their ability to elicit a protective immune response. This method is known as reverse vaccination; no licensed vaccine has yet been released, but several experimental vaccines are already being studied, some of which are in the later stages of clinical trial (for example, a group B meningococcal vaccine). [2] Several of the vaccine candidates against COVID-19 follow this method.

What process does a vaccine candidate have to follow until it is approved for use in humans?

The creation of a vaccine is a long and complex process that often takes 10 to 15 years, and involves the combined participation of governments, and public and private organizations.

The World Health Organization establishes a protocol that many governments and regulatory institutions in the world follow, although each of them has specific regulations.

Ensuring that vaccines are safe, effective and of quality is a crucial element in their development and distribution. It begins with the first phases of the vaccine, generally in the laboratory, where its components are subjected to tests to determine aspects such as purity and potency. The clinical trials consisting of three phases are then commenced.

The license, or authorization for use in humans is the fundamental step in the process. The official entity that grants the authorization, the national regulatory body is the arbitrator that decides whether the established standards have been met to guarantee the quality of the vaccine.

What are the steps that have to be followed?

Exploration stage

This stage involves basic laboratory research, and often lasts 2 to 4 years.

Preclinical stage

Preclinical studies use tissue culture or cell culture systems and animal testing to assess the safety of the candidate vaccine and its ability to elicit an immune response.

Researchers can tailor the candidate vaccine during the preclinical phase to try to make it more effective. They can also perform exposure studies on animals, which means animals are vaccinated and then they try to infect them with the target pathogen; these types of studies are never performed on humans.

Many candidate vaccines do not go beyond this stage, as they cannot elicit the desired immune response. Often the preclinical stages last 1 to 2 years.

To continue the studies, after completing this phase, an application must have been approved by a competent agency.

Human clinical studies

Phase I

This first attempt to evaluate the candidate vaccine in humans involves a small group of adults, generally between 20 to 80. If the vaccine is aimed at children, the researchers will first test it in adults, and will gradually reduce the age of the test subjects until they reach the target. The goals of phase I trials are to assess the safety of the candidate vaccine and to determine the type and extent of the immune response that the vaccine elicits.

Phase II

A larger group of several hundred people participates in phase II testing. Some of the people may belong to groups at risk of contracting the disease; the trials are randomized and well controlled, and include a placebo group. The goals of phase II trials are to study the candidate vaccine for its safety, immunogenicity, proposed doses, vaccination schedule, and method of application.

Phase III

Candidate vaccines that are successful in phase II advance to larger trials, involving thousands to tens of thousands of persons. Phase III trials are randomized and double-blind, and involve the experimental vaccine that is tested against a placebo (the placebo may be a saline solution, a vaccine for another disease, or some other substance). One of phase IIIs goals is to evaluate the safety of the vaccine in a large group of persons. Some unusual side effects may not be apparent in smaller groups of people who were part of the previous phases.

During these phases, the efficacy of the vaccine to protect against the disease is assessed. Tests are done that have to do with the production of antibodies and the immune response of the persons who receive the vaccine. After a phase III trial is successful, accredited agencies will inspect the product, the factories and research results, until approval is issued.

After approved for large-scale use, the vaccines continue to be monitored.

Structure of the SARS-Cov-2 coronavirus

SARS-COV-2 is an enveloped, RNA-positive virus. The key to enter the cell is found in the so-called spike proteins (S), which cover the virus envelope.

SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus vaccines and treatments

The process to start a vaccine can take many years, however, we are told that probably in just over a year we can have a vaccine against this new virus. A response that, if possible, would be of a speed never seen before against a new disease.

This is mainly due to advances in the biotechnology sector. First of all, just one week after China reported the first cases of severe pneumonia of unknown origin to the WHO, the causative agentthe new SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruswas identified. A few days later its genome was already available. In just under three months, more than 970 scientific articles are available in the PubMed database.

Knowing the biology of the virus facilitates the design of therapeutic (antiviral) and preventive (vaccines) strategies. The similarity of genetic information with another coronavirus that has been studied for years, SARS-Cov, which caused the epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002, has led to rapid progress in the pre-clinical phases.

In just these three months there are already several therapeutic proposals and vaccine candidates against the new coronavirus. Science has never advanced so far in such a short time to combat an epidemic. Many of the proposals come from research groups that have spent years working against other viruses, especially against SARS and MERS. This accumulated knowledge has now made it possible to go at a speed never seen before.

Antiviral therapies

Some already available antiviral drugs have been tested to see if they can be effective in fighting COVID-19. Chloroquine, which has been used for years against malaria, is being studied by a group of researchers, as it could reduce the viral load by blocking the virus from entering cells. Some anti-inflammatories, such as barcitinib and mesmosate from camostat (Japan), are being used in some protocols because they could block the entry of the virus into lung cells.

One of the most promising antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 is remdesivir, an inhibitor that prevents the virus from multiplying within the cell. It has already been used against SARS and MERS and has been successfully tested in the latest Ebola epidemics, and against other viruses with the RNA genome. It is, therefore, a broad-spectrum antiviral. At least twelve phase II clinical trials are already underway in China and the U.S., and another has started in phase III with 1,000 patients in Asia.

In the United States, in New York, the FDA has approved the use of plasma from sick patients who have recovered. This involves obtaining blood from donors who have recovered from COVID-19, and isolating the plasma (where the antibodies are located), to transfuse it to sick people. It is not a new treatment; it was used in the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918. According to the journal Nature, this effort in the United States is following preliminary studies carried out in China. The convalescent plasma approach has also had modest success during previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Ebola. It could be an emergency response in which more effective treatments appear.

There are at least 27 clinical trials with different combinations of antiviral treatments such as Interferon Alfa-2B, ribavirin, methylprednisolone, and azvudine. At the moment they are experimental treatments, but they are a hope for the most serious and severe cases.

COVID-19 vaccines for the future

The main hope for controlling the disease is based on achieving effective vaccines. The WHO, until March 20, had a list of 41 candidates, but based on press reports from various countries, we know that more are being worked on.

An article published on March 23 by The Conversation summarizes some of the most promising projects.

In clinical trial phase

According to the publication, one of the most advanced is the Chinese proposal, a recombinant adenovirus vector-based vaccine with the SARS-CoV-2 S gene, which has already been tested in monkeys and is known to produce immunity. A phase I clinical trial will be started with 108 healthy volunteers, between 18 and 60 years old, in which three different doses will be tested.

Other proposals are being promoted by CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), an international association in which public, private, civil and philanthropic organizations collaborate to develop vaccines against epidemics. It is currently funding eight SARS-CoV-2 vaccine projects that include recombinant, protein, and nucleic acid vaccines.

mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna, Seattle)

It is a vaccine made up of a small fragment of messenger RNA with the instructions to synthesize part of the protein S of the SARS-Co-V. The idea is that, once introduced into our cells, it is these cells that make this protein, which would act as an antigen and stimulate the production of antibodies. It is already in the clinical phase and it has begun to be tested in healthy volunteers.

Preclinical phases

Recombinant measles virus vaccine (Pasteur Institute, Themis Bioscience and University of Pittsburg)

It is a vaccine built on a live attenuated measles virus, which is used as a vehicle and contains a gene that encodes a protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is in the preclinical phase.

Recombinant Influenza Virus Vaccine (University of Hong Kong)

It is also a live vaccine that uses an attenuated influenza virus as a vector, which has had the virulence gene NS1 removed, and is therefore not virulent. A SARS-CoV-2 virus gene is added to this vector virus. This proposal has some advantages: it could be combined with any strain of seasonal influenza virus and thus serve as a flu vaccine, it can be quickly manufactured in the same production systems that already exist for influenza vaccines, and they could be used as intranasal vaccines via spray. It is in the preclinical phase.

Recombinant protein vaccine obtained by nanoparticle technology (Novavax)

This company already has vaccines against other respiratory infections such as adult flu (Nano-Flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV-F) in clinical phase III and has manufactured vaccines against SARS and MERS. Its technology is based on producing recombinant proteins that are assembled into nanoparticles and administered with its own adjuvant, Matrix-M. This compound is a well-tolerated immunogen capable of stimulating a powerful and long-lasting nonspecific immune response. The advantage is that in this way the number of necessary doses would be reduced (thus avoiding revaccination). It is in the preclinical phase.

Recombinant vaccine using as a vector the Oxford chimpanzee adenovirus, ChAdOx1 (Jenner Institute, Oxford University)

This attenuated vector is capable of carrying another gene that encodes a viral antigen. Models for MERS, influenza, chikungunya and other pathogens such as malaria and tuberculosis have been tested in volunteers. This vaccine can be manufactured on a large scale in bird embryo cell lines. The recombinant adenovirus carries the glycoprotein S gene of the SARS-CoV-2. It is in the preclinical phase.

Recombinant Protein Vaccine (University of Queensland)

It consists of creating chimeric molecules capable of maintaining the original three-dimensional structure of the viral antigen. It uses the technique called molecular clamp, which allows vaccines to be produced using the virus genome in record time. It is in the preclinical phase.

Messenger RNA Vaccine (CureVac)

This is a proposal similar to that developed by the modern biotechnology company, with recombinant messenger RNA molecules that are easily recognized by the cellular machinery and produce large amounts of antigen. They are packaged in lipid nanoparticles or other vectors. In preclinical phase.

DNA INO-4800 vaccine (Inovio Pharmaceuticals)

It is a platform that manufactures synthetic vaccines with DNA of the S gene from the surface of the virus. They had already developed a prototype against MERS (the INO-4700 vaccine) that is in phase II. They recently published the phase I results with this INO-4700 vaccine and found that it was well-tolerated and produced a good immune response (high antibody levels and a good T-cell response, maintained for at least 60 weeks after vaccination). In preclinical phase.

Cuba

According to the director of biomedical research of the CIGB, Gerardo Guilln, the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) of Cuba has a vaccine design that could be used against the new coronavirus.

According to the Cuban scientist, this vaccine is in the methodological and design phase. However, according to his statements, there is an advanced path since a platform that the institution has already developed is being used, where it works with virus-like particles with great capacity to stimulate the immune system.

Another platform that is very attractive and promising being developed by the center is by immunization through the nose. Cuba has experience in this regard, since it has a registered vaccine that uses this nasal spray.

The Cuban vaccine candidate is being developed with the Cuba-China joint research and development center, located in Hunan province. It is not known when clinical trials could begin.

Cuba is also carrying out research in therapeutic drugs. The results so far published by China in the treatment of COVID 19, with the Cuban Interferon Alfa 2B, showed positive results.

***

All proposals for specific treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 are in the experimental phase. But technological advances and the accumulation of research results in the fields of antiviral therapies and vaccines against other viruses, and specifically against other coronaviruses, make many experts affirm that there is a high probability of success. Although we want and need faster responses, science cannot be asked to have a vaccine in less than a year, in reality that would already be a record time.

The international scientific communitys actions, in terms of sharing scientific results, collaboration and training, is the backbone of this battle, and my greatest hope.

Read the original post:
Why can't we have a COVID-19 vaccine right now? - OnCubaNews

Wow.

Thats the word Candace Johnson, the president and chief executive officer of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, uses early in Cubas Cancer Hope. It airs as part of the PBS series Nova at 9 p.m. Wednesday.

She added the words, in Cuba, jeez, referring to the small communist countrys work on a vaccine for the treatment for certain forms of cancer.

But the word can also be applied to the positive national publicity Roswell Park is receiving in the program.

"Wow," indeed.

It certainly could use some good publicity after Roswell Park fired a top executive over the weekend for things she wrote on her Facebook page that bashed President Trump's response to the Covid-19 outbreak.

The Nova documentary plays like a promotion for Roswell Parks partnership with Cuba in search of a treatment. Roswell Park is especially highlighted in the second half of the hourlong program.

Several Roswell Park doctors, including Dr. Kelvin Lee, Dr. Kunle Odunsi, Dr. Mary Reid, Dr. Grace K. Dy and Dr. Joseph Tario, appear. The program centers around how Roswell became involved with scientists in a small Communist country where American citizens go to receive treatment illegally because of a United States trade embargo that complicates the relationship between the countries.

Dr. Kelvin Lee (Photo courtesy of Roswell Park)

I think everyone here thought that Cuba was stuck in I Love Lucy days, the 1950s, old cars, there cant possibly be good science going on, Lee says early in the program.

The beautifully filmed hour also may appeal to supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who was criticized for old comments about Fidel Castros regime in Cuba expanding education and health care.

Cubas Cancer Hope acknowledges Castro's dictatorial sins that led to half its doctors leaving the country early in his reign. But it also credits the dictator for emphasizing science and giving Cubans something not available to all Americans free health care.

Lee and other doctors give a basic understanding of immunotherapy, genetic engineering, checkpoints and what Cuban scientists have discovered in the treatment of cancer that has resulted in some Americans going there to extend their lives.

"Cubas Cancer Hope humanizes the story by following some people who have been given the treatment and lived beyond expectations.

The question of how Roswell Park was chosen as a partner is raised, but not as thoroughly as I hoped. Odunsi explained that he was told Roswell Park was approached because it was one of the few institutions where discoveries in Cuba could be taken to the next level.

The relationship began in 2011 when Cuban doctors made a presentation at Roswell Park before a standing room audience.

Scientists, were a little crazy, Johnson explained. We all want to hear something really interesting. It sparked curiosity of how it came to be ... Wow, in Cuba. Jeez.

The bigger question is whether all the challenges of bringing the potential life-extending drug to Buffalo and across the United States will ever be conquered.

If it does, wow will be an understatement.

Dr. Candace Johnson (Photo courtesy of Roswell Park)

In a telephone interview, Johnson made aspects of the development of the partnership between Roswell Park and the Cuba doctors sound even more dramatic than portrayed in the documentary.

She noted that the April 2015 trade mission led by Gov. Andrew Cuomo that resulted in Roswell Park signing an agreement with Cubas Center for Molecular Immunology to set up a clinical trial for a lung cancer vaccine CimaVax was done under unusual circumstances.

At the time that (Cuomo) did that, that was pretty bold because no one had really gone there, she said. I was asked to go with Kelvin Lee and they had to charter a plane that left from JFK (Airport in New York City). The CEO of JetBlue was on the plane. They had to carry their own mechanics because there were no mechanics in Havana, there was no way to pay them. There was no way to pay rent. They refueled and left and refueled at Fort Lauderdale.

It was precedent-setting to say the least, she added. And then for us to come out of that trip with an agreement with the CIM to be able to work with, test and work toward doing a clinical trial was really exciting. When we first came back from Cuba from that trade mission, the world was abuzz because at that time really no one was going to Cuba.

I think for the whole world it was, 'what's going on here? I mean we did interviews from that very first trip from places all around the world. I guess the thing that I'm most proud of is that it wasn't just a flash in the pan where we got in the spotlight at the Havana airport with the governor. But we actually did something and we worked hard to be able to use this vaccine approach in a clinical trial that is ongoing.

Johnson hasnt seen the documentary, but she views it as a really intriguing story that gave Cuban doctors the respect they have sought and deserved.

When we first started talking about Cuba and this has changed the Cuban scientists and this vaccine, the arrogance that you would hear from people, she recalled. Why are they smarter than we are? They are just a third world country. How could they possibly be doing anything that's maybe better than we have? So I think it's a combination of sort of a little guy doing well that also makes this story pretty interesting.

She had a more thorough answer to why the Cuban scientists chose to partner with Roswell instead of cancer centers that are bigger, more famous or have more money.

I think the one thing that really contributed to that is Dr. Lee is a very engaging guy, she said. Youve got to look Cubans in the eye. They have to know you to trust you. And I think part of the reason we were successful is we developed a trust between our two institutions even though the politics between our two countries is very tense and sometimes controversial."

If the vaccine eventually passes the clinical trials, Johnson expects the Food and Drug Administration would approve its use in the U.S. so patients would no longer need to go to Cuba.

I know everything that we do with Cuba can be a challenge because of the relationship between our two countries, Johnson said. Were very hopeful. It seems to me it would be very difficult from the FDA's perspective, if this drug has a role, that it wouldn't be available in this country.

email: apergament@buffnews.com

More:
Column: Roswell Park's alliance with Cuba gets the 'wow' treatment from PBS' 'Nova' - Buffalo News

Research by a University of Southern Denmark team has found that the cannabis compound cannabidiol (CBD) may act as a helper compound to boost the effectiveness of antibiotics against drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. A study headed by Janne Kudsk Klitgaard, PhD, associate professor, clinical microbiology, found that combining CBD with the antibiotic bacitracin (BAC) had a more powerful effect against bacteria including Staphylococcus aureus, than BAC alone. Based on these observations, the combination of CBD and BAC is suggested to be a putative novel treatment in clinical settings for treatment of infections with antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive bacteria, the researchers stated in their published paper in Scientific Reports, titled, Cannabidiol is an effective helper compound in combination with bacitracin to kill Gram-positive bacteria.

Since the discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928, antibiotics have saved millions of lives from fatal infections worldwide, the authors wrote. However, over time, bacteria have developed mechanisms to escape the effects of one or more antibioticsmultidrug resistance (MDR)leading to an increasing global health threat. With fewer antibiotics available to treat MDR bacterial infections, the possibility of entering a pre-antibiotic era is looming ahead, the team stated.

Among alternative strategies that are being explored to help address antibiotic resistance, helper compounds, also known as antibiotic potentiators or resistant breakers, are gaining attention. Such helper compounds are non-antibiotic compounds that act as adjuvants for antibiotics, operating synergistically through mechanisms including efflux pump inhibition, enzyme inhibition, or changing membrane permeability, which can contribute to improving antibiotic efficacy.

Given that overuse of antibiotics is the main cause of antibiotic resistance, the combination of an antibiotic with a helper compound could reduce the amount of antibiotic needed to achieve bacterial growth inhibition or killing than if the antibiotic was used alone. This strategy may, therefore, decrease the likelihood of resistance development, and investigations to identify efficient helper compounds are thus important, the investigators suggested.

CBD, from the cannabis plant Cannabis sativa, acts as an antagonist of both the cannabinoid type 1 and 2 (CB1 and CB2) receptors, and has been shown to have anti-sedative, anti-psychotic, and anxiolytic effects, the team noted. The compound has also been linked with a variety of effects, including inhibiting cancer cell growth, neuroprotection in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinsons disease, and post-ischemia, and anti-inflammatory effects, as in type 1 diabetes.

CBD has also been observed to inhibit bacterial growth, but the use of cannabidiol as an antibiotic adjuvant hasnt yet been investigated, the team continued. Not much is known regarding antimicrobial effects of cannabinoids and even less on the mechanism of action the use of cannabidiol as an antibiotic adjuvant has not been studied so far.

For their reported study, the researchers evaluated whether CBD could act as a potential helper compound to increase the effectiveness of the antibiotic bacitracin, which is a mixture of cyclic peptides that interfere with the bacterial cell wall and interrupt biosynthesis of peptidoglycan, leading to cell lysis. The team first validated the antimicrobial effect of cannabidiol against the Gram-positive bacteria methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and also against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE). They then tested the effects of combining CBD and BAC against different Gram-positive bacteria, providing initial indication that CBD could potentiate the antimicrobial effects of the antibiotic.

Further tests with the combination of CBD and BAC against S. aureus showed that dual treatment caused morphological changes in the bacterial cells that affected cell division, so that the bacteria could no longer divide normally. the combination of CBD and BAC affects the cell envelope causing irregular cell division visualized by multiple septa formations and irregular cell membrane. These effects werent seen with either treatment on its own; CBD and BAC alone caused no morphological changes, they wrote.

The combined treatment was also found to decrease autolysis in S. aureus, while CBD was shown to cause depolarization of the cytoplasmic membrane. Gene expression analysis confirmed that treatment using CBD in combination with BAC resulted in reduced expression of key cell division and autolysis genes in the bacteria. The combination of BAC and CBD was, however, and as expected, not effective in Gram-negative bacteria. As a mixture of cyclic peptides that interrupt cell wall synthesis in Gram-positive bacteria, the antibiotic is probably unable to cross the outer membrane in Gram-negative bacteria, the researchers pointed out.

In this study, we found that the antibacterial effects of BAC against S. aureus as well as other Gram-positive bacteria can be enhanced by cannabidiol originating from the cannabis plant, the scientists concluded. They acknowledged that further work will be needed to understand the mechanisms of action of combined CBD and BAC treatment on Gram-positive bacteria. Changes observed in morphology were not caused by compositional changes in the cell wall muropeptide composition. Membrane potential changes for the combination of CBD and BAC compared to either CBD or BAC treatment alone did not reveal the mechanism of action for the combination of CBD and BAC, they wrote. Future studies are therefore focused on the cell division and cell envelope to identify the mechanism of action.

Continue reading here:
Cannabis Compound CBD Acts as Helper to Boost Antibiotic Effectiveness - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

In uncertain times, we are witnessing one of the greatest moments in the history of science.

A projected timeline for treatment and prevention of the novel coronavirus. Although we are living ... [+] through uncertain times, we are also witnessing one of the greatest moments in science history.

Scientists are breaking speed records in their race to develop treatments for the new coronavirus. Some are panning through old molecules hoping to find effective drugs. Others are applying the latest breakthroughs in synthetic biology to engineer sophisticated treatments and vaccines.

Ive previously talked about some synthetic biology companies that are racing to create treatments. Others like Mammoth Biosciences are developing much-needed testing. Every day brings additional reports of the latest breakthroughs from around the world. But how can we make sense of all this information?

To provide a big-picture perspective, SynBioBeta and Leaps by Bayer have partnered to help visualize the overall progress of the research community. At the heart of the project is an infographic showing the timeline to the various treatments and preventions (click here to download it). Its based on data from The Milken Institute, which recently released a detailed tracker to monitor the progress of each of the more than 60 known COVID-19 treatments and preventions currently in development.

One takeaway: the progress to develop coronavirus treatments and preventions is moving at an unprecedented pace, with historic records being broken nearly every week.

The crisis response from the global biotech community has been truly inspiring, says Juergen Eckhardt, SVP and Head of Leaps by Bayer, a unit of Bayer AG that leads impact investments into solutions to some of todays biggest challenges in health and agriculture. We are excited to partner on this visual timeline to help a broader audience understand how and when scientific innovation may bring us through this deeply challenging time.

COVID19: Projected timeline for treatment and prevention. Three paths: pre-existing drugs, antibody ... [+] therapies, and vaccines.

There are standard stages to getting a drug approved. In Phase 1 trials, a drugs safety is assessed in a small group of healthy subjects. In later stages (Phase II & III), efficacy is measured in a larger number of people, often versus a placebo. The situation with COVID-19 is predicted to become so dire so quickly, however, that many are looking to fast-track testing. This could include granting experimental drugs expanded access, for compassionate use, which would allow physicians to give them to patients who are critically ill before testing is complete.

The fastest way to safely stop COVID-19 would be to discover that an already-approved medication works against it. Repurposed drugs do not require the same extensive testing as novel medicines and may already be available in large quantities. The Milken Institutes tracker identifies 7 candidate drugs in this category.

One is the malarial medicine chloroquine, which in recent days has been touted by some as a possible miracle drug against the coronavirus. German pharmaceutical company Bayer last week donated three million tablets of chloroquine to the U.S. The FDA and academics are together investigating whether it can provide relief to COVID-19 patients.

There are hundreds if not thousands of other FDA-approved drugs on the market that are already proven safe in humans and that may have treatment potential against COVID-19, so many scientists are rapidly screening the known drug arsenal in hopes of discovering an effective compound.

Antibodies are proteins that are a natural part of the human immune system. They work around the clock in blood to block viruses and more. The problem at the moment is that because the novel coronavirus (known as SARS-CoV-2) is new, no one has had time to develop antibodies against it. No one, that is, except those who have recovered from COVID-19.

Antibodies taken from those people could help patients who are still infected. Such patient-to-patient transfers can be performed without extensive testing or lengthy approval processes so long as standard protocols are followed. It is yet unknown whether this treatment option will work for COVID-19, nor whether there will be enough recovered donors to deal with the infection at scale.

To improve this process, companies like Vancouver, Canada-based AbCellera are applying new biotechnologies.

AbCellera is using proprietary tools and machine learning to rapidly screen through millions of B cells from patients who recovered from COVID-19. B cells are responsible for producing antibodies. The company has announced a partnership with Eli Lilly on this project and aims to bring its hottest antibodies those that neutralize the virus to the clinic.

AbCellera's platform has delivered, with unprecedented speed, by far the world's largest panel of anti-SAR-CoV-2 antibodies," said Carl Hansen, Ph.D., CEO of AbCellera, in a statement. "In 11 days, we've discovered hundreds of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the current outbreak, moved into functional testing with global experts in virology, and signed a co-development agreement with one of the world's leading biopharmaceutical companies. We're deeply impressed with the speed and agility of Lilly's response to this global challenge. Together, our teams are committed to delivering a countermeasure to stop the outbreak."

James Crowe at Vanderbilt University is also sifting through the blood of recovered patients. Using a new instrument called Beacon from a company called Berkeley Lights. Crowes team has been scouring through B cells to find antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2. The technology behind this project was developed in recent years with funds from the Department of Defense.

Normally this would be a five year program, Crowe told me. But in the rapid process his team is following, animal studies could be done in as fast as two months.

This morning, Berkeley Lights announced a Global Emerging Pathogen Antibody Discovery Consortium (GEPAD) to attack COVID-19 and other viruses. It is partnering with Vanderbilt University, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, and Emory University to accelerate the work above to the broader research community.

This collaboration also included commercial partners, including Twist Bioscience, who synthesized DNA for the project.

Our mission is to provide the raw material needed for biologists to make breakthroughs, said Twists CEO Emily Leproust. If DNA is needed, we want to make it, quickly and perfectly

Another company that specializes in DNA synthesis, SGI-DNA, is offering its tools at much reduced cost to researchers developing COVID-19 treatments. The company said that people from around the world are coming to them for help.

"There is zero time to waste," said Todd R. Nelson, Ph.D., CEO of SGI-DNA. He said that researchers need synthetic DNA and RNA, which its Bio-XP machine can provide in as little as eight hours.

Nelson continued, "In a matter of a day or two, we have built the genes thought to be critical to the development of successful vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. SGI-DNA has made them available in the form of different genetic libraries, which researchers can use to find druggable targets in a matter of hours, dramatically accelerating the time to market for therapeutics and vaccines.

Beyond searching for antibodies in recovered patients, biotechnologists have other tricks up their sleeves.

One approach involves genetically engineering laboratory mice to mimic the human immune system. These animals can then be presented with the virus or parts of the virus and allowed to recover. The hope is that their B cells would then produce effective antibodies. Because this happens in a controlled setting, biologists can better understand and engineer the process.

A company called GenScript was pursuing this strategy as early as February 4, when police escorted 8 transgenic mice immunized with the 2019 nCoV antigen to research labs in China. In 12 hours, its researchers successfully found specific antibodies in the mice that could recognize the novel virus and potentially block it from binding to cells. In less than 24 hoursagain using Berkeley Lights new Beacon instrument for working with thousands of individual, live cellsGenScript completed a series of steps that would have taken three months using previous technology.

Yet another approach involves computational approaches and artificial intelligence. Firms like Distributed Bio are using computers to reengineer antibodies to better target SARS-CoV-2. The company is optimizing antibodies that are known to target SARS-CoV-1, the virus behind the 2003 outbreak of SARS.

We believe broadly neutralizing antibodies with engineered biophysical properties will become key weapons to win the war against all coronaviruses said Jake Glanville, CEO of Distributed Bio.

Vaccines work by simulating infection, which allows the body to mount its own defense against a virus. Effective vaccines take time to develop, and they can take even longer to test. But recent progress in biotechnology is again accelerating these efforts.

Notably, Moderna has launched a Phase 1 vaccine trial against COVID-19 in record time. Patients in Seattle have already begun receiving injections of an experimental mRNA vaccine. Moderna cranked out doses of this and won approval from the FDA for testing in just 44 days an all-time record.

These programs show a massive focus on a common enemy, and a coming together of disparate firms.

Ginkgo Bioworks, a giant in the emerging field of synthetic biology, has announced a $25 million fund to help spur even more collaboration. The company is offering its laboratory equipment and know-how to anyone with a good idea of how to stop COVID-19. We dont want any scientists to have to wait. The pandemic has already arrived, so the time for rapid prototyping and scale-up is right now, said Jason Kelly, CEO of Ginkgo.

These effortsand the infographic aboveshould give you hope. Although we are all now living in uncertain times, we are also witnessing one of the greatest moments in the history of science.

It's a terrible time, and simultaneously a fantastic time to see the global science community working together to conquer this very hard and challenging disease, said Berkeley Lights CEO Eric Hobbs. We are also learning and developing the tools and technologies to ensure that we can react faster to the next threat, so that we don't get to this point again in the future.

Follow me on twitter at @johncumbers and @synbiobeta. Subscribe to my weekly newsletters in synthetic biology.

Thank you to Ian Haydon and Kevin Costa for additional research and reporting in this article. Im the founder of SynBioBeta, and some of the companies that I write aboutincluding Leaps by Bayer, Mammoth Biosciences, Distributed Bio, Twist Bioscience, SGI-DNA, Genscript, Berkeley Lights, and Ginkgo Bioworksare sponsors of the SynBioBeta conference and weekly digest heres the full list of SynBioBeta sponsors.

Here is the original post:
Timeline Shows 3 Paths To COVID-19 Treatment And Prevention (INFOGRAPHIC) - Forbes

As conspiracy theories started spreading like wildfire on the Internet, several misguided rumours about the connection between 5G and coronavirus surfaced online. COVID-19, is believed to have originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, in November. Coincidentally, China also turned on some of its 5G networks in November.

Rumours gained steam when Keri Hilson, popular American singer, with 4.2 million followers on Twitter, sent out tweets last week about the alleged connection between 5G and COVID-19, writing, "People have been trying to warn us about 5G for YEARS. Petitions, organizations, studies... what we're going through is the affects [sic] of radiation. 5G launched in CHINA. Nov 1, 2019. People dropped dead."

Several conspiracy theorists also alleged that the viral videos of people dropping on the ground and fainting in China, were a result of 5G radio waves messing with the oxygen levels in blood of the general public.

Soon, a UK based fact checking website, FullFact, debunked the claims and argued that there is no evidence that 5G is harmful to peoples health.

Read more:
A Bioweapon Or Effects Of 5G? 7 Conspiracy Theories Around Coronavirus That Will Shock You - The Biggest Humanitarian Crisis - Economic Times

GMOs: Not as scary as you may think.

Glow-in-the-dark mice, silk-producing goats, venomous cabbage -- these are all wacky and downright unsettling examples of what can happen when scientists tinker with DNA. They're also part of the reason that the public and scientific debates about genetically modified organisms -- known as GMOs -- persist.

Luckily, "Frankenfoods" like the venomous cabbage, aren't something you'll likely ever come into contact with. The GMOs that might be on your plate or in your snacks have been evaluated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and they're perfectly safe, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Read more: 18 health myths that are outdated and wrong

The first GMO food on the market was a tomato engineered to resist softening. It was called the Flavr Savr tomato.

GMO foods have been genetically engineered to alter the DNA of the food source for some specific purpose -- a good example is the famed Flavr Savr tomato, which was genetically engineered to inhibit a gene that produces the protein that makes tomatoes ripen and rot. Thus, the Flavr Savr tomato remained firm and bright red for longer than non-GMO tomatoes.

The Flavr Savr tomato was introduced in 1994 as the first GMO crop brought to market for consumers, and it sparked the GMO debate that's been raging ever since. It was later taken off the market when genetic engineering giant Monsanto bought the company that made the Flavr Savr.

Usually, scientists and food technologists make GMOs by separating a piece of DNA from one organism (such as a bacterium or another plant or animal) and inserting it into the DNA of another organism. The point is to take traits from organism A and make organism B show the same traits.

According to the WHO, GMOs are "derived from organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally," which makes it different from other agricultural practices, such as selectively breeding cows to get the highest-quality beef.

Golden rice (right) is a genetically modified rice meant to cure vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.

GMOs came about for the same reason that most agricultural and food innovations come about: There's some perceived benefit, either for the producer or the consumer. Most GM crops are produced for one of these reasons:

The famed Impossible Burger uses genetically modified soy to make its crucial ingredient, heme.

Let's put it this way: Overall, not many different types of foods are genetically modified. But of those foods that are, the GM percentage is high.

For example, about 90% of corn, canola, soy and cotton grown in the US is genetically modified. Other GM crops in the US include alfalfa, canola, cotton, papaya, potatoes, eggplant, squash and sugar beets.

A few other GM crops have been approved by the FDA, such as the Arctic Apple, which resists browning, and the Innate Potato, which also resists rotting.

While it's unlikely that the produce you're buying on a regular basis is genetically modified, it's hard to find any processed foods without a single GM ingredient, because corn, canola and soy are so widely used in processed products, like cookies, juice, granola bars, cereal and frozen meals.

Only one GM animal has been approved by the FDA for human consumption: the AquAdvantage salmon, which grows faster than a non-GMO farmed salmon. Scientists at AquaBounty, the company that produced the fast-growing salmon, did so by inserting a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon into an Atlantic salmon.

There is currently no scientifically sound evidence that GMOs cause cancer or other health problems.

The scientific consensus to date is that GMOs do not pose health risks to humans. GMOs have been heavily studied and new GM crops must go through an evaluation and approval process through the FDA. If the FDA doesn't determine they're safe, they won't go to market.

The WHO says that because all GM crops are different, there shouldn't be a blanket statement about whether all GM foods are safe or not -- but the organization follows with "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."

The position of the American Dietetic Association is that "food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value and variety of food available for human consumption, and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management."

While there are some studies that have reported potential health risks, a 2017 review of "studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food" found that most of those studies were invalid due to conflict of interest, flawed study design or poor implementation.

The new label required on GMO foods, which became effective in 2020.

Even though GMOs have been around for nearly 30 years, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USDA) released the first set of rules for GMO labeling in December 2018.

By 2022, GM foods or foods made with GM ingredients must display the "bioengineered" emblem on the packaging. Implementation of the new labeling began on Jan. 1, 2020 for large food manufacturers and begins on Jan. 1, 2021 for small manufacturers. For both, the mandatory compliance date is Jan. 1, 2022.

However, the notice clarifies that "For refined foods that are derived from bioengineered crops, no disclosure is required if the food does not contain detectable modified genetic material."

So just like you'll start seeing (or have already seen) the new nutrition facts label this year, expect to see the new emblem soon. You can also still look for the Non-GMO Project label, a sign that the independent organization has evaluated that food for GM ingredients.

If you're really worried about eating GMOs, you can keep them out of your diet by eating organic food and avoiding foods with soybeans, canola oil, corn and sugar from sugar beets.

The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.

Read the original:
GMOs: What they are, are they safe and which foods have them - CNET

Genetic engineering is the process of using technology to change the genetic makeup of an organism - be it an animal, plant or a bacterium.

This can be achieved by using recombinant DNA (rDNA), or DNA that has been isolated from two or more different organisms and then incorporated into a single molecule, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

Recombinant DNA technology was first developed in the early 1970s, and the first genetic engineering company, Genentech, was founded in 1976. The company isolated the genes for human insulin into E. coli bacteria, which allowed the bacteria to produce human insulin.

After approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genentech produced the first recombinant DNA drug, human insulin, in 1982. The first genetically engineered vaccine for humans was approved by the FDA in 1987 and was for hepatitis B.

Since the 1980s, genetic engineering has been used to produce everything from a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery to infection-resistant crops such as the HoneySweet Plum. These organisms made by genetic engineering, called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), can be bred to be less susceptible to diseases or to withstand specific environmental conditions.

But critics say that genetic engineering is dangerous. In 1997, a photo of a mouse with what looked like a human ear growing out of its back sparked a backlash against using genetic engineering. But the mouse was not the result of genetic engineering, and the ear did not contain any human cells. It was created by implanting a mold made of biodegradable mesh in the shape of a 3-year-old's ear under the mouse's skin, according to the National Science Foundation, in order to demonstrate one way to produce cartilage tissue in a lab.

While genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of one or more genes, DNA can also be controlled through selective breeding. Precision breeding, for example, is an organic farming technique that includes monitoring the reproduction of species members so that the resulting offspring have desirable traits.

A recent example of the use of precision breeding is the creation of a new type of rice. To address the issue of flooding wiping out rice crops in China, Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California-Davis, developed a more flood-tolerant strain of rice seed.

Using a wild species of rice that is native to Mali, Ronald identified a gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties using precision breeding creating rice that can withstand being submerged in water for 17 days, rather than the usual three.

Calling the new, hardier rice the Xa21 strain, researchers hope to have it join the ranks of other GMOs currently being commercially grown worldwide, including herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant soy, cotton and corn, within the next year, Ronald said. For farmers in China, the world's top producer and consumer of rice, being able to harvest enough of the crop to support their families is literally a matter of life and death.

Because Ronald used precision breeding rather than genetic engineering, the rice will hopefully meet with acceptance among critics of genetic engineering, Ronald said.

"The farmers experienced three to five fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance," Ronald said at a World Science Festival presentation in New York. "This rice demonstrates how genetics can be used to improve the lives of impoverished people."

Got a question? Email it to Life's Little Mysteries and we'll try to answer it. Due to the volume of questions, we unfortunately can't reply individually, but we will publish answers to the most intriguing questions, so check back soon.

View original post here:
What's Genetic Engineering? | Live Science

NEW YORK, March 18, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --

The report on the global zinc finger nuclease technology market provides qualitative and quantitative analysis for the period from 2017 to 2025.

Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05874235/?utm_source=PRN

The report predicts the global zinc finger nuclease technology market to grow with a healthy CAGR over the forecast period from 2019-2025. The study on zinc finger nuclease technology market covers the analysis of the leading geographies such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and RoW for the period of 2017 to 2025.

The report on zinc finger nuclease technology market is a comprehensive study and presentation of drivers, restraints, opportunities, demand factors, market size, forecasts, and trends in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market over the period of 2017 to 2025. Moreover, the report is a collective presentation of primary and secondary research findings.

Porter's five forces model in the report provides insights into the competitive rivalry, supplier and buyer positions in the market and opportunities for the new entrants in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market over the period of 2017 to 2025. Further, IGR- Growth Matrix gave in the report brings an insight into the investment areas that existing or new market players can consider.

Report Findings1) Drivers Rising use of gene therapy and genome therapy Benefits offered by zinc finger nuclease technology such as permanent and heritable mutation and efficient creation of animal models2) Restraints Complexities associated with zinc finger nuclease technology3) Opportunities Application of zinc finger nuclease technology in drug discovery

Research Methodology

A) Primary ResearchOur primary research involves extensive interviews and analysis of the opinions provided by the primary respondents. The primary research starts with identifying and approaching the primary respondents, the primary respondents are approached include1. Key Opinion Leaders associated with Infinium Global Research2. Internal and External subject matter experts3. Professionals and participants from the industry

Our primary research respondents typically include1. Executives working with leading companies in the market under review2. Product/brand/marketing managers3. CXO level executives4. Regional/zonal/ country managers5. Vice President level executives.

B) Secondary ResearchSecondary research involves extensive exploring through the secondary sources of information available in both the public domain and paid sources. At Infinium Global Research, each research study is based on over 500 hours of secondary research accompanied by primary research. The information obtained through the secondary sources is validated through the crosscheck on various data sources.

The secondary sources of the data typically include1. Company reports and publications2. Government/institutional publications3. Trade and associations journals4. Databases such as WTO, OECD, World Bank, and among others.5. Websites and publications by research agencies

Segment CoveredThe global zinc finger nuclease technology market is segmented on the basis of type, and application.

The Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Type Cell Line Engineering Animal Genetic Engineering Plant Genetic Engineering Other

The Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Application Biotechnology Companies Pharmaceutical Companies Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory Academic and Research Institutes

Company Profiles Sigma-Aldrich Corporation Thermo Fisher Scientific Sangamo Therapeutics inc. LabOmics S.A. Gilead Sciences, Inc. OriGene Technologies, Inc Others

What does this report deliver?1. Comprehensive analysis of the global as well as regional markets of the zinc finger nuclease technology market.2. Complete coverage of all the segments in the zinc finger nuclease technology market to analyze the trends, developments in the global market and forecast of market size up to 2025.3. Comprehensive analysis of the companies operating in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market. The company profile includes analysis of product portfolio, revenue, SWOT analysis and latest developments of the company.4. IGR- Growth Matrix presents an analysis of the product segments and geographies that market players should focus to invest, consolidate, expand and/or diversify.

Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05874235/?utm_source=PRN

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

__________________________ Contact Clare: [emailprotected] US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001

SOURCE Reportlinker

http://www.reportlinker.com

See original here:
Global zinc finger nuclease technology market is expected to grow with a healthy CAGR over the forecast period from 2019-2025 - PRNewswire

Scientists have analysed the entirety of the novel coronavirus' genomic sequence to assess claims that it may have been made in a laboratory or been otherwise engineered.

The coronavirus outbreak first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan last December and has caused an international pandemic, infecting more than 198,000 people and leading to over 7,900 deaths.

International blame around the COVID-19 pandemic has incited conspiracy theories about its origin.

Without evidence Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, suggested on Twitter that the virus could have been brought to Wuhan by the US army.

While he may have been insincerely provocative in response to American officials describing the outbreak as the Wuhan virus, stressing its beginnings in China, he received thousands of retweets.

Rumours linking the virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - based on geographic proximity, and without any endorsement from qualified epidemiologists - have also circulated.

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker.

Shortly after the epidemic began, Chinese scientists sequenced the genome of the virus and made the data publicly available for researchers worldwide.

Even the integrity of these scientists and medical professionals has been called into question by conspiracy theorists, prompting an international coalition of scientists to sign a joint letter of support for them and their work, published in medical journal The Lancet.

The value of the genomic sequence could prove vital for those developing a vaccine, but it also contains key details revealing how the virus evolved.

New analysis by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in the US, UK and Australia discovered that the virus has proved so infectious because it developed a near-perfect mechanism to bind to human cells.

This mechanism is so sophisticated in its adaptions that the researchers say that it must have evolved and not been genetically engineered in their paper, titled "COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin", published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Dr Josie Golding, the epidemics lead at the Wellcome Trust in the UK, described the paper as "crucially important to bring an evidence-based view to the rumours that have been circulating about the origins of the virus causing COVID-19".

"They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution, ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering," Dr Golding added.

So how do they know? One of the most effective parts of the virus are its spike proteins, molecules on the outside of the virus which it uses to grab hold of and then penetrate the outer walls of human and animal cells.

There are two key features in the novel coronavirus' spike proteins which make its evolution a certainty.

The first is what's called the receptor-binding domain (RBD) which they describe as "a kind of grappling hook that grips on to host cells", while the second is known as the cleavage site, "a molecular can opener that allows the virus to crack open and enter host cells".

If researchers were actually going to design a virus to harm humans then it would be constructed from the backbone of a virus already known to cause illness, the researchers said.

However the coronavirus backbone is radically different to those which are already known to affect humans, and in fact are most similar to viruses which are found in bats and pangolins.

"These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for [the coronavirus]," said Dr Kristian Andersen, corresponding author on the paper.

Another study of the genome by researchers at the Wuhan Institute for Virology reported that the virus was 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, one of the many animals sold at a Wuhan seafood market where it is suspected the virus jumped to humans.

However the new research was unable to determine whether the virus evolved into its current pathogenic state in a non-human host before jumping to a human, or if it evolved into that state after making the jump.

More:
Coronavirus: Scientists tackle the theories on how it started - Sky News

Last week, we published a story about a team of German researchers who claimed to have identified an existing drug with potential to treat coronavirus Covid-19. Now, U.S. scientists from Greffex, aHouston, Texas-based genetic engineering company said it has completed a vaccine targeting the current outbreak of the coronavirus that the World Health Organization calls COVID-19. The company said it intends to give away its vaccine for free to nations affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, John Price, president and CEO, said.

Price told the Houston Business Journal that Greffexs scientists completed the coronavirus vaccine this week. The company said the vaccine will now move to animal testing by the necessary government agencies in the U.S., thats the Food and Drug Administration. Countries impacted by the outbreak, like China and Vietnam, have their own agencies with their own clinical testing regulations.

To ensure safety, Greffex did not use a living or killed virus for its vaccine, Price said. Greffexs treatments use adenovirus-based vector vaccines, which are used to target various kinds of infectious diseases and cancers, according to research published in the peer reviewed journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. In September 2019, Greffex received an $18.9 million contract from the National Institute of Healths National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to develop new treatments for infectious threats, according to a press release.

Greffex intends to give away its vaccine for free to nations affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, Price said. Hes traveling to Vietnam Feb. 20.There are certain things which should not be sold. We have a health crisis in Asia, Price said. For certain governments, we will give them the vaccine and not charge them for it.

Greffex has previously developed vaccines for notable infectious diseases including Avian Influenza (bird flu), Ebola, Zika and MERS, Price said. Greffexs current coronavirus vaccine is similar to its vaccine for MERS, or Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus.

The firms technology allows Greffex to develop new vaccines quickly usually in about a month, Price said. Following months of animal studies and abbreviated human clinical trials, Price said he could see the coronavirus vaccines being deployed into impacted nations as soon as early summer.

Read more from the original source:
U.S. scientists at Texas genetic engineering company Greffex have created a coronavirus vaccine, plans to give away the vaccine for free -...

Roasted soybeans are a common ingredient in the diets of dairy cows because they are a great source of fat and protein, including protein that escapes the rumen, according to researchers with The Pennsylvania State University.

Farm-grown and locally available soybeans and on-farm or local roasting make soybeans an economical ingredient in many situations, Penn State said in an announcement.

Until recently, farmers had to decide only how to process soybeans and how much to feed, but now they also have the opportunity to choose high-oleic acid soybeans that bring additional advantages in dairy rations, according to Kevin Harvatine, associate professor of nutritional physiology in the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences.

Harvatine said soybeans contain about 20% fat, and normal soybean fat is high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are less stable and, therefore, prone to becoming rancid more quickly.

For many years, soybean oil was hydrogenated to make margarine, shortening and frying oils, but more than a decade ago, we realized the trans fats in these were very bad for us and increased heart disease, among other things, he said. Oleic acid is an unsaturated fatty acid and is much more stable when frying and storing, which sparked interest in breeding soybeans high in oleic acid and low in polyunsaturated fat.

There is a long history of selecting plants to increase oleic acid concentration. The best known is canola, which is rapeseed that was selected for high oleic acid levels to improve the healthfulness of the fat, Harvatine noted. Normal plant-breeding methods were also very successful in increasing oleic acid in sunflower and safflower oil, with some varieties containing more than 80% oleic acid.

However, normal plant breeding methods failed to create a high-oleic soybean, Harvatine pointed out, so high-oleic varieties that contain about 75% oleic acid and less than 10% polyunsaturated fat were created using genetic engineering approaches. The brand names are Plenish from Pioneer and Vistive Gold from Bayer.

High-oleic acid soybeans have been grown for a number of years but only recently have been widely available to grow outside of contracts, he said. The seed sells for a comparable price to normal seed and does not differ in yield or protein and fat concentration, so the cost of production is comparable.

Roasted high-oleic acid soybeans have benefits for dairy cows, Harvatine explained, adding that polyunsaturated fatty acids are toxic to rumen microbes and disrupt normal rumen function, leading to production of bioactive fatty acids that cause milk fat depression. We expect oleic acid to be lower risk, and recent studies both at Penn State and the University of Wisconsin demonstrated that high-oleic acid soybeans were lower risk for causing diet-induced milk fat depression, he said.

A recent study conducted by Harvatine at Penn State, funded by the Pennsylvania Soybean Board, compared feeding dairy cows normal versus high-oleic acid roasted soybeans at 5% and 10% of the diet. Soybean type and level had no effect on milk yield, but high-oleic acid soybeans resulted in 0.17 units higher milk fat concentration and 0.2 lb. higher milk fat yield.

This increase was explained by a decrease in diet-induced milk fat depression, and increasing the level of roasted soybeans from 5% to 10% of the cows diet increased milk fat 0.2 units, Harvatine said, likely because the diet contained a low level of fat relative to the production level of the cows.

Research on the benefits of high-oleic acid soybeans in dairy cow diets at Penn State is continuing. Harvatines research group currently is conducting additional experiments funded by the Pennsylvania Soybean Board to determine the optimal level of high-oleic soybeans. It is clear that high-oleic acid soybeans decrease the risk of diet-induced milk fat depression, he said.

We would expect to see the largest effect in herds with lower milk fat. However, some cows in every herd have lower milk fat and would be expected to benefit, he said. In addition, feeding high-oleic acid soybeans may allow increased use of other economical byproducts that are higher in polyunsaturated fat, such as distillers grains.

High-oleic acid soybeans are one of the new ingredients available to farmers interested in designing a diet that is energy-dense while minimizing risk for rumen disruptions and diet-induced milk fat depression, Harvatine said, adding, Because price, agronomics, fat and protein concentration are equivalent, there are few downsides to growing or feeding high-oleic acid soybeans. As a new variety, they are not available everywhere, but it is likely that farmers will see them soon, if they have not already.

Go here to see the original:
High-oleic acid soybeans offer benefits to dairy cows - Feedstuffs

Colette Bancroft, Tampa Bay Times Published 4:43 p.m. ET March 18, 2020

What to read while you're self-isolating to avoid the coronavirus? How about books about all the various plagues humankind has survived before?

There are classics like Giovanni Boccaccio's 1353 classic "The Decameron," about Italian aristocrats who flee the bubonic plague in Florence, or Daniel Defoe's 1722 novel "A Journal of the Plague Year," an account of the Black Death in London half a century before.

There are many more recent works about pandemics, some nonfiction, some historical fiction, some speculative fiction. On March 8, Stephen King resisted comparisons of the current crisis to his 1978 novel "The Stand," set in a world where a pandemic has killed 99% of the population.

King tweeted, "No, coronavirus is NOT like THE STAND. It's not anywhere near as serious. It's eminently survivable. Keep calm and take all reasonable precautions." Despite King's protestations, readers often look to books to help explain real-world phenomena, especially in bewildering times like these.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.(Photo: Penguin Random House, TNS)

Here are a few more plague books to consider.

"Pale Horse, Pale Rider" (1939) by Katherine Ann Porter is a short novel set during the influenza pandemic of 1918, which killed five times as many Americans as did World War I. Its main character, Miranda, is a young reporter who falls in love with a soldier; the book's fever-dream style captures the experience of the disease.

"The Andromeda Strain" (1969) by Michael Crichton is a bestselling techno-thriller that begins when a military satellite crashes to earth and releases an extraterrestrial organism that kills almost everyone in a nearby small town. Then things get bad.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" (1985) by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is the great Colombian author's beguiling tale of a 50-year courtship, in which lovesickness is as debilitating and stubborn as disease.

"The MaddAddam Trilogy" by Margaret Atwood, which includes "Oryx and Crake" (2003), "The Year of the Flood" (2009) and "MaddAddam" (2013), is a masterwork of speculative fiction by the author of "The Handmaid's Tale." Set in a near future in which genetic engineering causes a plague that almost destroys humanity, it's savagely satirical, thrilling and moving.

"The Road" (2006) by Cormac McCarthy is a bleak, beautifully written, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel set after an unspecified extinction event has wiped out most of humanity. An unnamed man and boy travel on foot toward a southern sea, fending off cannibals and despair.

"Nemesis" (2010) by Philip Roth is the author's 31st and last novel, a sorrowful story set in Newark, N.J., in 1944, as the United States is in the grip of the polio epidemic that killed and disabled thousands of children.

"Station Eleven" (2014) by Emily St. John Mandel is a bestselling novel about a group of actors and musicians traveling through the Great Lakes region in future years after a mysterious pandemic called the Georgian flu has killed almost everyone.

"The Old Drift" (2019) by Namwalli Serpell is a dazzling debut novel set in Zambia, spanning a century but focusing in part on the disaster wrought in that country by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Nonfiction

"The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance" (1995) by Laurie Garrett is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter's clear-eyed look at how rapidly the modern world has changed the nature of disease, how important preparedness is and how endangered we are without it.

"Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic" (2013) by David Quammen is the great science writer's fascinating look at zoonotic diseases, such as AIDS and Ebola (and now coronavirus), that jump from animal species to ours.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/03/18/books-pandemics-read-time-coronavirus/2863307001/

View post:
Books about pandemics to read in the time of coronavirus - The Detroit News

In 2010, Craig Venters lab embedded text and images into the DNA of a bacterium. Would a future investigator be able to tell? It would take special tools to see the insertion, but the difference should be detectable. What if bioengineers invent new genes that use the cells translation machinery to build non-natural proteins? This is already coming to pass with CRISPR/Cas9 methods. If the insertion were made in an embryo, all the adult cells would inherit the change. The line between natural and artificial is getting more blurry.

In a sense, the new bioengineering developments are similar in principle to longstanding cases of artificial interference in nature, as in agriculture, camouflage, or construction of simple dwellings with available materials like grass or fallen branches. The Design Filter takes into account what chance and natural law can do. There will always be difficult cases; ID errs on the side of non-intelligent causes when the degree of specified complexity is borderline. But now, specified complexity exists in both natural DNA and DNA altered by human intelligence. There should be ways to distinguish between human intelligent causes and non-human intelligent causes, whether those be space aliens, spirit beings, or a transcendent Creator.

In their epilogue to the book The Mystery of Lifes Origin (newly updated and expanded by Discovery Institute Press), Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen considered five sources for a more satisfactory theory of origins. These included: new natural laws, panspermia, directed panspermia, special creation by a creator within the cosmos, and special creation by a creator outside the cosmos. The last four involve intentional, mind-directed activity; only #5 necessarily involves the supernatural. To the investigator, though, the output of the Design Filter would be the same. It boils down to natural versus artificial: unguided, or mind-directed. But what happens when the mind-directed interference of bioengineers gets so good, it looks natural? It becomes a case of the perfect crime, leaving the investigator baffled. Todays Mars rovers are easily distinguished from the rocky, dusty environment of Mars. But what if future designers made them look like rocks, functioning when they roll over in the wind?

This is a growing challenge for ID as bioengineering progresses. News from ETH Zurich says:

Every living creature on earth has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on representing an unbroken line of ancestry all the way back to the very first organisms that lived here billions of years ago. Soon we will have life forms that have no such direct lineage. The first of these organisms will be bacteria. Bioengineers will use computers to develop such bacteria and specifically tailor them for applications in medicine, industry or agriculture. With the help of DNA synthesisers, they will build these bacterias genomes from the ground up to produce artificial life forms. [Emphasis added.]

This implies that an investigator will have to search the ancestry of an organism to make a design inference.

I dont mean organisms in which only individual genes have been altered a technique that has been applied in biotechnology and crop breeding for decades, and that todays CRISPR gene scissors have made very simple. No, I mean organisms for which bioengineers have literally developed the genome from scratch so that they can synthesise it in the lab.

The author, Dr. Beat Christen of ETH, says this is not science fiction. The tools to do this are already in place. I am convinced that they will soon be a reality, he says. It may not require designing every molecular machine de novo.

Digital databases store over 200,000 genome sequences from a broad range of organisms providing us access to a wealth of molecular building plans. By cleverly combining or modifying known genetic functions, bioengineers can develop microorganisms with new and useful characteristics.

How would an investigator in such cases be able to differentiate a synthetic organism from known examples of mosaic organisms or natural organisms containing orphan genes? On ID the Future recently, Paul Nelson acknowledged from his trip to the Galpagos Islands that Darwin got something right: organisms have a history. There can be some natural modification in a lineage over time, as in the case of flightless cormorants, he said, and ID advocates need to build that into their theory of design. With bioengineering entering the mix, they will also have to distinguish natural history from artificial history in the codes of life.

This is an extension of what they must do in distinguishing the artificial history of cultivated crops and animal breeds. The dachshund looks very different from the wolf from which domestic dogs descended. The ears of corn we buy in supermarkets differ substantially from the maize or teosinte from which farmers selectively bred them. But now that bioengineers can selectively edit the genes, they will have to discern the history in the genotype as well as the phenotype. The ability to do this could become very important.

Another challenge will arise as human history progresses. Right now, we have more clues to trace genetic editing to particular labs. But as the number of gene editing labs grows over time, and editing becomes routine maybe even to individuals it may become impossible to trace the edits to their source. This happens with artificial breeding as well; unless particular breeders documented their work, historians and archaeologists can only gain indirect clues to the time and place of origin for a particular breed. It could have started in ancient Babylon, Egypt, or Rome. Its not IDs job to identify the agent, the books explain (e.g., The Design Revolution, Chapter 26); the investigator should be able to detect design from its effects alone. Genetic tinkering will make that inference more difficult, if genetic engineers continue to blur the line between natural genetic information and edited genetic information. Moreover, not all gene editors publish their work. As in the case of bioweapons, the source may intentionally try to conceal its designs.

In Nature, three scientists wrote a review titled, The coming of age of de novo protein design. The opening sentence of the article by Huang, Boyken, and Baker makes a point that Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger would agree with: functional space is dwarfed by sequence space.

There are 20200 possible amino-acid sequences for a 200-residue protein, of which the natural evolutionary process has sampled only an infinitesimal subset. De novo protein design explores the full sequence space, guided by the physical principles that underlie protein folding. Computational methodology has advanced to the point that a wide range of structures can be designed from scratch with atomic-level accuracy. Almost all protein engineering so far has involved the modification of naturally occurring proteins; it should now be possible to design new functional proteins from the ground up to tackle current challenges in biomedicine and nanotechnology.

The summary on Phys.org has the title, Scientists can now design new proteins from scratch with specific functions. One of the techniques of de novo protein design involves evolutionary algorithms, in which the intelligent agent provides the selective pressure to find the fittest protein for the chosen goal. If engineers succeed in taking an amino acid sequence that folds in silico and then can reverse engineer the genetic code for it so that it can be translated by a natural bacteriums cellular machinery, does it become indistinguishable from an orphan gene? In both instances, the Design Filter would register a positive, but should ID advocates be able to tell the difference? Does it matter?

Another blurring of lines between the natural and the artificial occurs in cases of guiding organisms to do unnatural things. At the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), biotechnicians have turned a bacterial cell into a biological computer.

In recent decades, the barriers between engineering and life sciences have been falling, and from the encounter between the two different disciplines, a new science synthetic biology was born. Synthetic biology introduces engineering into biology, makes it possible to design and build biological systems that dont exist in nature, and supplies an innovative toolbox for reprogramming the genetic code in living creatures, including humans.

We built a kind of biological computer in the living cells. In this computer, as in regular computers, circuits carry out complicated calculations, said Barger. Only here, these circuits are genetic, not electronic, and information are [sic] carried by proteins and not electrons.

Once again, telling the difference will require a robust design inference. This type of tinkering might be compared to animal training. Shown two wolves, one trained to respond to human words and one in its wild state, could the investigator tell them apart by their behavior alone? Probably, but discriminating biological computers from wild bacteria could be a lot tougher, tractable only to molecular biologists.

These examples in the news present both challenges and opportunities. As lines blur between the natural and the synthetic in the 21st century, the design inference must be tightened accordingly. The specified-complexity criterion is robust against false positives (This is designed when its not), but not against false negatives (This isnt designed when it is; see William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pp. 22-28). To avoid a growing number of false negatives, the investigator must now become aware of the history of the genotype as well as the phenotype.

Its well and good to lump all instances of complex specified information into the designed category, whether a gene was edited by humans or designed by a transcendent entity. But these rapidly growing capabilities for bioengineering raise additional challenges for the ID community. Fortunately, with the challenges come opportunities. The very act of genetic engineering must surely be raising awareness in the scientific community of the degree of specified complexity in natural organisms, and the extremely limited tolerances for success. Nature confesses:

It is useful to begin by considering the fraction of protein sequence space that is occupied by naturally occurring proteins [1012 out of 20200]Evidently, evolution has explored only a tiny region of the sequence space that is accessible to proteins.

The design inference is not changing in principle; it only needs clarification to fit more challenging cases. It also affords opportunities to communicate design principles to those still clinging to the hope that blind, unguided processes are capable of navigating endless fields of haystacks for a tiny number of needles.

Photo: Topiary animals, by Doko Jozef Kotuli / CC BY.

Read the original:
Blurring the Line Between Natural and Artificial - Discovery Institute

For the first time ever, CRISPR has been used to edit DNA inside a living human being. Scientists have also tapped the gene-editing tool to accelerate DNA sequencing in hopes of customizing cancer treatments. Plant-based burger startup Beyond Meat blasts critics who claim its products are ultra-processed. Genetic engineering may save the worlds favorite banana from extinction. But how does the public feel about all this genetic tinkering?

On this episode of Science Facts & Fallacies, plant geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English go beyond the headlines to break down the latest developments from the world of genetics and biotechnology.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android |

Can CRISPR gene editing save the Cavendish banana from extinction?

The Cavendish bananathat delicious, yellow tropical fruit currently populating the produce sections of our grocery storesmay not be available for much longer. A fungal disease known as Tropical Race 4 (TR-4) is wreaking havoc on banana plantations across South America, threatening to wipe out the Cavendish for good. TR-4 spreads rapidly and isnt easily controlled with pesticide applications. Thats why scientists are working feverishly to immunize the banana by cutting a segment of DNA out of its genome that makes it susceptible to TR-4.

More precise cancer treatments may be possible by pairing CRISPR with genetic sequencing

Researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have used CRISPR to rapidly sequence particular genes involved in the development of breast cancer, eliminating the DNA replication process usually required for genome sequencing. The development could enable the selection of customized cancer drugs that treat the disease based on the genetic makeup of individual patients.

Beyond Meat goes on the offensive, blasting critics who claim plant-based burgers are ultra-processed

Plant-based burgers have been a hit with consumers so far, achieving nearly a $1 billion in sales in 2019. This development has made the meat industry nervous, and theyve launched expensive marketing campaigns to dissuade the public from chowing down on the beef-free alternatives. The industrys biggest criticism: plant-based meats are ultra-processed, and presumably less nutritious than traditional burgers.

Beyond Meat, maker of the wildly popular Beyond Burger, is having none of this. The company announced in early March it was going on the offensive to counter the marketing assault on its products, arguing that plant-based foods may actually be healthier than meat in some cases.

Targeting blindness with CRISPR: Doctors attempt first editing of genes inside a human body

Gene editing has yielded dozens of important medical treatments for deadly diseases, including cancers like leukemia and lymphoma. Typically, doctors extract immune cells from a patient, edit their DNA, then infuse them back into the persons body to attack the disease. Scientists have now taken this approach a step further by injecting a virus carrying the instructions to produce CRISPR-Cas9 directly into a patients eye, where it is expected to edit out a mutation involved in Leber congenital amaurosis, a genetic condition that causes blindness. Will this groundbreaking procedure work? Is it safe?

Infographic: What the US public thinks about tinkering with human genetics

As all this genetic engineering work begins reshaping intimate aspects of our lives, scientists and policy makers are eager to find out how consumers feel about the technology. Is the public on board, or do they fear a loss of human control? Both.

A majority of people surveyed by Pew (60%) said genetic engineering should be used to prevent serious diseases and produce organs for people who need them (57%), but they were also concerned about using the technology to enhance human performance. 69 percent, for example, said implanting brain chips to improve memory and information processing would be a step too far.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the GLPs senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

See the original post:
Podcast: Treating blindness with CRISPR; customized cancer drugs; Beyond Meat takes on critics; and saving bananas from extinction - Genetic Literacy...

WASHINGTON, DC, US The US Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture launched a $7.5 million consumer education initiative focused on highlighting the science behind genetically modified organisms.

The goal of the effort, called Feed Your Mind, is to answer the most common questions consumers have about GMOs, including how they are regulated and whether they are safe and healthy.

Less than a dozen genetically modified crops are grown in the United States, but they often make up an overwhelming majority of the crop grown. More than 90% of soybeans, corn and sugar beets planted in 2018 were genetically modified.

Genetic engineering has created new plants that are resistant to insects and diseases, led to products with improved nutritional profiles, as well as certain produce that dont brown or bruise as easily, said Stephen M. Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA.

One educational video from the FDA points out that genetically modified soybeans have healthier oils that may be used to replace oils that contain trans fats. Other materials highlight how reduced bruising and browning may help combat food waste.

Consumers, however, remain uncertain. Concerns that GMOs are unhealthy and harmful are widespread. The number of shoppers avoiding GMOs tripled over the past decade, according to The Hartman Group. Close to half of consumers surveyed last year said they avoid bioengineered ingredients, compared to 15% in 2007.

A study published last year in Nature Human Behavior found more than 90% of participants had some level of opposition to GMO foods. It also found that consumers with the strongest opposition to GMO foods thought they were more knowledgeable about the topic than other participants, despite scoring lower on an actual knowledge test.

While foods from genetically engineered plants have been available to consumers since the early 1990s and are a common part of todays food supply, there are a lot of misconceptions about them, Hahn said. This initiative is intended to help people better understand what these products are and how they are made.

The Feed Your Mind initiative will launch in phases. Materials already released include a new website, fact sheets, infographics and videos. Supplementary science curriculum for high schools, resources for health professionals and additional consumer materials will be released later this year and in 2021.

Read this article:
US agencies launch initiative to boost understanding of GMOs - World Grain

A Texas-based genetic engineering company claims to have created a vaccine to prevent the coronavirus (COVID-19) and is hoping to have the drug approved and available to the public by the end of the year.

John Price, the CEO of Greffex, told Fox News Monday that he was completely confident in his companys new vaccine.

Were confident in the vaccine, the quality of the vaccine completely. The end result will be what the government wants to do in terms of testing, Price said.

The company had previously created a vaccine to combat MERS and that research helped them develop the new vaccine. MERS has a tremendous number of similarities to the coronavirus, Price explained.

The vaccine is still in the testing stage, and if approved, could be available to the public by years end, he said.

When asked whether there was a way to fast track the approval process, Price answered that it would be a policy decision for the government.

Thats always the $100 million question. The earliest that we think would be the end of the year. The latest would be 18 months. But we think that we could depending on the approval process of the government get something in 2020, he said.

Yesterday was the first time I heard people say its a pandemic, Price added. If its truly a pandemic, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. The process is roughly four weeks for the first animal testing and then you go into human trials. And thats the part that will be determined by the government.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team, meanwhile, are working on a separate vaccine which could take up to 18 months to prove safety and effectiveness. The FDA has granted approval for the National Institutes of Health to begin the first stage of clinical testing in that vaccine.

Media-driven panic about the virus has contributed to a jittery and unnerved stock market in recent days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 1,500 points in early trading, Monday.

As of Monday morning, there were approximately 600 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States and 22 deaths. There are now 111,362 cases worldwide, according to the John Hopkins tracking map.

By comparison, the CDC estimates that 35.5 million people got sick with seasonal influenza in the United States during the 20182019 season, with an estimated 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness. According to the CDC, there have been 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza, this season.

Unfortunately, the global death rate for COVID-19 is 3.4 percent, which is much higher than the common flu, according to the World Health Organization.

Continued here:
Genetic Engineering Co. Says Its COVID-19 Vaccine Could Be Approved By End of the Year - American Greatness

It sometimes feels like society is permanently at loggerheads, divided over any number of issues, from genetic engineering and vaccines to euthanasia and religion, and unable to engage in productive exchanges across ideological divides.

Consequently, if education is to develop the next generation, it must nurture children as future citizens with the capacity to have productive conversations across these barriers of opinion and discipline.

We are often faced with big questions. But beyond the eternal questions concerning how life came into being and its purpose, there are more immediate concerns about which there will need to be decisions from citizens and leaders both now and in the future. How should we respond to climate change? Should government be allowed to quarantine people to prevent the spread of disease? Should euthanasia of terminally ill children be allowed?

Responses to questions such as these can be informed by science, as well as by ethics, philosophy and religion. But how can we generate a well reasoned argument using a range of diverse and often contradictory sources? And how can we develop childrens ability to do so, too? Children, after all, are the future.

First, children need to explore what an argument is, and what a good argument looks like within the subject they are studying. Put simply, an argument is a claim or set of claims supported by evidence and reasons, while a good argument is one justified by strong reasons and evidence that are relevant to the claim. But how do these arguments differ when it comes to the study of science and religious education (RE) in school?

The teaching and learning of arguments in science subjects has been extensively researched over the past 20 years. Academic textbooks and practical resources for teaching have been produced to support it.

But while RE curriculum documents often cite the need for students to produce well reasoned arguments, there has been far less research on and fewer resources for the teaching and learning of arguments within the subject.

One distinguishing feature between arguments in different subject areas is what is considered to be an acceptable reason. In the case of arguments in RE, what counts as a reason can be less defined and evidence-based than in the sciences, particularly when the focus may be on providing a safe space for expressing beliefs and respecting diversity, rather than on constructing persuasive arguments.

So what can be done about this and how can we ensure that children studying the two subject areas can better argue with one another? The Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science (OARS) project brings the expertise of working science and RE teachers together, in collaboration with academic researchers. The project is exploring potential approaches for cross-curricular work across these disciplines, producing resources to support the teaching and learning of argument and reasoning in schools.

Our project team suggests that there are at least three good reasons to engage in cross-curricular teaching of argument and reasoning.

First, the subject groups can learn useful lessons from each other. Science teachers can draw on the skills of RE teachers for whom discussion, debate and dialogue are core features of their curriculum and daily work. RE teachers, on the other hand, could benefit by drawing on the well established resources and structure for teaching scientific arguments. They may also draw upon science teachers expertise when exploring scientific ideas and worldviews in RE.

Second, for the range of issues that might draw on both scientific and religious arguments for example, abortion, end-of-life decisions, evolution cross-curricular teaching could help develop a students capacity to discern the difference between those based on scientific evidence and those based more on faith and belief. It could also further their ability to accept and learn from other worldviews.

Finally, this work could extend across the whole school curriculum and bring greater coherence between school subjects. Learning about arguments in different subjects can make clear what is distinctive about each subject area (for example, highlighting the features of scientific arguments that make them distinctly scientific, as compared to other subjects). It can also highlight what features of arguments are common across specialities, showing how different subjects across the curriculum are related.

There is no single way that this cross-curricular collaboration could be rolled out in schools. Indeed, our participating teachers are innovative in finding approaches that work within the bounds of their busy, and often different, school lives.

In one example, an RE teacher and a science teacher are exploring the same question in their separate subject lessons: Why should we act on climate change? Students are asked to construct arguments using information that they have been learning in each subject, before combining these separate arguments from religion and science to present a convincing and coherent answer that draws on both disciplines.

We do not have all the answers and our work is ongoing. But we are convinced of the importance of learning how to argue and how to engage with others arguments for the sake of better scientific literacy, better religious literacy, and to create better citizens. Ultimately, it is about having productive discussions about what often appear to be unbridgeable divides and unanswerable dilemmas and to bring people together in the process.

Continued here:
How children can learn to balance science and religion - The Conversation UK

The initiative aims to educate consumers about GMOs, including their production processes, their health information and other safety-related questions.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), have launched a new initiative to help consumers better understand foods created through genetic engineering, commonly called GMOs or genetically modified organisms.

The initiative, Feed Your Mind, aims to answer the most common questions that consumers have about GMOs, including what GMOs are, how and why they are made, how they are regulated and to address health and safety questions that consumers may have about these products.

While foods from genetically engineered plants have been available to consumers since the early 1990s and are a common part of todays food supply, there are a lot of misconceptions about them, said FDA Commissioner, Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. This initiative is intended to help people better understand what these products are and how they are made. Genetic engineering has created new plants that are resistant to insects and diseases, led to products with improved nutritional profiles, as well as certain produce that dont brown or bruise as easily.

Farmers and ranchers are committed to producing foods in ways that meet or exceed consumer expectations for freshness, nutritional content, safety, sustainability and more. I look forward to partnering with FDA and EPA to ensure that consumers understand the value of tools like genetic engineering in meeting those expectations, said Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at USDA.

As EPA celebrates its 50th anniversary, we are proud to partner with FDA and USDA to push agricultural innovation forward so that Americans can continue to enjoy a protected environment and a safe, abundant and affordable food supply, said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn.

The Feed Your Mind GMO initiative is launching in phases. The current materials released include a new website, as well as a selection of fact sheets, infographics and videos. Additional materials including a supplementary science curriculum for schools, resources for health professionals and additional consumer materials will be released later in 2020 and 2021.

To guide development of the Feed Your Mind initiative, the three government agencies formed a steering committee and several working groups consisting of agency leaders and subject matter experts; sought input from stakeholders through two public meetings; opened a docket to receive public comments; examined the latest science and research related to consumer understanding of genetically engineered foods; and conducted extensive formative research. Funding for Feed Your Mind was provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 as the Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative.

Follow this link:
FDA, EPA and USDA launch GMO education initiative - New Food