StemCell Therapy

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are capable of dividing for long periods of time and can give rise to specialized cells under particular conditions. Embryonic stem cells are a particular type of stem cell derived from embryos. According to US National Institutes of Health (NIH), in humans, the term embryo applies to a fertilized egg from the beginning of division up to the end of the eighth week of gestation, when the embryo becomes a fetus. Between fertilization and the eighth week of gestation, the embryo undergoes multiple cell divisions. At the eight-cell stage, roughly the third day of division, all eight cells are considered totipotent, which means the cell has the capability of becoming a fully developed human being. By day four, cells begin to separate and form a spherical layer which eventually becomes the placenta and tissue that support the development of the future fetus. A mass of about thirty cells, called the inner cell mass, forms at one end of the sphere and eventually becomes the body. When the sphere and inner cell mass are fully formed, around day 5, the pre-implantation embryo is referred to as a blastocyst. At this point the cells in the inner cell mass have not yet differentiated, but have the ability to develop into any specialized cell type that makes up the body. This property is known as pluripotency. As of 2009, embryonic stem cells refer to pluripotent cells that are generally derived from the inner cell mass of blastocysts.

In November 1998, two independent publications announced the first successful isolation and culture of pluripotent human stem cells. While working at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, located at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, James A. Thomson and his team of researchers cultured human embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass of donated embryos originally produced for in vitro fertilization. The characteristics of the cultured cells were consistent with previously identified features in animal stem cells. They were capable of long-term self-renewal and thus could remain undifferentiated for long periods of time; they had particular surface markers; and they were able to maintain a normal and stable karyotype. Thomsons team also observed derivatives of all the three germ layersendoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm. Since the three germ layers precede differentiation into all the cell types in the body, this observation suggested that the cultured cells were pluripotent. The team published Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts, in the 6 November Science issue. Soon afterwards, a research team led by John D. Gearhart at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, published Derivation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Cultured Human Primordial Germ Cells in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The paper detailed the process by which pluripotent stem cells were derived from gonadal ridges and mesenteries extracted from aborted five-to-nine week old human embryos. Gearhart and his team noted the same observations as Thomsons team. Despite coming from different sources, according to NIH, the resultant cells seem to be the same.

The largest source of blastocysts for stem cell research comes from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. Used for reproductive purposes, IVF usually produces an abundance of viable blastocysts. Excess blastocysts are sometimes donated for research purposes after obtaining informed consent from donors. Another potential method for producing embryonic stem cells is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This has been successfully done using animal cells. The nucleus of a differentiated adult cell, such as a skin cell, is removed and fused with an enucleated egg, an egg with the nucleus removed. The egg, now containing the genetic material from the skin cell, is believed to be totipotent and eventually develops into a blastocyst. As of mid-2006, attempts to produce human embryonic stem cells using SCNT have been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, scientists continue to pursue this method because of the medical and scientific implications of embryonic stem cells lines with an identical genetic makeup to particular patients. One problem faced in tissue transplants is immune rejection, where the host body attacks the introduced tissue. SCNT would be a way to overcome the incompatibility problem by using the patients own somatic cells.

Recent discoveries in cultivating human embryonic stem cells may potentially lead to major advancements in understanding human embryogenesis and medical treatments. Previously, limitations in access and environmental control have stunted research initiatives aimed at mapping out the developmental process. Insights into differentiation factors may lead to treatments into such areas as birth defects. Manipulation of the differentiation process may then lead to large supplies of stem cells for cell-based therapies on patients with Parkinsons disease, for example. In theory adult stem cells can also be cultivated for such purposes, but isolating and identifying adult stem cells has been difficult and the prospects for treatment are more limited than using embryonic stem cells.

Despite the potential benefits that may come about through human embryonic stem cell research, not everyone in the public embraces it. Several ethical debates surround this newly developing research field. Much of the debate stems from differing opinions on how we should view embryos: is an embryo a person? Should an embryo be considered property? Ethical concerns in embryonic stem cell research include destroying human blastocysts, laws surrounding informed consent, and particularly for SCNT, misapplication of techniques for reproductive cloning. For the latter concern, SCNT does produce a blastocyst which contains stem cell clones of an adult cell, but the desired application is in growing replacement tissues. Still, a portion of the public fears the hypothetical one day, when someone decides to use SCNT to develop and raise a human clone.

The public debate continues, advancing along with the changes in the field. As of 2006, public opinion polls showed that majority of religious and non-religious Americans now support embryonic stem cell research, but opinions remain divided over whether it is legitimate to create or use human blastocysts solely for research.

Wu, Ke, "Human Embryonic Stem Cells".

(2010-09-13). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/2055.

Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia.

Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

View original post here:
Human Embryonic Stem Cells | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Representatives of three of the worlds major religions tangled over the beginnings of human life, the disposal of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, and the conduct of embryonic stem cell research Wednesday (March 14) at Harvard Divinity School.

Panelists at the event, representing Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, each briefly presented their faiths teachings about the beginnings of human life and then embarked on a lively discussion about embryonic stem cell research.

The conservative Christian view that human life is created at conception contrasted with the view common among Jews that an embryo doesnt become human until 40 days after conception, and the similar Muslim view that human life begins when the soul enters the developing baby sometime between 40 days and 120 days after conception.

The different beliefs in the timing of when a developing embryo becomes a human likely accounts for different levels of acceptance for embryonic stem cell research, which is supported in the Jewish community, is accepted in many Muslim countries, yet is opposed by the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations.

The panel featured Eric Cohen, director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., who presented the Jewish point of view; Omar Sultan Haque, a Muslim theologian at Harvard Medical School; John Davis, a Presbyterian minister and professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; and Llewellyn Smith of the Andover/Newton Theological School and a minister with the United Church of Christ.

Harvard Stem Cell Institute faculty members Willy Lensch and Jerome Ritz also participated, providing clarification on scientific points.

Harvard Stem Cell Institute executive director Brock Reeve introduced the event, saying that exploring ethical matters related to stem cell research is an important part of the institutes mission. Philip Clayton, visiting professor of science and religion at Harvard Divinity School, moderated the event.

Clayton said that the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research have made it one of the best-known and highest-stakes ethical debates of our times. Supporters, Clayton said, insist that the promise of stem cell research to cure debilitating diseases means the research must go forward. Opponents, however, say that the need to destroy human embryos as a source of stem cells makes the cost of that research too high.

Though Cohen presented the Jewish belief that 40 days after conception is a critical threshold for human life, he said he disagrees with that notion. He believes that medical advances that allow embryos to live outside the human body and scientific knowledge that 40 days after conception is not a significant time in human development have put humanity in a situation unanticipated by religious tradition.

Cohen, who has served as an adviser to President George Bushs Council on Bioethics, said he believes human life must be respected from conception and warned of the dangers of defining a class of human beings as unworthy of life.

I think we need to see the embryos as God sees us. In the eyes of God, we dont seem like much, Cohen said.

Cohens views were echoed in many ways by Davis, who said a person should be defined not as one who has developed consciousness already, but as one capable of developing consciousness. Cohen said that societys view of who is a person has undergone considerable evolution over time, incorporating, for example, ethnic groups that were once excluded. He argued that it is time for it to evolve again and begin to include developing humans from the time of conception, which he argued are excluded, like other groups in history, because they dont look like us.

Haque said that views on the subject in Islam are still evolving, given that the Koran doesnt address the issue directly. The idea of ensoulment, he said, is usually thought to occur at either 40 days or 120 days, and is based on intuitive signs of life in the developing embryo. While there is a strong prohibition against reproductive cloning, with severe penalties in some countries, therapeutic cloning is generally tolerated.

Haque said he doesnt necessarily agree with the idea of ensoulment but supports embryonic stem cell research, saying he doesnt see why embryos created and frozen to help infertile couples in in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics should be discarded as medical waste. Despite arguments to the contrary, he said, even people who say an embryo should be treated as a full human life make distinctions by allowing abortions when the mothers life is in danger.

How is that possible if both lives are equal? Haque said.

Smith said the United Church of Christ doesnt object to research on blastocysts, as long as its conducted with respect and not done for reproductive purposes. But the church also believes there needs to be a robust debate on the issue. There are concerns from some parts of the church that the benefits of stem cell research be broadly shared, regardless of wealth or social status, and concern about unintended consequences, such as uncontrolled reproduction as in cancer cells.

I think we have a true moral dilemma that our tradition and our scriptures do not fully address, Smith said. Were a long way from a clear answer.

When asked about common ground among their views, panelists said that all agree that human life must be respected and that disease must be treated, but they disagree about what constitutes a human life and at what cost must disease be treated.

Haque said people often talk about human life as if it is invaluable and to be protected at all costs, but belie those words in everyday decisions, such as those to go to war, that cost human lives.

Haques assertion prompted Cohen to suggest the discussants focus on stem cells and not military policy.

Lets keep the Iraq War out of this. Stem cells are hard enough, Cohen said.

Cohen argued that because embryonic stem cell research has yet to fulfill its promise, the issue isnt even as clear as trading blastocysts for a cure for disease.

Its not even a debate of [curing] one person who is sick versus an embryo. It destroys lots of embryos on the speculation that research will one day lead to a cure, Cohen said.

Davis argued that the destruction of blastocysts may carry a societal cost, since we dont know whether, if implanted, one could develop into an influential leader. Davis said he believes the issue is essentially a line-drawing problem and that the burden of drawing the appropriate line determining when a potential human life can be used to benefit others falls on those who would use it.

Cohen and Davis both acknowledged that the problem stems from our societys acceptance of the practice of in vitro fertilization, which creates thousands of unused blastocysts in the process.

Cohen said he thinks the nation should have a renewed debate over IVF, focusing on alternate technologies at use in other nations that produce far fewer surplus embryos.

Read more:
Stem cells, through a religious lens Harvard Gazette

Genetic Engineering is a technology that alters the genetic structure of an organism either by removing or adding DNA.Genetic Engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation controls the living being's genes using biotechnology. It is an arrangement of innovations used to change the hereditary forms of cells, including the exchange of qualities inside and across species limits to create enhanced or novel living beings. Genetic engineering could potentially fix severegenetic disorders in humans by replacing the defective gene with a functioning one.

Genetic Engineering has been connected in various fields of research, medicine, industrial biotechnology, and agriculture. In research, GMOs are utilized to contemplate quality capacity and articulation through loss of function, gain of function, tracking and expression experiments. By thumping out genes responsible for specific conditions it is possible to create animal model organisms of human diseases. And in addition to producing hormones, immunizations and different drugs genetic engineering can fix hereditary diseases through quality treatment. Similar strategies that are utilized to create medications can likewise have mechanical applications, for example, producing enzymes for detergents, cheeses, and different products.

Genetic engineering as a course is studied at the graduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels. Genetic Engineering is rather a new field of science but with the recent advancement in Biotechnology and the interest of scientists in this particular field, the course in Genetic Engineering is present in almost every major science university. The B.Sc in Genetics or B.Tech in Genetic Engineering course deals with multiple types of problems related to the medical field like the human genome and agriculture. Several institutes also offer Genetic Engineering as an elective course of study in B.Tech Biotechnology programs.

Delhi Technological University, Delhi

Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna

SRM University, Chennai

Bharat University, Chennai

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

Sharda University, Greater Noida

India has some of the very prestigious institutes engaged in research in the field of Genetics. Candidates can pursue research in these institutes in Genetic Engineering and its various sub-fields.

Genetic engineering is the study of genes and the science of heredity. Genetic engineers or geneticists study living organisms ranging from human beings to crops and even bacteria. These professionals also conduct researches which is a major part of their work profile. The experiments are conducted to determine the origin and governing laws of a particular inherited trait. These traits include medical conditions, diseases, etc. The study is further used to seek our determinants responsible for the inherited trait.

Genetic engineers or Geneticists keep on finding ways to enhance their work profile depending on the place and organization they are working with. In manufacturing, these professionals will develop new pharmaceutical or agricultural products while in a medical setting, they advise patients on the diagnosed medical conditions that are inherited and also treat patients on the same.

Skill sets for Genetic engineers or Geneticists

Strong understanding of scientific methods and rules

complex problem solving and critical thinking

ability to use computer-aided design (CAD)

graphics or photo imaging

PERL, Python

word processing software programs

excellent mathematical, deductive and inductive reasoning, reading, writing, and oral comprehension skills

ability to use lasers spectrometers, light scattering equipment, binocular light compound microscopes, benchtop centrifuges, or similar laboratory equipment

Typical responsibilities of a Genetic Engineering or Geneticist includes:

When a genetic engineer gains a year of experience, one of the regions they can indulge in is hereditary advising, which includes offering data, support, and counsel on hereditary conditions to your patients.

An individual aspiring to pursue a professional degree in Genetic Engineering can begin the B.Sc in Genetics or B.Tech course after his/her 10+2 Science with Physics, Chemistry, Maths, and Biology.

Admission to BTech in Genetic Engineering is made through entrance tests conducted by various universities or through the scores of national engineering entrance examinations like JEE for IITs/NITs & CFTIs across the country.

Genetic Engineering professionals require a bachelors or masters degree in Genetic Engineering or Genetic Sciences for entry-level careers. In any case, a doctoral qualification is required for those looking for free research professions. Important fields of study in Genetic Engineering incorporate natural chemistry, biophysics, or related fields.

Genetic Engineers require a solid comprehension of logical techniques and guidelines, and in addition complex critical thinking and basic reasoning aptitudes. Phenomenal scientific, deductive, and inductive thinking aptitudes, and in addition perusing, composing, and oral cognizance abilities are additionally expected to work in this field.

A semester-wise breakup of the B.Tech Genetic Engineering course is tabulated below

SEMESTER I

SEMESTER II

Mathematics 1

Mathematics 2

English

Material Science

Physics

Principles of Environmental Science

Chemistry

Biochemistry

Basic Engineering 1

Basic Engineering 2

-

Cell Biology

-

Value Education

SEMESTER III

SEMESTER IV

Enzyme Technology

Basic Molecular Techniques

Genetics & Cytogenetics

Molecular Biology

Immunology

Stoichiometry and Engineering Thermodynamics

Microbiology

Bio-press Principles

Mechanical Operations & heat Transfer

Biostatistics

German Language Phase 1/French Language Phase 1/Japanese Language Phase 1

German Language Phase 2/Japanese Language Phase 2/French Language Phase 2

-

SEMESTER V

SEMESTER VI

Advanced Molecular Techniques

Recombinant DNA Technology

Functional Genomics and Microarray Technology

Bioinformatics

Momentum Transfer

Chemical Reaction Engineering

Bioprocess Engineering

Gene Therapy

Biophysics

Biosensors and Biochips

Plant Tissue Culture and Transgenic Technology

-

Personality Development

-

SEMESTER VII

SEMESTER VIII

Bio-separation Technology

Project Work

Animal Cell Culture and Transgenic Technology

Bio-Safety, Bio-ethics, IPR & Patients

Nano-biotechnology in Healthcare

-

Stem Cell Biology

-

Aspirants who wish to join the engineering industry as genetic engineers can apply for the following jobs profiles available:

JOB PROFILE

JOB DESCRIPTION

Genetic Engineer

They apply their knowledge of engineering, biology, and biomechanical principles to the design, development, and evaluation of biological and health systems and products, such as artificial organs, prostheses, instrumentation, medical information systems, and health care and management.

Lecturer/Professor

They teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels in areas allocated and reviewed from time to time by the Head of Department.

Research Scientist

They are responsible for designing, undertaking, and analyzing information from controlled laboratory-based investigations, experiments and trials.

Scientific/Medical Writer

The research, prepare and coordinate scientific publications. The medical writer is responsible for researching, writing, and editing clinical/statistical reports and study protocols, and summarizing data from clinical studies.

Most of the engineering educational institutes shortlist candidates for admission into the BTech in Genetic Engineering course based on engineering entrance exams. These entrance exams are either conducted at the national level like JEE or held in-house by various engineering institutes in the country. Some of the popular engineering entrance examinations aspirants should consider appearing for admissions to UG and PG level Automobile engineering courses are:

Genetic Engineering is particularly the newly evolving field of science with enormous job opportunities. India has become a global hub of research in genetic engineering owing to its vast prospect of treating diseases of genetic disorders. Genetic engineering professionals can work in the filed of medicine, research, industry, and agriculture. Fresh graduates working as research associates can earn anything between INR 3-5 lakh per annum while the salary of scientists generally lies in the range of 9-15 lakh per annum.

India is home to some of the best companies working in the field of Genetic Engineering. Below is provided a list of some of the companies with which candidates can work in the field of research.

Q. Which college is best for genetic engineering?

Continue reading here:
Genetic Engineering - Courses, Subjects, Eligibility ...

Do you want a boy or a girl? can be an awkward question.

But in certain circles, its a question thats asked every day. Take agriculture. In a perfect world, most cows would only birth females. Chicks would grow up to be all hens. Sexing a farm animal when theyre at a young age wouldnt be a thingespecially when it means male animals, without the ability to produce milk or eggs, are often culled at a young age to preserve resources.

There might be a better way. This month, a team tapped into the power of CRISPR to control the sex of the offspring in mice. By splicing CRISPR components into the parents genome, the team was able to flip onor offa switch that nearly perfectly determined the sex of their litters.

Unlike previous attempts, the baby mice could go on to have litters of their own of both sexes. The targeted gene used for the edit is conserved across evolution, suggesting the technique could work in more animals than just mice.

But its controversial. Essentially, the technique selectively kills off embryos of a certain sex, which immediately raises ethical red flags. For now, scientists arent concerned about the technology being used in humans due to its complexity. But the study is the latest to showcase biotechs increasing ability to manipulate reproduction.

Its an impressive result and a state-of-the-art solution to producing single-sex species, said Dr. Ehud Qimron at Tel Aviv University, who was not involved in the work.

Skewing the sex of offspring is nothing new. For over a decade, scientists have gradually hijacked the mosquito genome with gene drives to rewrite evolution. The idea is that the genetic edit would override natural selection, spreading across subsequent generations into a dominant gene. Instead of a genes usual 50-50 chance of inheritance, artificial gene drives have a far higher chance of infiltrating the next generation, fundamentally changing a species genetic code. When its a gene that biases the sex of their offspring, a species could gradually only have one sex, leading to their extinction.

Its a doomsday plan with potentially massive benefits, such as curbing malaria. Because female mosquitoes are generally the carrier for the disease, a gene drive that leads to only males is a sure-fire way to reduce transmission. In one study, within a dozen generations, the genetic edit was sufficient to collapse a whole colony of mosquitoes in the lab. Similar studies have been tried in mice.

Its not a perfect solution. The gene edit is powerfulmaybe too much so. With farm animals, the goal isnt to eradicate a species, but rather to bias the sex of the animal towards one side and increase animal welfare. Animal and animal products are used globally, and ethical discussions regarding animal usage are ongoing, said the authors. Over 100,000 male calves are culled each year, and stats for other common farm animals paint a similarly uncomfortable picture.

The new study took a different approach. With CRISPR, the team skewed the sex of only the next generation in mice, allowing the same-sex litters to eventually reproduce normally.

CRISPR has two parts: an RNA guide (the bloodhound that sniffs out the target gene) and Cas9 (a scissor protein that physically cuts the gene). Usually, the two components are encoded into a single carrier, dubbed a vector, and inserted into a cell or animal. By targeting a gene that is essential for reproduction, for example, its then possible to trigger spontaneous failed pregnancies in animals.

But how does that help with sex selection? Let me explain.

The first step was to find a gene critical for embryo survivalone that when disrupted causes synthetic lethality. The team honed in on Top1, well known for its role in DNA repair. Cutting the gene triggers embryos to fail at a very early stage, when theyre just 8 to 16 cells, not yet implanted into the uterine wall and far from viable.

The team then engineered a CRISPR system that targets the start codons of Top1a chunk of DNA that acts as an on switch to activate the gene. Heres the clever part. They split the two components of CRISPR into two vectors.

One part, which carries the genetic code for a guide RNA that targets Top1, was then inserted into a female mouses X chromosome. The other vector, carrying the code for Cas9 scissors, was edited into the males Y chromosome.

When combined, the two components meet up like peanut butter and jelly, forming the full recipe to disrupt Top1. This can only happen in X/Y embryosthose that define maleand so selectively interrupt these embryos from developing. X/X, or genetically female embryos, are spared, as they only contain half of the CRISPR mechanism. The system is flexible. If Cas9 scissors were attached to the males X chromosome, all X/X embryos were eliminated before they grew to 16 cells.

The efficiency of the edit was crazy at 100 percent. Mice born from these genetically-edited parents were completely normal, with a hefty body size and in larger numbers than normally expected, suggesting the edit may cause less stress on the mother. Unlike those born using gene drives, the mice grew up to have perfectly normal litters with both male and female offspring.

The results are a long time in the making. Back in 2019, a team led by Dr. Udi Qimron at Tel Aviv University used CRISPR to produce mice in which 80 percent of the offspring were females. With the new study, the efficacy leaps to 100 percent, with the choice towards either sex. If further tested in farm animals, the technique could be a boost to both animal welfare and conservation.

Its not an entirely comfortable solution for some. To Sue Leary, president of the non-profit Alternatives Research & Development Foundation, You cant solve an ethical problem with another ethical problem, which is genetic engineering. And given the animosity towards GMOs, the new technology, regardless of efficacy, may be dead in the water.

For now, the CRISPR edits arent feasible in humans due to their complexity. Whats clear, though, is that weve begun parsing the biological machinery behind gender selection. Add in recent work on genetically-engineered embryos, or eggs and sperm from stem cells, and were on the fast track for CRISPR to completely change our current conception of reproduction.

Image Credit: Graphic Compressor/Shutterstock.com

Go here to read the rest:
Scientists Used CRISPR Gene Editing to Choose the Sex of Mouse Pups - Singularity Hub

NEW YORK, December 21 -- A new report released by The Hastings Center, a leading ethics research institute, finds that the complex issues raised by releasing gene-edited species into the wild demand deep and broad public engagement. The report, Gene Editing in the Wild: Shaping Decisions Through Broad Public Deliberation, provides a path forward to move decision-making from the realm of experts to a more inclusive, values-based approach using the technique of public deliberation or deliberative democracy.

The goals of gene editing in the wild efforts are wide-ranging, and the benefits potentially transformative--such as preventing mosquitoes from spreading disease. But this work poses major trade-offs that require the publics consideration.

The reports twelve essays take up fundamental questions: how should public deliberation be designed? Who should participate? How should deliberation be linked to policy?

The introductory essay, Public Deliberation About Gene Editing in the Wild, summarizes the key design elements that can improve broad public deliberations about gene editing in the wild: Framing the question and deciding when to hold broad public deliberation, choosing participants, addressing power, and accounting for and capturing perspectives that are hard to express. The introduction was written by the special report editors: Michael K. Gusmano, Gregory E. Kaebnick, Karen J. Maschke, Carolyn P. Neuhaus, and Ben Curran Wills.

Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy, by Karen J. Maschke and Michael K. Gusmano, says that there has not been enough attention to how we should connect public deliberation to the existing regulatory process. The authors argue that, while federal agencies may have capacity to undertake public deliberative activities, there may not be sufficient political support for them to do so.

Deliberative Public Consultation via Deliberative Polling: Criteria and Methods, by James S. Fishkin, makes the case that Deliberative Polling, an approach developed by the author, can be usefully employed to engage representative samples to deliberate in depth in controlled experiments so as to yield a picture of the publics considered judgments. Another it can be cost-effectively conducted online.

The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild, by S. Kathleen Barnhill-Dilling, Adam Kokotovich, and Jason A. Delborne, puts forth a framework for shaping public engagement that tackles when and whom to engage on genetic engineering questions.

Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild, by Riley Taitingfong and Anika Ullah, identifies Indigenous peoples as key stakeholders in decisions about gene-editing in the wild and argues that engagement activities need not only include Indigenous peoples but also should be designed, conducted, and analyzed in ways that confront longstanding power imbalances that dismiss Indigenous expertise.

The special report grew out of a Hastings Center project funded by the National Science Foundation, The complete report is available for download here.

For more information, contact:

Susan Gilbert or Mark Cardwellcommunications@thehastingscenter.org845-424-4040, ext. 244

Systematic review

Not applicable

Gene Editing in the Wild: Shaping Decisions through Broad Public Deliberation

15-Dec-2021

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

View original post here:
Report calls for broad public deliberation on releasing gene-edited species in the wild - EurekAlert

RNA and DNA extraction plays a crucial role in cancer genetic studies, which involves mutation analysis, comparative genomic hybridization, and microsatellite analysis. The rising incidences of cancer globally are creating a need for the advanced RNA and DNA extraction kit and are expected to drive market growth in the coming years.

Based on the product, the market is expected to segregate into RNA extraction kit and DNA extraction kit. Of these, the DNA extraction kit segment is expected to account for the leading share in the overall RNA and DNA extraction kit market. Additionally, the applications of DNA extraction kits mainly in the genetic engineering of animals and plants in pharmaceutical manufacturing. This is expected to fuel growth of RNA and DNA extraction kit market.

Get Brochure of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=B&rep_id=5600

Global RNA and DNA Extraction Kit Market: Notable Developments

Some of the most prominent competitors operating in the competitive landscape of global RNA and DNA extraction kit market include

Global RNA and DNA Extraction Kit Market: Drivers and Restraints

The rise and progress in customized drug have helped social insurance experts create exact sub-atomic focused on treatment dependent on a person's hereditary cosmetics and prescient information explicit to patients. The advancement of customized medication requires genome-mapping investigations of separated cells, which can be completed with the assistance of DNA and RNA extraction kits. DNA extraction kits are utilized to recognize quality polymorphisms identified with sickness or medication digestion though RNA extraction kits are utilized to break down RNA combination in separated cells. With the expanding appropriation of customized prescription, the demand for RNA and DNA extraction kits will likewise develop.

Get Table of Content of the Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=T&rep_id=5600

There is a developing rate of malignant growth over the globe. The inside and out understanding of tumor hereditary qualities given by trend-setting innovations in malignant growth research has empowered the advancement of novel treatments to battle disease-causing qualities. The virtue, amount, and nature of separated RNA assume a huge job in the accomplishment of RNA examination and examination and consequent capacity of specific quality articulation. RNA extraction likewise helps in recognizing circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and non-intrusive observing of cutting edge malignant growths.

Global RNA and DNA Extraction Kit Market: Regional Outlook

On the basis of region, the RNA and DNA extraction kit market is segmented into North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East & Africa. Of these, North America is expected to dominate the global RNA and DNA extraction kit market owing to robust innovation procedures running in the region. This factor is expected to offer robust growth opportunities to key players in RNA and DNA extraction kit market. Additionally, increasing demand for the automated systems coupled with the rising need for the RNA and DNA extraction kit across the extraction kits especially in the medical diagnosis is expected to drive growth of the market in coming years.

TMR Research is a leader in developing well-researched reports. The expertise of the researchers at TMR Research makes the report stand out from others. TMR Research reports help the stakeholders and CXOs make impactful decisions through a unique blend of innovation and analytical thinking. The use of innovation and analytical thinking while structuring a report assures complete and ideal information of the current status of the market to the stakeholders.

TMR Research has rich experience in developing state-of-the-art reports for a wide array of markets and sectors. The brilliance of the experts at TMR Research and their alacrity to conduct thorough research and create phenomenal reports makes TMR Research better than others.

Get Discount on the Latest Report @ https://www.tmrresearch.com/sample/sample?flag=D&rep_id=5600

5-Point Growth Formula

The 5-point growth formula developed by TMR Research provides an insight to the stakeholders and CXOs about the current situation in the market. The growth formula makes the report a perfect companion for the stakeholders and CXOs.

The 5-point growth formula includes the following points:

About TMR Research

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

Contact:

Rohit Bhisey

TMR Research,

3739 Balboa St # 1097,

San Francisco, CA 94121

United States

Tel: +1-415-520-1050

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

Visit link:
RNA and DNA Extraction Kit Market Study | Know the Post-Pandemic Scenario of the Industry - BioSpace

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) has killed millions of children in less-developed countries for at least the last three decadesroughly 2 million annually in the early 1990s alone (14). Although the number is declining, it was estimated to be 266,200 (4) at the start of the millennium.

Widespread consumption of the genetically modified rice variety known as Golden Rice offers a potent and cost-effective strategy to combat vitamin A deficiency. Image credit: International Rice Research Institute; photo licensed under CC BY 2.0.

The consumption of the genetically modified rice variety known as Golden Rice (GR) offers a potent and cost-effective strategy to combat VAD. But this innovation has been cast aside owing to fear or false accusations, resulting in numerous lives needlessly lost (13). With the recent exception of the Philippines, governments have not approved the cultivation of GR (5). We believe it should be broadly approved and given the opportunity to save and improve lives.

In high-income nations where populations have access to a diversity of foods, VAD is rare. In many low-income nations, however, populations have limited access to foods rich in vitamin A or beta-carotene, a vitamin A precursor; hence, VAD rates can be dangerously high in children. There have been recent improvements: from 1991 to 2013, the VAD rate among children in low- and middle-income countries declined from 39% to 29%, with notable improvements among children in East and Southeast Asia (4). However, children in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia continue to disproportionately experience VAD and its associated risks: infectious and diarrheal diseases, irreversible blindness and other sensory losses, and premature death (1, 4, 6).

VAD has not been eradicated despite a variety of strategies used globally, including education on the value of dietary diversity, promotion of home gardens and maternal breastfeeding of infants, and community health programs including vitamin A supplementation with syrups or capsules (7). Principally, VAD is caused by insufficient dietary diversity, a result of poverty and agronomic and market constraints. Animal source foods and many kinds of produce are unavailable or expensive in local markets. Conversely, white rice or other cereal grains are easily available and inexpensive but primarily contain carbohydrates while lacking sufficient micronutrient levels.

GR, developed first in the 1990s and then modified in 2004 with transgenes from maize and a common soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora, could be an important public health intervention for VAD populations worldwide. This transgenic, or genetically modified, rice produces beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, in the normally white endosperm (8) and has proven an effective source of vitamin A in humans (9). GR* is now awaiting final approval in Bangladesh. In July 2021, it was approved for cultivation in the Philippines. Other countries will likely follow.

A recent study has estimated that substituting conventional rice for GR could provide 89% to 113% and 57% to 99% of the recommended vitamin A requirement for preschool children in Bangladesh and the Philippines, respectively (10). Even if there were no other sources of vitamin A in the diets, this boost in dietary beta-carotene could do much to prevent diseases associated with VAD.

GR is also financially viable. In Bangladesh, the current practice of fortifying rice with vitamin A and zinc using food additives, although supported by the World Food Programme, increases the cost of rice by 5% to 6% and is applied to only about 1 million metric tonnes of rice of the roughly 25 million metric tonnes produced in Bangladesh per year (11). GR, by contrast, poses no extra cost to governments, growers, or consumers in comparison with white rice.

Meanwhile, VAD has continued to cause severe illness and death among certain populations worldwide, especially children (12). The total estimated deaths from VAD-related diarrheal diseases and measles in children under five years of age in 2013 was 94,500 and 11,200, respectively, totaling 105,700 deaths across the world (4). Had GR become a part of diets in vulnerable populations worldwide, a portion of these lives might have been saved. Hopefully, approval of the commercialization of GR in the Philippines will provide impetus for Bangladesh and other nations with high VAD rates to provide poor consumers with an option that may save lives and improve health.

Those who oppose transgenic or genetically modified organisms raised concerns that led policymakers to delay the approval of the technologies (13). One argument relates to biotechnology company profits. But because the GR technology to the public sector is available at no cost for humanitarian uses, this concern is irrelevant. There are no limitations, except export, on GR use: replanting or selling or giving away seed, or polishing for consumption or sale.

Greenpeace summarized a food security-related objection to GR in a 2012 statement (14): If introduced on a large scale, GR can exacerbate malnutrition and ultimately undermine food security. The implication: GR will worsen malnutrition because it leads to a diet based on one staple. However, the replacement of traditional rice with GR would not exclude the development of diversified diets; in the meantime, vitamin A status could improve for many in the population. And optimizing vitamin A delivery could improve public health in at-risk populations.

A reasonable objection concerns possible human or environmental health risks. The United Nations (UN) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (15) provides a framework for the regulation of genetically engineered crops in many countries, emphasizing the Precautionary Principle in assessing risks, and leaving out assessment of benefits. This Protocol was signed in 2000 and became effective in 2003, in the relatively early days of agricultural genetic engineering. Since then, multiple studies have reported on benefits of genetically modified organism (GMO) adoption through increased yields, reduced pesticide use, improved farmer income, reduced prices to consumers, and in some cases even improved food safety (16). Meanwhile, there have been no confirmed incidents of adverse human health or environmental effects from genetically engineered crops during nearly three decades of global use (16).

Transgenic crops are subject to many required regulatory tests before approval, including animal feeding and invitro studies for toxicity and allergenicity. Yet opponents of these crops have continued to amplify suspicion on the long-term health effects of genetically engineered crops (17). Protection against such risks can be achieved through monitoring of the performance and the impacts of technologies and intervening when setbacks occur. However, the food safety assessments for transgenic crops in many countries are more demanding than for conventionally bred varieties. In fact, often less is known about the properties of plants developed by conventional mutagenesis than those developed by transgenic methods.

Another concern is that GR genes may intermingle with those of conventionally bred rice varieties. This uncertainty, however, applies not just to GR but also to any other new rice variety. Humans have consumed rice for more than 4,000 years, including varieties that have been crossed genetically across multiple strains. Transgenic methods of introducing novel genes is not inherently of greater concern, unless those genes produce proteins with potential adverse health effectssomething that food safety tests for approval can determine. Clearly the lives saved with VAD outweigh concerns about these so-called unknown risks. In response to such criticisms, in 2016 more than 150 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter to the UN, governments of the world, and Greenpeace, urging a more balanced approach toward genetically modified crops in general and GR in particular: Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than, those derived from any other method of production. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped (18).

The arguments used by organizations to delay adoption of GR often resemble the arguments of anti-vaccination groups, including those protesting vaccines to protect against COVID-19. Some of the opponents of GR and agricultural biotechnology more generally see the introduction of GR as forcing the consumption of GMOs on the population. However, for the case of GR, consumers have the option of easily avoiding consumption because GR is very easily identifiable by its color.

The tragedy of GR is that regulatory delays of approval have immense costs in terms of preventable deaths, with no apparent benefit (13). The approval of GR is even more urgent with the ongoing pandemic, which has made access to healthcare services more difficult in vulnerable populations worldwide. The World Bank has recommended that micronutrient biofortification of staple crops, including specifically GR, should be the norm and not the exception in crop breeding (19).

Golden rice can effectively control VAD. Delaying the uptake of a genetically modified product shown to have clear health benefits has and will cost numerous lives, frequently of the most vulnerable individuals. Policymakers must find ways to overcome this resistance and accelerate the introduction and adoption of Golden Rice.

Author contributions: J.W., D.Z., and A.D. designed research; F.W., J.W., C.C., and A.D. performed research; F.W., J.W., and C.C. analyzed data; and F.W., J.W., D.Z., R.R., C.C., and A.D. wrote the paper.

Competing interest statement: A.D. is a member and the Executive Secretary of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. He is a volunteer, unpaid and without grants. R.R. is a member of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. He is a volunteer, unpaid and without grants. The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board (http://www.goldenrice.org) holds the rights for humanitarian applications of the nutritional technology created by Professors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer and related licensed technology. The Board is not legally incorporated in any way. It is a group of individuals who voluntarily share the objective of making Golden Rice available to resource-poor populations as a public good, delivered by the public sector in locally adapted and preferred rice varieties, at no greater cost than white rice and with no use limitations except export. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences.

*Many transformation events were produced (8), from which event GR2E has been selected on the basis of molecular structure and insertion in the rice genome, together with agronomic performance. It is the basis of the regulatory data generated and is the only form of GR which is offered for approval and use.

See the rest here:
Opinion: Allow Golden Rice to save lives - pnas.org

President Joe BidenJoe BidenFederal class action lawsuit filed over treatment of Haitian migrants Staffer who had contact with Biden tests positive for COVID-19 Overnight Defense & National Security New rules try to tackle extremism in the ranks MORE recently assembled the leaders of more than 100 democracies worldwide for a virtual Summit for Democracy. Not surprisingly, the gathering drew the ire of China and Russia, whose ambassadors penned a joint op-ed castigating it a vestige of Cold War mentality and calling on countries to stop using "value-based diplomacy" to provoke division and confrontation.

The summit was useful to begin conversations on how to confront the daunting challenges facing the free world. But it is not sufficient. The time has come to establish an Alliance of Democracies that would bring together the United States and its allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, and other willing democracies worldwide that share common interests and values and are prepared to act.

As Biden underscored in his introductory remarks, democracy is facing alarming and sustained challenges, including from autocrats, who seek to advance their own power and export and expand their influence around the world.China and Russia, in particular, have become more assertive in challenging key tenets of the rules-based global order, Democracies are on the defensive as they contend with these and other global threats. To succeed in this fundamental struggle between democracy and autocracy, democracies must strengthen cooperation.

An Alliance of Democracies would provide a highly visible platform for fostering solidarity in the face of common threats and challenges. The leading democracies in North America, Europe and the Indo-Pacific make up roughly three-quarters of global gross domestic product. In combination with the European Union, the transatlantic partnership provides nearly 80 percent of official developmental aid worldwide. And the 20 highest scoring countries in terms of soft-power influence are all democracies. These assets provide the United States and its allies with an enormous source of leverage in addressing global challenges.

But the Alliance of Democracies must be more than symbolic. Instead, its members must be prepared to take meaningful action to address the three defining challenges facing the democratic world. The first is the increasing assertiveness by China and Russia to make the world safer from autocracy. Moscow and Beijing are using diplomatic and economic coercion including military threats, cyber operations, malign finance and other wolf warrior diplomacy tactics to pressure smaller governments and global corporations to accommodate their interests.

In response, the alliance could facilitate coordinated sanctions and other measures to deter such behavior, and provide a mechanism to provide joint assistance to targeted democracies. It could also help make democracies less vulnerable to economic coercion, including, for example, by facilitating alternative supply chains for sensitive technologies and critical energy supplies.

The second is backsliding within established democracies. Whether through the acquiescence of their electorate or manipulation of electoral processes, populist leaders in many democracies have been using their authority to undermine democratic norms. The alliance can serve as a mechanism to hold states accountable for their democratic practices at home. Building on the loose pledge system for leaders interventions at the Summit for Democracy, countries could be asked to make specific commitments to advance democratic renewal at home as part of their alliance membership obligations.

The third is the rise of emerging and potentially disruptive technologies. Such technologies including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, genetic engineering and 5G are developing rapidly and will significantly shape the future of geopolitics. While these innovations promise great benefits, they also carry serious risks, including security challenges. If China or other autocratic nations succeed in developing these technologies ahead of the democratic world, they could gain significant economic and military advantages. To counter this, the alliance should set common standards for advanced technologies that are consistent with liberal norms. The goal is to ensure that the democratic world and fundamental values prevail in the technological race.

Support for closer alignments among democracies is building. In hosting the Group of Seven (G7) summit earlier this year, British Prime Minister Boris JohnsonBoris JohnsonQueen cancels British royal family's Christmas gathering: report It's time for an alliance of democracies The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by National Industries for the Blind - Manchin says no; White House fires back MORE sought to advance the idea of a D-10 club of democracies. Lawmakers in Britain and Canada have expressed support for new coalitions of democracies, and the traffic light coalition making up the new government in Germany called for the creation of an Alliance of Democracies in a recent policy paper. In the United States, proposals for closer cooperation among democracies have drawn bipartisan support among lawmakers in Congress.

That China and Russia have spoken out so vehemently about the Summit for Democracy indicates a level of concern as to where this initiative might lead. Nevertheless, it would not serve the interests of the United States or its allies to provoke a new Cold War dynamic that could lead to escalating tensions or even direct confrontation. The reality is, however, that competition between democratic and autocratic powers is now an established feature of the current global system. The key question is how democracies will choose to respond. To minimize the risks of polarization, leading democracies should embrace a two-tracked approach: engaging with Beijing and Moscow though the United Nations, G20, and other venues in areas where cooperation may be feasible, and, at the same time, working through an Alliance of Democracies to uphold shared values and interests.

Bidens call to action with his Summit for Democracy could help propel the idea of an alliance forward. The administrations plan for a follow up summit next December could provide the building block for a sustainable cooperative network of democracies. The administration has rightly framed the current era as a historic inflection point between autocracy and democracy. An Alliance of Democracies would provide a signature initiative that is directly responsive to this challenge one that demonstrates leadership and can help align the democratic world in a common direction for will likely be a multi-decade era of strategic competition.

Ash Jain is director for democratic drder at the Atlantic Council.

Jonas Parello-Plesner is executive director of the Copenhagen-based Alliance of Democracies Foundation.

Go here to see the original:
It's time for an alliance of democracies | TheHill - The Hill

LOS GATOS, Calif., Dec. 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARDS), a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of novel anti-infective therapies to treat life-threatening infections, announced today that its fully human monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktail AR-701 is broadly reactive against the Omicron and other COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus), and seasonal ('common cold') human coronaviruses.

"Omicron has rendered current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibodies substantially less effective, and likely future COVID 19 variants will arise that continue this trend" said Vu Truong, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Aridis Pharmaceuticals. "AR-701 is the result of our successful search for a mAb therapy that is directed against a conserved region of the virus that would be less vulnerable to mutations and new variants such as Omicron. Our laboratory data suggest that AR-701 has the potential to be a future-proof COVID-19 therapy that can protect against SARS-CoV-2, SARS, or MERS pandemics," continued Dr. Truong. "To our knowledge AR-701 is the only COVID-19 therapy that targets two distinct viral mechanisms of action, making it much harder for the virus to generate resistance, and exhibits an unmatched combination of broad reactivity and high efficacy," continued Dr. Truong.

About AR-701AR-701 is a cocktail of two fully human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) mAbs discovered from screening the antibody secreting B-cells of convalescent SARS-CoV-2 infected (COVID-19) patients. AR-701 consists of AR-703 and AR-720 mAbs, each neutralizes coronaviruses using distinct mechanisms of action, namely inhibition of viral fusion and entry into human cells (AR-703) and blockage of viral binding to the human 'ACE2' receptor (AR-720). The two mAbs complement and enhance each other in a synergistic fashion, creating a potent first-in-class cocktail. AR-703 binds to the 'S2' stalk region of spike proteins from betacoronaviruses, including the SARS-CoV2 variants (beta, gamma, delta, epsilon), and binds to the Omicron variant with no loss in affinity compared to the original Wuhan strain. Multiple animal challenge models widely used to evaluate COVID-19 treatments support AR-701's broad efficacy, including:

The AR-701 mAbs are engineered to be active for 6-12 months in the blood. AR-701 is being developed as a long-acting intramuscular as well as a self-administered inhaled formulation for the treatment of COVID-19 patients who are not yet hospitalized. AR-701 mAbs were discovered through a collaboration with researchers at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and Texas Biomedical Research Institute (San Antonio, TX).

About Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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

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

Aridis' Pipeline

AR-301 (VAP). AR-301 is a fully human IgG1 mAb targeting gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) alpha-toxin and is being evaluated in a global Phase 3 clinical study as an adjunctive treatment of S. aureus ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).

AR-320 (VAP). AR-320 is a fully human IgG1 mAb targeting S. aureus alpha-toxin that is being developed as a preventative treatment of S. aureus colonized mechanically ventilated patients who do not yet have VAP. Phase 3 is expected to be initiated in 2Q22.

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

AR-701 (COVID-19). AR-701 is a cocktail of fully human mAbs discovered from convalescent COVID-19 patients that are directed at multiple protein epitopes on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is formulated for delivery via intramuscular injection or inhalation using a nebulizer. AR-701 replaces AR-712 as the company's leading COVID mAb candidate.

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

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

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

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

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These statements may be identified by the use of words such as "anticipate," "believe," "forecast," "estimated" and "intend" or other similar terms or expressions that concern Aridis' expectations, strategy, plans or intentions. These forward-looking statements are based on Aridis' current expectations and actual results could differ materially. There are a number of factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the need for additional financing, the timing of regulatory submissions, Aridis' ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of its existing product candidates and any other product candidates it may develop, approvals for clinical trials may be delayed or withheld by regulatory agencies, risks relating to the timing and costs of clinical trials, risks associated with obtaining funding from third parties, management and employee operations and execution risks, loss of key personnel, competition, risks related to market acceptance of products, intellectual property risks, risks related to business interruptions, including the outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus, which could seriously harm our financial condition and increase our costs and expenses, risks associated with the uncertainty of future financial results, Aridis' ability to attract collaborators and partners and risks associated with Aridis' reliance on third party organizations. While the list of factors presented here is considered representative, no such list should be considered to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. Unlisted factors may present significant additional obstacles to the realization of forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those described or implied by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including, without limitation, market conditions and the factors described under the caption "Risk Factors" in Aridis' 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 and Aridis' other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements included herein are made as of the date hereof, and Aridis does not undertake any obligation to update publicly such statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.

Contact:Media Communications:Matt SheldonRedChip Companies Inc.Matt@redchip.com1.917.280.7329

Investor RelationsDave GentryRedChipDave@redchip.com1-800-733-2447

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aridis-pharmaceuticals-announces-a-pan-coronavirus-monoclonal-antibody-cocktail-that-retains-effectiveness-against-the-omicron-variant-other-covid-19-variants-sars-mers-and-the-common-cold-human-coronaviruses-301448791.html

SOURCE Aridis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Company Codes: NASDAQ-NMS:ARDS

Link:
Aridis Pharmaceuticals Announces a Pan-Coronavirus Monoclonal Antibody Cocktail That Retains Effectiveness Against the Omicron variant, other COVID-19...

Bats sweltering in their boxes, polar bears and narwhals using up to four times as much energy to survive, birds starving as Turkeys lakes dry up, and unique island species at high risk of extinction as the planet warms. If there was ever any doubt about the inextricable link between the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis, those doubts were well and truly dispelled in 2021.

The science is clear: climate, biodiversity and human health are fully interdependent, Frans Timmermans, the European Commission vice-president who heads the European Green Deal; Achim Steiner, of the UN Development Programme; and Sandrine Dixson-Declve, of the Club of Rome, wrote before the Cop26 climate conference.

While the much-anticipated Cop15 Kunming biodiversity conference was delayed yet again, Cop26 brought together leaders from across the globe to discuss the climate emergency. Although the pledges on emissions cuts fell short of those required to limit the increase in temperatures to 1.5C, there were promises to halt and reverse global deforestation over the next decade.

Meanwhile, dozens of countries have committed to protecting 30% of the planets land and oceans by 2030, and in September, nine philanthropic foundations pledged $5bn (3.75bn) to finance the 30x30 pledge.

Despite the coronavirus pandemic and the many lockdowns, 2021 saw the worlds scientists, volunteers and conservationists continuing their efforts to protect nature. The International Union for Conservation of Nature launched its new green list of protected and conserved areas, researchers at the Natural History Museum worked on digitising its vast collection, Kenya held its first animal census, and a multimillion-pound project was launched that aims to describe and identify the web of life in large freshwater ecosystems with game-changing DNA technology.

In September, the IUCN world conservation congress in Marseille brought together innovators and policymakers from across the world for talks and debates on subjects as diverse as the universal declaration of the rights of the river, alien species, human-wildlife conflict, the use of smart technology in conservation, genetic engineering and much more.

Not all conservation efforts are down to scientists and policymakers though. There is growing recognition of the vital role communities and indigenous people play in conserving biodiversity and building livelihoods and this year we highlighted projects that included a shade-grown coffee initiative in Peru, islanders rallying to save the coco de mer nut in Seychelles and an army of nature recorders and seed conservers in the UK.

There was good news elsewhere. The flatpack homes for animals that fall victim to wildfires that we highlighted in April have since been trialled in Sydney, where a housing estate of the biodegradable cardboard pods has been put up to give shelter to wildlife after the bushfires.

In response to our piece on conservationists criticising Marks & Spencer for releasing 30 million honeybees, the British retailer filled 500 stores with little signs telling shoppers about the importance of native bumblebees in producing a number of foods. M&S has been really open to learning, said Gill Perkins, chief executive of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, who believes it is the first UK supermarket to introduce bumblebee labels highlighting the work of these pollinators. She hopes others will follow suit.

Andrew Kerr, who spoke to the Guardian about wanting to create a UK eel rewilding programme, is having discussions with the relevant government ministry in January about the feasibility of getting rewilding permits sorted for this coming eel season.

Since we reported on the proposals to extend Barcelona airport, threatening neighbouring wetlands and a wealth of biodiversity, the plans have been put on hold. The future of the red wolf in North Carolina still hangs in the balance but the US Fish and Wildlife Service says it is planning to release nine wolves from captivity this winter. And an experimental feeding programme has been approved for Floridas manatees, after a record year of deaths.

Over the coming weeks, we will follow up on some of the stories that we covered during 2021 in more depth, but in the meantime, you might like to take a look at some of our favourite articles from the year that celebrate the planets beautiful and intricate biodiversity: why we need to stop treating soil like dirt; the wonderful world of fungi; the value of dead wood; how a wild night out could help you reconnect with nature; and, lastly, a lesson in why some things are worth waiting for, especially when they turn out like this

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

Excerpt from:
2021: when the link between the climate and biodiversity crises became clear - The Guardian

A LAB leak from Wuhan is now the "more likely" cause of the Covid pandemic, experts have told British MPs.

Dr Alina Chan, a genetic engineering expert,said she was "very confident" the truth will eventually come out about the origins of the deadly bug.

3

3

The molecular biologist at MIT and Harvard believes a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is "more likely than not" after two unsuccessful years of searching for an animal host.

The WIV - a high security facility specalising in coronaviruses - has been in the eye of the storm as questions rage over whetherCovidcould have escaped from its lab.

BothChinaand the lab have furiously denied any allegations,but evidence of a lab leak has been piling up over the last year as scientists, researchers and governments hunt for answers.

Dr Chan told the Science and Technology Select Committee: "I think the lab origin is more likely than a natural origin at this point.

"We all agree there was a critical event at the wet market that was a superspreader event - caused by humans. But there is no evidence pointing to a natural animal origin of the virus at that market."

And Dr Chan said she was "very confident" the truth about Covid will eventually emerge in years to come - when it's safe for whistleblowers to step forward.

"We've seen from previous cover-ups that it just takes time, because right now its not safe for people who know about the origin of the pandemic to come forward," she said.

"It might be five years from now, it might be 50 years from now, but we live in an era where there is so much data being collected and stored that it will eventually come out."

Matt Ridley, who co-authored Viral on the origins of the pandemic with Dr Chan, also said a lab leak was now the most likely origin - and urged investigators to find out in order to prevent the next pandemic.

The science writer told MPs: "I also think its more likely than not because we have to face the fact after two months we knew the origins of SARS through markets.

"After a couple of months we knew MERS was though through camels. In this case, after two years, we still haven't found a single infected animal that could be the progenitor of this pandemic, and thats incredibly surprising."

Some scientists have also argued Covid was genetically modified by humans - with one claiming it was "ready made" to infect humans when the virus first emerged in Wuhan.

Dr Chan told MPs: We have heard from many top virologists that a genetically engineered origin of this virus is reasonable - so it's worth investigating - and that includes virologists who made genetic modifications to the first SARS virus.

We know now this virus has a very unique feature, called the furin cleavage site, that makes it the pandemic pathogen it is. So without this feature there is no way this virus would be causing this pandemic.

A proposal was leaked showing that EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were developing a pipeline for inserting novel furin cleavage sites - these genetic modifications.

"So, you fund these scientists who said in early 2018 Im going to put horns on horses and at the end of 2019 a unicorn turns up in Wuhan city.

"It's a striking coincidence that needs to be investigated."

Mr Ridley added: "We need to find out so we can prevent the next pandemic.

"We need to know whether we should be tightening up work in laboratories or whether we should be tightening up regulations related to wildlife markets.

"At the moment we are really not doing either.

We also need to know to deter bad actors who are watching this episode and thinking that unleashing a pandemic is something they could get away with.

We know now that experiments were being done at Biosecurity Level 2 in Wuhan that resulted in 10,000 times increases in infectivity of viruses and three or four times their lethality.

"The important thing is to stop doing these experiments that are risky.

Meanwhile, Richard Horton, The Lancet editor-in-chief, said the lab leak was "a hypothesis that should be taken seriously and needs to be further investigated".

But he told MPs he agreed with the previous conclusions from the World Health Organisation that it was "extremely unlikely".

Dr Chan and Mr Ridley said they both believed the lab leak was an accident - rather than deliberate.

The experts had already warned that terrorists who are considering using bioweapons will have noted how quickly China was able to dismiss the idea of a lab leak - and avoid scrutiny.

It means militants will now know how easily they can "get away" with the release of a cataclysmic bioweapon, knowing the source of the attack will likely never be found.

China has repeatedly stated it is not responsible for the global pandemic and dismissed accusations from those who say the virus was manipulated by humans.

3

Excerpt from:
Wuhan lab leak now the most likely cause of Covid pandemic and the truth WILL come out, experts tell MPs... - The US Sun

Though the broad U.S. market saw a tumultuous ride last week with most of the sectors in red, biotechnology was the biggest gainer. This is especially true as the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index jumped 4.9% last week, pushing many ETFs higher.

Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF BBP has been the biggest beneficiary, rising 7.9%. ETFMG Treatments Testing and Advancements ETF GERM, First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund FBT, ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF SBIO and Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF PBE rose at least 6% last week.

With the rise in Omicron, biotech companies are working on the development of new vaccines and strategies to tackle the spread of the new COVID-19 variant.

According to the latest study, two shots of the Moderna MRNA or Pfizer PFE/BioNTech vaccines or one of Jonson & Johnsons JNJ single-dose vaccine appear to offer significantly less protection against the newly-detected Omicron variant in laboratory testing but a booster dose likely restores most of the protection (read: 5 ETFs That Gained More Than 40% in 2021).

A separate study out of South Africa shows that Pfizers two-dose vaccine provides a high degree of protection against hospitalization from the fast-spreading Omicron. The study concluded that the vaccine offered only 33% protection against overall infection but 70% protection against hospitalization. It also concluded that while there was a higher risk of reinfections during this current surge, the risk of hospitalization among adults was 29% lower than during the initial wave.

Further, the industry trends are impressive. These include new drug nods, an accelerated pace of innovation, promising drug launches, the growing importance of biosimilars, cost-cutting efforts, an aging population, expanding insurance coverage, the rising middle class, an insatiable demand for new drugs and ever-increasing spending on healthcare.

Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP)

Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF follows the LifeSci Biotechnology Products Index, which measures the performance of biotechnology companies with at least one drug therapy approved by the FDA.

Holding 55 stocks, Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF has accumulated AUM of $18.9 million and charges 79 bps in fees per year. BBP trades in volume of 2,000 shares a day on average and has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 (Hold) with a High-risk outlook.

ETFMG Treatments Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM)

ETFMG Treatments Testing and Advancements ETF offers exposure to biotech companies engaged in the testing and treatments of infectious diseases by tracking the Prime Treatments, Testing and Advancements Index. It is focused on advancements with targeted exposure to the forefront of R&D, vaccines, therapies and testing technologies. ETFMG Treatments Testing and Advancements ETF holds 86 stocks in its basket and charges 68 bps in annual fees (read: 5 Best Sector ETFs of November).

ETFMG Treatments Testing and Advancements ETF has amassed $51.1 million in its asset base and trades in an average daily volume of 14,000 shares.

First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund (FBT)

First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund follows the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, which measures the performance of companies in the biotechnology industry that are primarily involved in the use of biological processes to develop products or provide services. It holds about 30 securities in its basket and charges 55 bps in annual fees.

First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund has accumulated $1.7 billion in its asset base and trades in a moderate volume of more than 43,000 shares a day. FBT has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 with a High-risk outlook.

ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO)

ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF provides exposure to companies with one or more drugs in phase II or phase III FDA clinical trials by tracking S-Network Medical Breakthroughs Index. It holds 127 securities in its basket (read: 5 Top-Ranked ETFs to Buy At Bargain Prices).

ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF charges 50 bps in fees per year from its investors and trades in a moderate average daily volume of about 18,000 shares. It has AUM of $179.8 million in its asset base and carries a Zacks ETF Rank #3 with a High-risk outlook

Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF (PBE)

Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF follows the Dynamic Biotech & Genome Intellidex Index and provides exposure to companies engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and marketing and distribution of various biotechnological products, services and processes and companies that benefit significantly from scientific and technological advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering and research.

Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF holds 31 stocks in its basket. The product has managed $272.8 million in its asset base and charges 59 bps in annual fees. Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 with a High-risk outlook.

Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free reportJohnson & Johnson (JNJ) : Free Stock Analysis ReportPfizer Inc. (PFE) : Free Stock Analysis ReportModerna, Inc. (MRNA) : Free Stock Analysis ReportFirst Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology ETF (FBT): ETF Research ReportsInvesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF (PBE): ETF Research ReportsALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO): ETF Research ReportsVirtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP): ETF Research ReportsETFMG Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM): ETF Research ReportsTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.Zacks Investment Research

Go here to read the rest:
Biotech ETFs That Outperformed Last Week - Yahoo Finance

The immune system fights germs and foreign substances on the skin, in the tissues of the body and in bodily fluids such as blood. The immune system is made up of two parts: the innate, (general) immune system and the adaptive (specialized) immune system. These two systems work closely together and take on different tasks.

The innate immune system is the body's first line of defense against germs entering the body. It responds in the same way to all germs and foreign substances, which is why it is sometimes referred to as the "nonspecific" immune system. It acts very quickly: For instance, it makes sure that bacteria that have entered the skin through a small wound are detected and destroyed on the spot within a few hours. The innate immune system has only limited power to stop germs from spreading, though.

The innate immune system consists of

All outer and inner surfaces of the human body a key part of the innate immune system. The closed surface of the skin and of all mucous membranes already forms a physical barrier against germs, which protects them from entering. Additionally, chemical substances like acid, enzymes or mucus prevent bacteria and viruses from gaining a foothold. Movements created, for example, by hair-like structures in the bronchi (cilia) or bowel muscles stop germs from settling in the body. Tear fluid, sweat and urine (which flushes the organs of the urinary tract) have a similar effect.

The innate immune system activates special immune system cells and proteins if germs get past the skin and mucous membranes and enter the body.

When a part of the skin is infected, immune system cells move to the area or immune system cells that are already there are activated. Specific immune system cells release substances into the immediate area that make the blood vessels wider and more permeable. This causes the area around the infection to swell, heat up and redden, and inflammation results. A fever may develop as well. Then the blood vessels expand further and even more immune system cells arrive.

Certain proteins (enzymes) are also activated to help in the immune response (see below).

Bacteria or viruses that enter the body can be stopped right away by scavenger cells (phagocytes). Scavenger cells are special kinds of white blood cells (leukocytes). These cells enclose germs and "digest" them. The remains of these germs move to the surface of the scavenger cells to be detected by the adaptive immune system.

There are also other types of immune system cells that release substances to kill bacteria and various germs. Both germs and body tissue and immune system cells die and decay during an immune system response. Their remains form pus, a yellowish fluid.

Several proteins (enzymes) help the cells of the innate immune system. A total of nine different enzymes activate one another in a process similar to a chain reaction: One enzyme in the first stage alerts several enzymes of the second stage, each of which again activates several enzymes of the third stage, and so on. This allows immune system responses to escalate very quickly.

The tasks of these enzymes include:

marking germs as targets for scavenger cells,

attracting other immune system cells from the bloodstream,

fighting viruses by destroying the viral envelope (the outermost layer of a virus) or cells that have been infected with viruses.

The natural killer cells are the third major part of the innate immune system. They specialize in identifying cells that are infected by a virus or that have become tumorous. To do this, they search for cells that have changes in their surface, and then destroy the cell surface using cell toxins.

The adaptive immune system takes over if the innate immune system is not able to destroy the germs. It specifically targets the type of germ that is causing the infection. But to do that it first needs to identify the germ. This means that it is slower to respond than the innate immune system, but when it does it is more accurate. It also has the advantage of being able to "remember" germs, so the next time a known germ is encountered, the adaptive immune system can respond faster.

This memory is also the reason why there are some illnesses you can only get once in your life, because afterwards your body becomes immune. It may take a few days for the adaptive immune system to respond the first time it comes into contact with the germ, but the next time the body can react immediately. The second infection is then usually not even noticed, or is at least milder.

The adaptive immune system is made up of:

T lymphocytes in the tissue between the body's cells

B lymphocytes, also found in the tissue between the body's cells

Antibodies in the blood and other bodily fluids

T lymphocytes (also called T cells) are produced in bone marrow and then move to the thymus through the bloodstream, where they mature. The "T" in their name comes from "thymus."

T cells have three main jobs:

They use chemical messengers to activate other immune system cells in order to start the adaptive immune system (T helper cells).

They detect cells infected by viruses or tumorous cells and destroy them (cytotoxic T cells).

Some T helper cells become memory T cells after the infection has been defeated. They can "remember" which germs were defeated and are then ready to activate the adapted immune system quickly if there is another infection.

T cells have detection features on their surfaces that can attach to germs like a lock that one particular key will fit. The immune system can produce a matching T cell type for each germ in an infection within a few days.

Then if a germ attaches to a matching T cell, the T cell starts to multiply creating more T cells specialized to that germ. Because only the cells that match the germ multiply, the immune response is customized.

B lymphocytes (B cells) are made in the bone marrow and then mature there to become specialized immune system cells. They take their name from the "B" in "bone marrow." Like the T cells, there are many different types of B cells that match particular germs.

The B cells are activated by the T helper cells: T helper cells contact B cells that match the same germs that they do. This activates the B cells to multiply and to transform themselves into plasma cells. These plasma cells quickly produce very large amounts of antibodies and release them into the blood. Because only the B cells that match the attacking germs are activated, only the exact antibodies that are needed will be produced.

Some of the activated B cells transform into memory cells and become part of the "memory" of the adaptive immune system.

The various cells of the adaptive immune system communicate either directly or via soluble chemical messengers such as cytokines (small proteins). These chemical messengers are mostly proteins and are produced by different cells in the body.

Antibodies are compounds of protein and sugar that circulate in the bloodstream. They are created by the immune system to fight germs and foreign substances. Antibodies can quickly detect germs and other potentially harmful substances, and then attach to them. This neutralizes the "intruders" and attracts other immune system cells to help. Antibodies are produced by the B lymphocytes. Germs and other substances that can provoke the creation of antibodies are also referred to as "antigens."

An antibody only attaches to an antigen if it matches exactly, like a key in the lock of the antibody. That is how antibodies detect the matching germs to initiate a fast response from the adaptive immune system.

Antibodies have three main functions:

They activate other immune system cells by attaching to their surfaces. Scavenger cells are better able to fight off germs that are loaded with antibodies, too.

They activate proteins that help in the immune system response.

The antibodies of the adaptive immune system also support the innate immune system.

Brandes R, Lang F, Schmidt R (Ed). Physiologie des Menschen: mit Pathophysiologie. Berlin: Springer; 2019.

Menche N (Ed). Biologie Anatomie Physiologie. Mnchen: Urban und Fischer; 2016.

Pschyrembel. Klinisches Wrterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2017.

IQWiG health information is written with the aim of helpingpeople understand the advantages and disadvantages of the main treatment options and healthcare services.

Because IQWiG is a German institute, some of the information provided here is specific to theGerman health care system. The suitability of any of the described options in an individualcase can be determined by talking to a doctor. We do not offer individual consultations.

Our information is based on the results of good-quality studies. It is written by ateam ofhealth care professionals, scientists and editors, and reviewed by external experts. You canfind a detailed description of how our health information is produced and updated inour methods.

See the original post:
The innate and adaptive immune systems - InformedHealth ...

The immune system has a vital role: It protects your body from harmful substances, germs and cell changes that could make you ill. It is made up of various organs, cells and proteins.

As long as your immune system is running smoothly, you dont notice that its there. But if it stops working properly because its weak or can't fight particularly aggressive germs you get ill. Germs that your body has never encountered before are also likely to make you ill. Some germs will only make you ill the first time you come into contact with them. These include childhood diseases like chickenpox.

Without an immune system, we would have no way to fight harmful things that enter our body from the outside or harmful changes that occur inside our body. The main tasks of the bodys immune system are

to recognize and neutralize harmful substances from the environment, and

to fight disease-causing changes in the body, such as cancer cells.

The immune system can be activated by a lot of different things that the body doesnt recognize as its own. These are called antigens. Examples of antigens include the proteins on the surfaces of bacteria, fungi and viruses. When these antigens attach to special receptors on the immune cells (immune system cells), a whole series of processes are triggered in the body. Once the body has come into contact with a disease-causing germ for the first time, it usually stores information about the germ and how to fight it. Then, if it comes into contact with the germ again, it recognizes the germ straight away and can start fighting it faster.

The bodys own cells have proteins on their surface, too. But those proteins dont usually trigger the immune system to fight the cells. Sometimes the immune system mistakenly thinks that the body's own cells are foreign cells. It then attacks healthy, harmless cells in the body. This is known as an autoimmune response.

There are two subsystems within the immune system, known as the innate (non-specific) immune system and the adaptive (specific) immune system. Both of these subsystems are closely linked and work together whenever a germ or harmful substance triggers an immune response.

The innate immune system provides a general defense against harmful germs and substances, so its also called the non-specific immune system. It mostly fights using immune cells such as natural killer cells and phagocytes (eating cells). The main job of the innate immune system is to fight harmful substances and germs that enter the body, for instance through the skin or digestive system.

The adaptive (specific) immune system makes antibodies and uses them to specifically fight certain germs that the body has previously come into contact with. This is also known as an acquired (learned) or specific immune response.

Because the adaptive immune system is constantly learning and adapting, the body can also fight bacteria or viruses that change over time.

Brandes R, Lang F, Schmidt R (Ed). Physiologie des Menschen: mit Pathophysiologie. Berlin: Springer; 2019.

Menche N (Ed). Biologie Anatomie Physiologie. Mnchen: Urban und Fischer; 2016.

Pschyrembel. Klinisches Wrterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2017.

IQWiG health information is written with the aim of helpingpeople understand the advantages and disadvantages of the main treatment options and healthcare services.

Because IQWiG is a German institute, some of the information provided here is specific to theGerman health care system. The suitability of any of the described options in an individualcase can be determined by talking to a doctor. We do not offer individual consultations.

Our information is based on the results of good-quality studies. It is written by ateam ofhealth care professionals, scientists and editors, and reviewed by external experts. You canfind a detailed description of how our health information is produced and updated inour methods.

Continue reading here:
How does the immune system work? - InformedHealth.org ...

Scientists work daily on altering current vaccines by using molecular means to assure the individual that each variant is covered. And there is development of new medications to treat patients who have been infected and are ill.

Published on December 20, 2021

We are going to have to deal with an invasive virus for the foreseeable future. Never has the worlds population been so acutely aware of a deadly non-living particle that wreaks havoc on the worlds people on a weekly basis. Its a force to separate those who are immunologically protected from those who are not. Furthermore, the immune system, which I call the biological soul, determines who is to live or die.

I had been talking about biological warfare to emergency volunteers long before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Now, the pandemic has brought the biowarfare issue to reality and made it a terrorist act more deadly than 9/11, from an invisible source. Now, we talk about viral replication and immunogenetics to explain the value of vaccination, appropriate behavior and the use of personal protective equipment in 2021. It seems like the COVID virus is living, because it appears when we least expect it in new forms, highly developed and often with new characteristics. It is as though it is alive and directs itself and us. The alpha, the delta and then a plethora of Greek lettered variants, until the recent appearance of Omicron.

There is no doubt that our immune systems are primed to deal with scourges like COVID. The immune system is our biological soul because it directs and protects every organ of the body like a spirit and is present to make sure that you live a long and secure life. The immune system is imperceptibly learning about new invaders every hour of the day in a kind of terrorist drill. It learns and is informed by your microbiomes (bowel, skin, lungs and others), collections of organisms without which the immune system would not work. From your birth, the biomes initially delivered to you by your mother during your voyage into the world to the present biomes determined by your hygiene, diet, stress and consumption of medicines. The immune system learns during every moment of the day by exposure to this or that minor or major antigen. Occasionally with something like the novel coronavirus, the immune system encounters a cunning foe that establishes a resistant presence to an immune system overwhelmed by its lack of recognition of the new invader. You can hear the T cells say, this is not a drill. Moreover, there is always the danger that a new resistance may develop as soon as the immune system learns its way. COVID is discreet in its passage to various organs and does its damage through inflammation in many organs, selective residence in areas like the human brain and the formation of small micro blood clots in the microscopic vessels that line the alveoli of the lung, those little sacks that provide exchange of oxygen. This is the way this efficient particle replicates and, in the process, kills its host.

As with every other kind of invasion by bacteria or parasites, the immune system can inform itself and overcome most infections. It all depends on the health of your biological soul, your genetic predisposition and the number of organ comorbidities like heart disease, lung disease, obesity or simply age. After infection, the response among humans who have recovered as measured by neutralizing antibody, or in rare cases measured cellular immunity, varies from individual to individual. As I looked for strong titered antibodies from the previously infected survivors to get some convalescent sera for use among the dying, I was struck by the inconsistency of the immune response in most patients who recovered from COVID. This was clearly proof that the immune response was different for all of us. Vaccination is needed for both the previously infected and those who wish to prevent initial infection, and both responses vary from individual to individual.

I am astonished by misinformation about the vaccine and its efficacy (largely the result of ignorance), but more importantly, I am stunned by the disinformation given by certain individuals (purposeful attempts at obfuscation) and groups on social media decrying the need for the jab. This disinformation has effects are on both young and old folks and is the basis for vaccine hesitancy and doubtless thousands of deaths. Excuses have abounded, such as the vaccine does not work because it has been rushed, it affects fertility, it is really a chip that is injected into you to follow you, it is given to old people to eliminate them from the population or finally that the virus is a political hoax. Since there have now been over 800,000 deaths in this country alone and only 61 percent of the population is vaccinated (the lowest among wealthy countries), this disinformation is very deadly. Because of vaccine hesitancy, families are fractured. The unvaccinated are prohibited from interacting with relatives over the holidays. Extra attention is given by hosts and hostesses to ensure that there are no super spreaders amongst them. A recent wedding of a cousin that resulted in 35 infected people with two guests hospitalized is a stark example of what can happen.

Naming this the year of immunity is a perfect substrate for many articles directed to each component of the healthy immune system. Topics such as the long-haul syndrome, breakthrough infections, the new appearance of autoimmunity in those after infection, the sudden appearance of new pain syndromes, the role of the brain and the importance of the biome are all items for future discussion. Moreover, scientists work daily on altering current vaccines by using molecular means to assure the individual that each variant is covered. And there is development of new medications to treat patients who have been infected and are ill. These medications are anti-viral in different ways: One is a nucleoside analogue which disrupts replication of the virus (Molnupiravir), and the other is an anti-viral proteinase inhibitor that acts like anti-HIV and Hepatitis C pills (Paxlovid). Both oral pills should be available in 2022 to prevent further death. While there is no substitute for the vaccine, there is hope for the hesitant.

An indispensable guide to finance, investing and entrepreneurship.

See the rest here:
New Year: 2022 as the Year of Immunity - Worth

Taking a deep breath is not just a simple act for calming yourself and your nerves but can also help you take your immunity a notch higher, and yes this is true! Taking deep breaths, breathing heavily during a workout can help your body fight diseases in a much better way because the heart and lungs play an important role in powering the pathways of immunity. The lungs move oxygen-rich blood to the heart through capillaries and the heart extracts oxygen from the bloodstream to pump it to the entire body. The improvement in muscle movement and flow of oxygen sparks the increased circulation of immunity cells. Exercise prepares the heart and lungs to pump oxygen-rich blood more efficiently to all parts of the body and thus more immunity cells launch themselves into action.SittingEven when you sit to breathe in and breathe out slowly, you activate your parasympathetic system- which calms down the nervous system and similarly when we breathe heavily, the sympathetic nervous system is deactivated which triggers the flight or fight response that pumps stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline.Stress hormones for immunityEven though stress is bad and its consequences are mostly negative, and cortisol and adrenaline can find their way to our lymphoid tissue which is located in the thymus gland- the site for maturation of the immune cells. If the maturing immune cells are exposed to these hormones, they damage cell development which is why it is advisable to spare the developing immune cells from exposure so that they develop into efficiently-functioning immune cells.The power of exerciseThe heart-lung action is activated by exercise and initiates the circulation of immune cells that are mostly resting in the lymphoid tissue. However, when a person breathes deeply and more quickly, the heart rate increases and muscle movement improves to activate immune cells to patrol the body for up to three hours afterwards. This gradually has long-lasting effects that protect the body from diseases in the long run and leads to fewer sick days when compared to a person who does not exercise.What to doTen minutes of any kind of belly breathing that works on the lungs by expanding their base can help you and make little but beneficial changes. One such exercise is a simple pranayama technique in which you breathe in through your nose slowly and deeply, gently and fully exhale through your nose. The pulling and pushing of breath should be continued at a regulated place for maximum benefit. Practising this regularly will help build a more stable and stronger immunity.

Excerpt from:
Improving your cardiorespiratory fitness can strengthen your immune system. Heres how! - Times of India

The COVID-19 pandemic has led many people to learn more about their health, preexisting conditions, viral infections, and the healthcare system. They have learned about the FDAs Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority with regards to drugs and treatments for various ailments including the coronavirus. They have also experienced various levels of government responding very differently in how they deal with the outbreak of this version of the SARS CoV-2.

At the core of all these issues is the bodys immune system, which regularly works to protect people. The immune system is a complex network of cells and proteins that defends the body against infection. The immune system keeps a record of every germ (microbe) it has ever defeated so it can recognise and destroy the microbe quickly if it enters the body again.

A new compilation of 71 studies with over 50,000 patients, shows the positive attributes of using the repurposed drug ivermectin. It has been safely used roughly 4 billion times, successfully fighting river blindness and other ailments around the world. The meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 66 percent improvement with early treatment of COVID and 83 percent improvement when used as a prophylaxis against the COVID coronavirus.

The winter cold and flu season is now upon us, adding to peoples health concerns. Boosting your immune system and giving it the tools it needs to keep you healthy is at the core of the current pandemic health discussions.

Respiratory infections, including influenza, the COVID-19 virus and particularly pneumonia are a leading cause of death in people over 65 worldwide.

On the whole, your immune system does a remarkable job of defending you against disease-causing microorganisms. But sometimes it fails: a germ invades successfully and makes you sick. Is it possible to intervene in this process and boost your immune system? What if you improve your diet? How about taking certain vitamins or herbal preparations? Can you make other lifestyle changes in the hope of producing a near-perfect immune response?

The Frontline COVID Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a group of healthcare professionals dedicated to fighting the SARS-Cov-2 virus and all its variants. They emerged seeking to use existing treatments in the care of their patients. They found certain treatments were successful in either preventing COVID sickness, or reducing the severity of the symptoms and duration of illness.

The FLCCCs I-MASK+ protocol provides a wide range of ways to build your immune system as well as protecting yourself from COVID-19.

These are all of the compounds, which have shown efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, said Dr. Pierre Kory at a November COVID-19 Summit in Florida. Do you see the sheer number of trials and studies and compounds that have shown efficacy?

The FLCCC Alliance is not opposed to vaccination, and furthermore supports policies such as mask wearing, social distancing, and hand hygiene to prevent the further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our treatment proposals are designed, first of all, to mitigate the effects of the pandemic until it is overcome, and to allow for an earlier return to daily life.

The Omicron variant of the virus has more than 30 mutations. The current three FDA-approved vaccines offer uncertain levels of protection against this new variant, as breakthrough cases continue to rise in vaccinated people. This week, the FDA essentially stopped recommending the Johnson & Johnson vaccination due to serious side effects on a small but growing number of people. Therefore boosting your immune system becomes even more important.

The FLCCC clinicians are driven by their desire to save lives. They continually update their protocols based on clinical observations as well as the best studies of modes of prevention and treatment therapies for COVID-19.

The I-MASK+ Protocol is physiologic-based combination of treatment regimens developed by leaders in critical care medicine. All component medicines are FDA-approved, inexpensive, readily available and have been used for decades with well-established safety profiles. In October 2020, they added ivermectin as a core medication in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Their immune boosting protocols and supportive therapy focuses on five treatments. Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Quercetin, Zinc, and melatonin.

Their viral protection protocols are taking ivermectin twice weekly, and gargling with antiseptic mouthwash twice a day.

lvermectin

Gargle mouthwash 2 x daily gargle (do not swallow) antiseptic mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride (e.g. ScopeTM, ActTM, CrestTM), 1 percent povidone/iodine solution or ListerineTM with essential oils.

Alternatively, they suggest Nigella Sativa (black cumin seed) at 40mg/kg daily, can be used if ivermectin is not available or added to ivermectin for optimal prevention.

Vitamin D appears to be one of many important components impacting your immune system. Many studies and healthcare professionals strongly recommend increasing the vitamin D in your system, especially as people remain indoors and get less sun exposure during the winter..

The quercetin appears to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus from binding with the spike protein, which is how COVID-19 invades your body and spreads sickness.

Quercetin, a flavonoid with an excellent safety profile, has powerful antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. It can potentially help in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 viral infection to prevent disease development and progression. Its excellent safety profile allows widespread use in the early phase of the disease or when it is suspected, starting even before a confirmatory nasal swab is obtained. Quercetin acts as a free radical scavenger, and both in vitro and in vivo studies showed quercetin as a potent antioxidant.

There are some relevant cautions regarding quercetin. Due to a possible drug interaction between quercetin and ivermectin these drugs should be staggered (take one in the morning and one at night). Patients taking cyclosporin or tacrolimus should avoid quercetin. And for anyone with pre-existing thyroid disease or thyroidism, the lowest dose of quercetin should be used when taken as a preventative.

People who took zinc had symptoms go away about two days sooner, (compared to placebo), reports one recent study mentioned by Harvard Health. The estimated effect in preventing infection was modest: about one infection was prevented for every 20 people using zinc. More importantly, there was an 87 percent lower risk of severe symptoms among those taking zinc.

An Aug 2020 article in Womens Health affirmed the melatonin recommendation:

Melatonin is a special kind of clean antioxidant, meaning that its able to protect cells without triggering production of free radicals. This appears to be important for immune cells, including phagocyte cells. Think of phagocyte immune cells as little Pac Men traveling through your bloodstream gobbling up pathogens. Studies show that melatonin helps to optimize phagocyte action.

Children, who are much less likely to have severe COVID-19 symptoms, have as much as 10 times the amount of natural melatonin production as older adults. Now, there are also other factors that give children healthier immune function, but this may go a long way toward explaining why youth is so protective when it comes to coronavirus risk.

Besides boosting your immune system, the FLCCC supports people taking antiviral precautions. These include gargling twice a day with antiseptic mouthwash and ivermectin.

The gargling makes sense because these cold and flu viruses enter your body primarily through your mouth or nose. If you can kill them before they incubate and travel down your air passageways into your lungs, you have a much greater chance of mild symptoms and better health outcomes.

The I in the FLCCCs recommended protocol is ivermectin. It has been safely used for decades, with roughly 4 billion doses administered globally. Yet there has been a huge battle by the government and the drug companies to keep citizens from using ivermectin.

Many of those compounds are repurposed, Kory said. You know why? Because when this disease hit, theres a lot of smart doctors, a lot of investigators who just started studying what they had available, instead of sitting around waiting till people turn blue.

Nature magazine recently reported on repurposed drugs and compounds. Given the high attrition rates, substantial costs and slow pace of new drug discovery and development, repurposing of old drugs to treat both common and rare diseases is increasingly becoming an attractive proposition because it involves the use of de-risked compounds, with potentially lower overall development costs and shorter development timelines.

There is a new report showing 71 studies demonstrate the effectiveness of ivermectin for both prevention and aiding patients in the recovery from COVID-19 sickness. The Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 66 percent and 83 percent improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis. The studies had over 50,000 patients.

Dr. Pierre Kory has been a leading advocate of using repurposed drugs and treatments in the battle against COVID-19. He shares a new metadata study with 71 studies and over 50,000 people. It shows excellent results for ivermectin in preventing sickness and improving recovery from COVID sickness. Video courtesy FLCCC Alliance

While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection, the analysis reports. Only 25 percent of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm. Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.

The greatest benefit appears to be an 83 percent improvement for people who took ivermectin prophylactically to improve their immune systems chances of battling the virus should they encounter it.

The FLCCC Alliance originally recommended one dose per week of the ivermectin. Because of the highly contagious nature of the Delta variant of COVID-19, they increased their recommendation to twice per week, and suggested it be taken with a meal.

The amount you take is based on your weight 0.2 mg per kg of weight. The conversion factor is 2.2 pounds per kg. A 132 pound person would take 12 mg; a 165 pound person would take 15 mg; and a 200 pound person would take an 18 mg dose.

The FLCCC is currently reviewing data regarding the Omicron variant to see if they need to adjust any of their treatments to offer better protection against this variant. Early reports indicate the symptoms are much more mild than the Delta variant. However it appears Omicron can be transmitted to others much more easily than either Delta or the original COVID-19 virus.

As always, they recommend you consult with your healthcare professional regarding any and all treatments, especially if you have preexisting conditions that add to your health risks.

Read the original post:
Boosting your immune system good for all colds, virus and flu this winter - clarkcountytoday.com

LITCHFIELD, Conn., Dec. 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --SeaCare USA announced today that its 100% natural sea cucumber-based supplement with powerful immune-boosting properties is now available in the US.

SeaCare nourishes and strengthens the immune system in order to help fight off pathogens and keep the body healthy, especially in compromised immune systems. In today's world, the body's ability to fortify itself is more important than ever.

SeaCare's warm-water species and proprietary extraction and combining methods are a game-changer. Though there are hundreds of different species of sea cucumber, there are only a small number known to actually possess immune-boosting benefits. Extensive research demonstrates that the benefits to the immune system are produced only from warm-water species. Unlike most brands that have access to only cold-water species, SeaCare harvests only warm-water species, sourcing all of their ingredients from the tropical waters of Vanuatu, a small island nation in the South Pacific; and it's the only company that has the rights to these waters.

In addition to warm-water sea cucumber, SeaCare includes additional nutrient-rich marine ingredients such as sea urchin and various sea plants. But it's in their proprietary harvesting and combining methods that separate SeaCare from the field. Together, the ingredients produce a formula that boasts greater potency and absorption, with zero toxinssomething competitors haven't figured out how to do. This makes SeaCare one of the safest and most powerful immune-boosting supplements in the world.

No other brand can compete with SeaCare's potency, absorption and immune-boosting benefits.

It would take approximately 120 pills from another brand to equal the active ingredients found in a single dose of SeaCare. While competitor supplements produce a pill derived from fillers and dehydrated cold-water sea cucumber carcassesdevoid of the nutrients critical to producing actual benefits; SeaCare employs a complex and expensiveprocess of extracting rich nutrients from each of its marine ingredients to produce a fresh gel-like supplement packed with the key nutritional minerals, amino acids and vitamins critical to nourishing the body's natural immunitynaturally.

SeaCare will be made available on their online store (www.seacarehealth.com).

SeaCare USA 860.489.9569 [emailprotected] http://www.seacarehealth.com

SOURCE SeaCare USA

seacarehealth.com

Read the rest here:
SEACARE, A WARM-WATER SEA CUCUMBER-BASED SUPPLEMENT KNOWN TO NOURISH AND BOOST THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, LAUNCHES ITS AMERICAN DIVISION -- SEACARE USA,...

When Dr. Joshua Ishal got his 5- and 7-year-old daughters their first doses of the Covid-19 vaccine last week in Queens, he joined millions of other parents in protecting their 5- to 11-year-old children since the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was authorized for this age group in late October.

Dr. Ishal, a dentist who lives in Great Neck, N.Y., never questioned whether he would get his children vaccinated, but he has been wavering over the timing of their second shots.

The clinical trials that tested the Pfizer vaccine separated the doses by three weeks, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that interval. But emerging data suggests that a longer wait bolsters the immune response in the long run. Whats more, the extra time may reduce the risk of myocarditis heart inflammation a rare but serious side effect of the mRNA vaccines in adolescents and younger adults.

Health authorities in Canada recommend that children wait at least eight weeks between doses. In Britain, kids wait 12 weeks for the second shot.

Still, the potential benefits of waiting for the second dose must be balanced against the real risks of catching and spreading Covid during the wait. With the United States on the cusp of another major wave of cases and the new Omicron variant spreading rapidly, delaying means leaving children vulnerable to infection and illness for longer.

I think thats a hard call, said Aubree Gordon, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Is it more important for children to have good protection sooner? Or a better, more lasting protection later? The conundrum reminds Dr. Ishal of an episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry tells a story about picking a cold medicine from a wall of options at the drugstore. This is quick acting, but this is long-lasting, Jerry said. When do I need to feel good, now or later?

Trish Johnson, a financial adviser in Oakland, Calif., plans to push her sons second dose back to six or even eight weeks. She has been swayed, she said, by the studies showing that a longer interval between doses leads to a better immune response.

Ive taken it upon myself, especially during this later part of the pandemic, to follow doctors on Twitter and do my own investigation, she said. Almost two years into the pandemic, she feels that public health officials are taking too many precautions and failing to adapt to changing data. That doesnt work for me anymore, she said.

Many experts agree that three weeks between doses is too short an interval for an optimal immune response.

From an immunological standpoint, it makes more sense to wait, said Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona. Pfizer didnt choose three weeks between doses because it was the perfect interval. That decision, he said, was more about public health and reducing community transmission, and completing this process quickly. Dr. Bhattacharya plans to hold off on a second dose for his children until eight weeks.

The immune system needs time to ramp up after that first dose. Immune cells in the blood, known as B cells, can start producing antibodies within a week. But to generate really high-quality antibodies, those cells need to go through an intense kind of training camp inside the lymph nodes, and that process takes more than three weeks.

Dec. 21, 2021, 8:38 p.m. ET

You need them to sweat a little bit, those B cells, said Andrs Finzi, an immunologist at the University of Montreal.

Much of the research on different dosing intervals comes from countries, like Canada and Britain, that opted to wait on the second shot for adults when vaccine doses were scarce last winter and spring. Dr. Finzi and his colleagues examined the immune response in 26 people who received their second shots three months or more after their first. They also looked at responses in 12 people who received their shots four weeks apart. The two groups produced roughly the same quantity of antibodies, but the group with a longer interval between doses produced stronger antibodies with a greater capacity to latch onto the virus and stay there.

In Britain, officials lengthened the dose interval for all vaccines to 12 weeks last December. Researchers at the University of Oxford studied hundreds of health workers who had received second doses before or after that policy took effect.

Their study found that people who waited 10 weeks between their first and second doses had antibodies levels about twice as high as those who only waited three or four weeks. Those antibodies are produced by B cells, which continue to develop over that long interval.

It seems that giving the second dose at three to four weeks is just a bit too soon for your B cells to be ready to receive that boost, said Susanna Dunachie, an immunologist at the University of Oxford, who led the study. Whats more, the longer dose interval also affected T cells, which help ramp up the bodys immune response. After the long interval, the T cells of study participants produced greater quantities of interleukin-2, a chemical signal that helps long-term immune memory.

We were quite surprised, Dr. Dunachie said.

She added, however, that a more robust immune response measured in the laboratory would not necessarily translate to better protection in the real world.

On this issue, the results are mixed. Surveillance data from British Columbia and Quebec suggest that a longer dosing interval improves the effectiveness of the vaccine, according to a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed. That is, people who had a longer stretch between doses had a lower risk of becoming infected than those who opted for less time.

But studies from Britain havent been as clear-cut. One found a modest benefit of delaying the second dose. Two other studies didnt find any effect.

The impact of dosing intervals on the risk of myocarditis is even less clear. In one study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, researchers examined Ontarios vaccine safety surveillance data and identified 297 cases of inflammation of either the heart muscle or the outer lining of the heart after vaccination in people 12 and older. Of those, 207 occurred after the second dose. The rates were higher among people who separated their vaccines by a month or less compared with those who waited six weeks or more.

Whether the vaccine will trigger excess myocarditis in 5- to 11- year-olds remains to be seen. So far, more than seven million doses of the vaccine have been administered to this age group in the U.S. and only 14 possible cases of myocarditis have been reported to the government.

The risk of myocarditis is far higher among teenage boys and young men: about 11 cases for every 100,000 males between ages 16 and 29 receiving a second dose, according to one study.

That worries Lisa Rollins, a software trainer in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Her son turned 12 in early December after receiving his first dose. She plans to wait six weeks to get him his second shot. Hes doing virtual learning for now, she and her husband work from home, and the rest of the family is fully vaccinated. So his risk is pretty low, Ms. Rollins said. I think waiting a little bit longer makes sense for us.

Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvanias Perelman School of Medicine, points out that we also cant yet quantify how much benefit children might get from waiting a few weeks. His children received their second doses four weeks after their first.

If there was not a pandemic going on, the answer would be simple longer duration would be better, Dr. Hensley said. But we are at a point in time in the United States where Omicron is going to sweep our nation and its going to probably sweep across the world. And so there has never been a better time to get vaccinated.

Its an argument that Dr. Ishal finds increasingly persuasive. Cases are surging in New York City. The city-run vaccination site in Queens where he took his daughters for their first shots booked second-dose appointments for three weeks out. Given whats happening with Omicron, he may just keep that time slot.

Well take all the protection we can get right now, he said. I think I just decided.

Read more:
Parents Grapple With How Long to Wait for Their Childrens Second Shots - The New York Times

It wont be a zero to 100 type scenario where we had really great protection with [the] delta [variant] but now were going to go completely on the other side, says Mansoor Amiji, university distinguished professor of pharmaceutical sciences and chemical engineering at Northeastern.

We still dont have the data to show exactly how well a vaccinated immune system fares against omicron specifically, Amiji points out. But as long as it doesnt evade those antibodies entirely, the existing vaccines and booster shots will still be key tools in fighting the pandemic, he said.

How can vaccines and boosters fight the new omicron variant?

There are two ways to strengthen your immunity: Make antibodies that are better at identifying and attacking the virus, or make antibodies in greater numbers.

When coronavirus enters through the nose or mouth, the virus works to bind to receptors on the surface of cells in the upper respiratory tract. The virus binds to those cells through what Amiji describes as a lock and key mechanism. Its outer spike protein is the key, and receptors on the cells are the locks.

The vaccines are designed to train the immune system to block that binding from happening. A vaccinated immune system creates antibodies that essentially form fake locks and bind to the spike protein on the viruses to prevent it from entering the cells.

The worry with the omicron variant is that the structure or shape of the spike protein is changing, Amiji said, but the vaccines have trained our immune system to identify the structure of the spike protein of the original strain of the virus.

But that doesnt mean all will be lost.

While the antibodies may not be quite so adept at identifying and latching onto omicron, they likely still can much of the time.

A booster shot would also prompt the immune system to make more antibodies, he said. The idea would be that, even if those antibodies arent as good at targeting a specific variant, it would become a numbers game. The more antibodies in your body, the more chances they could counter all the viral particles and stop them from infecting your cells.

But there is also another line of defense our bodies can mount.

In addition to the antibody responses, Dr. Baozhong Wang, professor in the Institute for Biomedical Sciences at Georgia State University said the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) also induce robust T-cell responses that play an important role in immune protection. Those tiny white blood cells called T-cells help our immune system reject foreign substances in our body.

T-cells can continue fighting a virus after antibodies have waned. They are also less likely to be affected by viral mutations, such as those seen with the omicron variant, so they have a better chance at combating it and future variants.

What do we know about how well boosters work?

Moderna announced Monday that its booster shot, the equivalent of half of the dose of the first two, increased antibody levels against omicron by 37 times, based on preliminary data. Similarly, Pfizer said last month that its own booster shot improves protection against omicron 25-fold compared to the first two doses.

Will we need an omicron-specific booster?

Maybe. The omicron variant appears to have significant mutations compared to previous versions of the virus, which may make it more likely to overcome immunity from vaccines or prior infections. But it will take weeks or longer for the data to come in on whether this is actually happening, and even more time to know what it would mean for people who are already vaccinated.

While its too early to know whether a variant-specific booster is needed, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have said they are working on vaccines that specifically target omicron in case its needed. It would take about three months to develop a variant-specific shot.

Why get a booster now? Why not wait?

While theres still a lot we dont know, current vaccines could ultimately prove to be enough to protect against omicron, which is why the CDC is urging all adults to not wait.

But perhaps more urgently, getting boosted offers additional protection against the delta variant, still responsible for the vast majority of COVID-19 infections in Georgia and around the U.S.

Will people need to get a booster every year?

Maybe. Experts arent sure if the COVID-19 vaccine will be needed on a regular basis, like the flu shot.

Pharmaceutical companies are already preparing for annual boosters. Moderna is in the process of developing a single vaccine that covers COVID-19 and flu. Pfizer is in the process of developing a separate mRNA-based flu vaccine, which could be given at the same time as a COVID-19 vaccine.

But the necessity of an annual booster is still unknown. Experts say much will depend on the durability of the existing vaccines and boosters to protect people from severe illness, and how much the coronavirus changes over time.

So if youve already had a case of COVID-19 and are vaccinated, do you really need a booster?

Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said that a prior coronavirus infection acts as a primer and thereafter vaccination functions as a booster. Other experts say there is not enough data to know for sure, but early data suggests hybrid immunity conferred by a mix of an infection and a vaccine offers stronger protection than vaccination alone.

The immunological advantage from hybrid immunity, according to Wang, stems in part from what are called memory B cells or long-lived immune cells that are produced in response to an infection or vaccination.

Both vaccination and natural infection turn on memory B cells antibody-generating abilities. But research has found memory B cell levels can be higher in people who have been both naturally infected and vaccinated.

Vaccines and boosters in Georgia

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported 152,787 booster doses administered in Georgia between Dec. 8 and Dec. 14, up 55% from the week before.

In Georgia, about 60% of the population has received just a single dose of vaccine, and 50.1% are considered fully vaccinated, or having received two shots of the Moderna and Pfizer shots, or one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Out of the Georgians considered fully vaccinated, about 1.2 million, or about 22.4%, have received a booster shot.

Go here to read the rest:
What you need to know about omicron and COVID boosters - Atlanta Journal Constitution