StemCell Therapy

Trusted Business Insights answers what are the scenarios for growth and recovery and whether there will be any lasting structural impact from the unfolding crisis for the Regenerative Medicine Market.

Trusted Business Insights presents an updated and Latest Study on Regenerative Medicine Market. The report contains market predictions related to market size, revenue, production, CAGR, Consumption, gross margin, price, and other substantial factors. While emphasizing the key driving and restraining forces for this market, the report also offers a complete study of the future trends and developments of the market.The report further elaborates on the micro and macroeconomic aspects including the socio-political landscape that is anticipated to shape the demand of the Regenerative Medicine Market during the forecast period.It also examines the role of the leading market players involved in the industry including their corporate overview, financial summary, and SWOT analysis.

Get Sample Copy of this Report @ Regenerative Medicine Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis By Product (Cell Therapy, Gene Therapy, Tissue Engineering, Platelet Rich Plasma), By Application (Orthopaedics, Wound Care, Oncology), By Distribution Channel (Hospitals, Clinics) & Regional Forecast, 2020 2029 (Includes COVID-19 Business Impact)

We have updated Regenerative Medicine Market with respect to COVID-19 Business Impact.Inquire before buying

This report focuses on the Regenerative Medicine market and value at the global level, regional level, and company level. From a global perspective, this report represents the overall Regenerative Medicine market size by analyzing historical data and future prospects. Regionally, this report focuses on several key regions: North America, Europe, Japan, China, Southeast Asia, India, Latin America, and South America.

Global Regenerative Medicine Market: Segment Analysis

The research report includes specific segments by region (country), by Company, by Type, and by Application. This study provides information about the sales and revenue during the historic and forecasted period of 2019 to 2029. An in-depth analysis of the segments assists in identifying the different factors that will aid market growth.

Global Regenerative Medicine Market: Regional Analysis

The research report includes a detailed study of regions of North America, Europe, Japan, China, Southeast Asia, India, Latin America, and South America. The report has been curated after observing and studying various factors that determine regional growth such as the economic, environmental, social, technological, and political status of the particular region. Researchers have studied the data of revenue, sales, and manufacturers of each mentioned region. This section analyses region-wise revenue and volume for the forecast period of 2019 to 2029.

Global Regenerative Medicine Market: Competitive Landscape

This section of the report identifies various key manufacturers of the market. It helps the reader understand the strategies and collaborations that players are focusing on combat competition in the market. The comprehensive report provides a significant microscopic look at the market. The reader can identify the footprints of the manufacturers by knowing about the global revenue of manufacturers, the global price of manufacturers, and sales by manufacturers during the forecast period of 2019 to 2029.List of Companies Profiled

Report Coverage

The potential to directly alter human genes was first recognized nearly more than 50 years ago. Cell and gene therapy, represent overlapping fields of biomedical research with similar therapeutic goals. Regenerative medicine also comprises of therapeutic tissue engineering and biomaterials -engineered substances used in medical applications to supplement or replace a natural body function. The increased number of the clinical trials and the use of the regenerative medicine for the development of the medicine to treat chronic diseases are some of the factors propelling the regenerative medicine market trends.

The report provides qualitative and quantitative insights on the regenerative medicine industry trends and detailed analysis of market size and growth rate for all possible segments in the market. The market is segments include type, application, distribution channel, and geography. On the basis of the type, the market is segmented into cell therapy, gene therapy, tissue engineering and platelet rich plasma. On the basis of the application, the market is segmented into orthopedics, wound care, oncology and others. On the basis of distribution channel, the regenerative medicine market is segmented into hospitals, clinics and others. Geographically, the market is segmented into five major regions, which are North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. The regions are further categorized into countries.

Along with this, the regenerative medicine market report comprises analysis of the industry dynamics and competitive landscape. Various key insights provided in the report are prevalence and incidence of diabetes by key countries, advancements in insulin delivery devices, recent industry developments such as mergers & acquisitions, pricing analysis, technological advancements, and key industry trends.

SEGMENTATION

By Product

By Application

By Distribution Channel

By Geography

Key Industry Developments

In September 2020, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited announced the expansion of its cell therapy manufacturing capabilities with the opening of a new 24,000 square-foot R&D cell therapy manufacturing facility at its R&D headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. The facility provides end-to-end research and development capabilities and will accelerate Takedas efforts to develop next-generation cell therapies, initially focused on oncology with the potential to expand into other therapeutic areas.

The R&D cell therapy manufacturing facility will produce cell therapies for clinical evaluation from discovery through pivotal Phase 2b trials. The current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) facility is designed to meet all U.S., E.U., and Japanese regulatory requirements for cell therapy manufacturing to support Takeda clinical trials around the world.

Takedas Cell Therapy Translational Engine (CTTE) connects clinical translational science, product design, development, and manufacturing through each phase of research, development, and commercialization. It provides bioengineering, chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC), data management, analytical, and clinical and translational capabilities in a single footprint to overcome many of the manufacturing challenges experienced in cell therapy development.

In 2018, Novartis received EU approval for one-time gene therapy Luxturna, which has been developed to restore vision in people with rare and genetically-associated retinal disease.

In 2018, Novartis received EU approval for its CAR-T cell therapy, Kymriah.In 2017, Integra LifeSciences launched its product, Integra Dermal Regeneration Template Single Layer Thin for dermal repair defects reconstruction in a one-step procedure.

Looking for more? Check out our repository for all available reports on Regenerative Medicine Market in related sectors.

Quick Read Table of Contents of this Report @ Regenerative Medicine Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis By Product (Cell Therapy, Gene Therapy, Tissue Engineering, Platelet Rich Plasma), By Application (Orthopaedics, Wound Care, Oncology), By Distribution Channel (Hospitals, Clinics) & Regional Forecast, 2020 2029 (Includes COVID-19 Business Impact)

Trusted Business InsightsShelly ArnoldMedia & Marketing ExecutiveEmail Me For Any ClarificationsConnect on LinkedInClick to follow Trusted Business Insights LinkedIn for Market Data and Updates.US: +1 646 568 9797UK: +44 330 808 0580

Original post:
Regenerative Medicine Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis By Product (Cell Therapy, Gene Therapy, Tissue Engineering, Platelet Rich Plasma), By...

Gosselies, Belgium, 12 October 2020, 7am CEST BONE THERAPEUTICS (Euronext Brussels and Paris: BOTHE), the cell therapy company addressing unmet medical needs in orthopedics and other diseases, today announce that CEO, Miguel Forte, MD, PhD will present at the annual Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa to be held virtually October 12-16. Miguel Forte will also chair the session The European Regulatory Environment for ATMPs Should we expect more or less regulation? with the participation of panelists from the European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Commission.

Organized by the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, the Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa is a five-day virtual conference featuring more than 120 dedicated company presentations by leading public and private companies, highlighting technical and clinical achievements over the past 12 months in the areas of cell therapy, gene therapy, gene editing, tissue engineering, and broader regenerative medicine technologies. The meeting also includes over 100 panelists and featured speakers taking part in 20 in-depth sessions covering all aspects of cell and gene therapy commercialization. Companies presentations will be available to view on-demand throughout the entirety of the conference

Please visit http://www.meetingonthemesa.com for full information including registration. Complimentary attendance at this event is available for credentialed investors and members of the media only. Investors should contact Laura Stringham at lstringham@alliancerm.org and interested media should contact Kaitlyn Dupont at kdupont@alliancerm.org.

About Bone Therapeutics

Bone Therapeutics is a leading biotech company focused on the development of innovative products to address high unmet needs in orthopedics and other diseases. The Company has a, diversified portfolio of cell and biologic therapies at different stages ranging from pre-clinical programs in immunomodulation to mid-to-late stage clinical development for orthopedic conditions, targeting markets with large unmet medical needs and limited innovation.

Bone Therapeutics is developing an off-the-shelf next-generation improved viscosupplement, JTA-004, which is currently in phase III development for the treatment of pain in knee osteoarthritis. Consisting of a unique combination of plasma proteins, hyaluronic acid - a natural component of knee synovial fluid, and a fast-acting analgesic, JTA-004 intends to provide added lubrication and protection to the cartilage of the arthritic joint and to alleviate osteoarthritic pain and inflammation. Positive phase IIb efficacy results in patients with knee osteoarthritis showed a statistically significant improvement in pain relief compared to a leading viscosupplement.

Bone Therapeutics core technology is based on its cutting-edge allogeneic cell therapy platform with differentiated bone marrow sourced Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) which can be stored at the point of use in the hospital. Currently in pre-clinical development, BT-20, the most recent product candidate from this technology, targets inflammatory conditions, while the leading investigational medicinal product, ALLOB, represents a unique, proprietary approach to bone regeneration, which turns undifferentiated stromal cells from healthy donors into bone-forming cells. These cells are produced via the Bone Therapeutics scalable manufacturing process. Following the CTA approval by regulatory authorities in Europe, the Company is ready to start the phase IIb clinical trial with ALLOB in patients with difficult tibial fractures, using its optimized production process. ALLOB continues to be evaluated for other orthopedic indications including spinal fusion, osteotomy, maxillofacial and dental.

Bone Therapeutics cell therapy products are manufactured to the highest GMP standards and are protected by a broad IP (Intellectual Property) portfolio covering ten patent families as well as knowhow. The Company is based in the BioPark in Gosselies, Belgium. Further information is available at http://www.bonetherapeutics.com.

For further information, please contact:

Bone Therapeutics SAMiguel Forte, MD, PhD, Chief Executive OfficerJean-Luc Vandebroek, Chief Financial OfficerTel: +32 (0)71 12 10 00investorrelations@bonetherapeutics.com

For Belgian Media and Investor Enquiries:BepublicCatherine HaquenneTel: +32 (0)497 75 63 56catherine@bepublic.be

International Media Enquiries:Image Box CommunicationsNeil Hunter / Michelle BoxallTel: +44 (0)20 8943 4685neil.hunter@ibcomms.agency / michelle@ibcomms.agency

For French Media and Investor Enquiries:NewCap Investor Relations & Financial CommunicationsPierre Laurent, Louis-Victor Delouvrier and Arthur RouillTel: +33 (0)1 44 71 94 94bone@newcap.eu

For US Media and Investor Enquiries:LHA Investor RelationsYvonne BriggsTel: +1 310 691 7100ybriggs@lhai.com

Certain statements, beliefs and opinions in this press release are forward-looking, which reflect the Company or, as appropriate, the Company directors current expectations and projections about future events. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and assumptions could adversely affect the outcome and financial effects of the plans and events described herein. A multitude of factors including, but not limited to, changes in demand, competition and technology, can cause actual events, performance or results to differ significantly from any anticipated development. Forward looking statements contained in this press release regarding past trends or activities should not be taken as a representation that such trends or activities will continue in the future. As a result, the Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release any update or revisions to any forward-looking statements in this press release as a result of any change in expectations or any change in events, conditions, assumptions or circumstances on which these forward-looking statements are based. Neither the Company nor its advisers or representatives nor any of its subsidiary undertakings or any such persons officers or employees guarantees that the assumptions underlying such forward-looking statements are free from errors nor does either accept any responsibility for the future accuracy of the forward-looking statements contained in this press release or the actual occurrence of the forecasted developments. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release.

Continue reading here:
Bone Therapeutics to present at 2020 Virtual Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa - GlobeNewswire

Immuno-oncology and CAR T cells energized the field of regenerative medicine, but for cell and gene to deliver on their promises, new, disruptive technologies and new modes of operation are needed. Specifically, that entails improving manufacturing to control variables and thus ensure product consistency, and maturing the regulatory environment to improve predictability.

Manufacturing cells is not like manufacturing small molecules, Brian Culley, CEO of Lineage Cell Therapeutics, told BioSpace. For cell therapy products to mature into real products that deliver on the promises of 10 years ago, they must be scalable which drives affordability and they must solve their purity issues.

On the clinical side, cell and gene therapies must find places where small molecules, antibodies or other traditional approaches may not be the best option.

For example, The era of transplant medicine is unfolding before us, Culley said. Because of the transplant component, cell therapy may enable changes the body never could do alone.

Lineage is addressing dry AMD and spinal cord injuries with two of its therapeutics.

Our approach is fundamentally different from traditional approaches. We replace the entire cell rather than modulate a pathway. There is a rational hypothesis where cell therapy can win, but first we need to fix the operational hurdles, Culley said.

To address the manufacturing challenges, Culley said, We work only with allogeneic approaches. For us, not being patient-specific is a huge advantage.

Not long ago, the industry was focused on 3D manufacturing in bioreactors.

Were beyond that, Culley said. For our dry AMD product, we can manufacture 5 billion retinal cells in a three liter bioreactor. The advantage is that the cells exist in a very homogenous space and are 99% pure.

As a result, they are more affordable and can be harvested with little manipulation.

Manual manipulation affects gene expression, he pointed out, so minimizing that, as well as the vast quantities of plastics typically required, results in a more controlled process and a more consistent product.

Additionally, Lineage introduced a thaw and inject formulation, so the cell therapy can be thawed in a water bath, loaded into a chamber and injected, all within a few minutes. Traditional dose administration requires washing, plating and reconstituting the cells the before they are administered to a patient.

Getting rid of the prior day dose prep is one example of the maturation of the field, which we are deploying today to help usher in a new branch of medicine, Culley said.

At Lineage, were tackling problems that largely were intractable. For dry AMD, theres nothing approved by the FDA. No one know why the retinal cells die off, so we manufacture brand new retinal cells (OpRegen) and implant them, Culley said. Were seeing very encouraging clinical signs, including the first-ever case of retinal restoration.

Retinal cells compose a thin layer in the back of the eye, Culley explained.

They start to die off in one spot, and that area grows outward. When we inject our manufactured cells where the old ones died, weve seen the damaged area shrink and the architecture in previously damage areas completely restored, Culley said. Weve treated 20 patients for dry AMD in, ostensibly, safety trials, but you cant help but notice efficacy when a patient reads five more lines on an eye chart. Its hard to imagine our intervention wasnt responsible for that, especially when humans cant regenerate retinal tissue.

The spinal injury program (OPC1) may represent an even greater breakthrough. As with dry AMD, there is no FDA-approved therapy.

We manufacture oligodendrocytes and transport them into the spinal cord, to help produce the myelin coating for axons, he told BioSpace. Because of the oligodendrocytes, the axons grow, become myelinated, and begin to function. Small molecule and antibody therapies havent been able to do that.

So far, 25 people have been treated in a Phase I/II trial. Culley reported cases in which a quadriplegic man, after OPC1 therapy, is now typing 30 to 40 words per minute, and another who now can throw a baseball. Its not unusual for patients who initially were completely paralyzed to now schedule their treatments around college classes, Culley said.

Humans can have varying degrees of recovery from spinal cord injury, but these are higher than we would expect, Culley said.

Other cell and gene companies are advancing solutions, too.

Many companies with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are trying to figure out how to get scalability, purity, and reproducibility to work for them. Its not a quick fix, he said.

One of the challenges is balancing the clinical and manufacturing aspects of development.

If you have a technology thats not yet commercially viable, but you have clinical evidence, its tempting to focus on the clinical side, Culley said.

Too many companies do that, and then find their candidate must be reworked for scale up. Therefore, consider scale up and manufacturing early.

Theres a need for balance at a more granular level, too. For example, he asked, How many release criteria do you need? Just because you know a cell expresses a certain surface marker, does that add to your process? Ive seen companies ruined by trying to be perfect, and others by rushing headlong, seeing evidence where evidence doesnt exist.

As Lineage matures its processes to support larger clinical trials, the greatest challenges have been time It takes 30 to 40 days to grow cells, Culley said and regulatory uncertainty. Often, there is no regulatory precedence so there are holes to be addressed. For example, cell and gene therapies sometimes have a delivery component such as a scaffold or delivery encapsulation technology that also must be considered. Real-time regulatory feedback isnt available, so you proceed, presuming that what youre doing will be acceptable to regulators.

The FDA recognizes that new, disruptive technologies and approaches are being used, and must be used, for cell and gene therapy to reach patients.

The FDA is responsive and is trying to push guidance out, Culley said, but it takes time.

Visit link:
Disruptive Technologies and Mature Regulatory Environment Vital for Cell Therapy Maturation - BioSpace

Woolly worm race champion to predict winter weather this upcoming seasonNews / 8 hours ago

Hard Rock International, Bristol Chamber of Commerce host job information session for proposed casinoNews / 8 hours ago

Hundreds attend 'Trump Train Parade' in Sullivan County SaturdayNews / 8 hours ago

60th annual Southeastern Autorama returns to ErwinNews / 8 hours ago

Medical cannabis processor Dharma Pharma opens to patients in Bristol, VirginiaNews / 8 hours ago

The Volunteer Bus: Give back, Go Vols!News / 2 days ago

UPDATE: Police identify 3 dead after Saturday morning shootingNews / 8 hours ago

Trump Train Parade to go from Bristol to KingsportNews / 1 day ago

Hard Rock executives hold event for women and young professionals ahead of Bristol casino referendumNews / 1 day ago

Court TV interviewed Anslee Daniel regarding Evelyn Boswell case Friday nightNews / 1 day ago

Ballad leader: Fresh spike in COVID deaths likely four to six weeks awayNews / 1 day ago

Tennessee leaders to make adjustments to teacher accountabilityNews / 2 days ago

Continued here:
Woolly worm race champion to predict winter weather this upcoming season - WJHL-TV News Channel 11

As health sciences researchers conduct clinical trials to develop safe and effective therapies and vaccines for COVID-19, two nontrial pre-approval access pathways expanded access and right-to-try are becoming more widely-known to the general public.

A study published in Regenerative Medicine written by University of Minnesota Associate Professor Leigh Turner, Simon Fraser University Professor Jeremy Snyder, and New York University Assistant Professor Alison Bateman-House suggests thatmost patients engaged in online crowdfunding and seeking nontrial preapproval access to investigational medical products obtain them using the expanded access regulatory pathway rather than through what is known as the right-to-try.

The federal Right To Try (RTT) Act became law in 2018. It allows for individuals with life-threatening diseases to access investigational medical products if they:

Supporters, including President Trump, promote the right-to-try option as an important pathway for obtaining access to investigational medical products, said Turner, who is with the U of Ms Center for Bioethics. To date, however, few individuals appear to be obtaining access to such products on a right-to-try basis. Right-to-try has been promoted as a faster and less bureaucratic alternative to expanded access.

However, our research findings suggest that when it comes to crowdfunding campaigns on GoFundMe, references to right-to-try often reflect a poor understanding of nontrial preapproval access. In reality, at least according to the crowdfunding campaigns we examined, expanded access is the route by which individuals more commonly access investigational products outside clinical trials.

Expanded access, while also providing access to investigational medical products provided outside clinical trial context, differs significantly from the right-to-try pathway in that it requires FDA and institutional review board (IRB)oversight. The FDA and the IRB review submitted requests and decide if an investigational medical product should be provided on an expanded access basis. President Trump, for example, recently obtained access to an investigational product for COVID-19 a monoclonal antibody cocktail on an expanded access basis.

The experimental interventions allowed under the RTT Act and through an expanded access basis are not commonly covered by insurers. As a result, many individuals engage in online crowdfunding activity to cover the often substantial costs associated with accessing investigational interventions provided outside clinical trials.

Turner and his co-authors identified 79 GoFundMe campaigns referencing right-to-try and 115 campaigns referencing expanded access between April 2019 and April 2020. These campaigns also discussed seeking experimental medical interventions in the U.S.

When restricting analysis to campaigns initiated in 2018 and later, which is around the time the RTT Act was made into law, the researchers identified:

Through this study, researchers found that:

It is important to note that the campaigns on GoFundMe list donation goals and funds received but they may not accurately reflect costs associated with seeking access to investigational medical products pursued via expanded access pathway or a right-to-try option. Furthermore, data collected on crowdfunding sites does not necessarily reflect experiences of individuals who seek access to investigational medical products administered outside clinical trials but do not engage in crowdfunding activities.

Acknowledging these limitations, the study does suggest that, in practice, expanded access provides meaningful access to investigational medical products whereas right-to-try is more rhetorical slogan than practical option.

Read more:
Crowdfunding campaigns seeking donations supporting the use of investigational medical products provided via expanded access or 'right-to-try'...

This report also researches and evaluates the impact of Covid-19 outbreak on the Japan Regenerative Medicine Products industry, involving potential opportunity and challenges, drivers and risks. We present the impact assessment of Covid-19 effects on Japan Regenerative Medicine Products and market growth forecast based on different scenario (optimistic, pessimistic, very optimistic, most likely etc.).

Global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market Overview:

The research report, titled [Global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025], presents a detailed analysis of the drivers and restraints impacting the overall market. Analysts have studied the key trends defining the trajectory of the market. The research report also includes an assessment of the achievements made by the players in the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market so far. It also notes the key trends in the market that are likely to be lucrative. The research report aims to provide an unbiased and a comprehensive outlook of the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market to the readers.

Get PDF Sample Copy of this Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2785605&source=atm

Global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market: Segmentation

For clearer understanding of the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market, analysts have segmented the market. The segmentation has been done on the basis of application, technology, and users. Each segment has been further explained with the help of graphs figures. This breakdown of the market gives the readers an objective view of the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market, which is essential to make sound investments.

Segment by Type, the Regenerative Medicine Products market is segmented intoCell TherapyTissue EngineeringBiomaterialOthers

Segment by Application, the Regenerative Medicine Products market is segmented intoDermatologyCardiovascularCNSOrthopedicOthers

Regional and Country-level AnalysisThe Regenerative Medicine Products market is analysed and market size information is provided by regions (countries).The key regions covered in the Regenerative Medicine Products market report are North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa. It also covers key regions (countries), viz, U.S., Canada, Germany, France, U.K., Italy, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, etc.The report includes country-wise and region-wise market size for the period 2015-2026. It also includes market size and forecast by Type, and by Application segment in terms of sales and revenue for the period 2015-2026.

To understand the changing political scenario, analysts have regionally segmented the market. This gives an overview of the political and socio-economic status of the regions that is expected to impact the market dynamic.

Global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market: Research Methodology

To begin with, the analysis has been put together using primary and secondary research methodologies. The information has been authenticated by market expert through valuable commentary. Research analysts have also conducted exhaustive interviews with market-relevant questions to collate this research report.

Do You Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry [emailprotected] https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2785605&source=atm

Global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market: Competitive Rivalry

The research report also studied the key players operating in the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market. It has evaluated and elucidated the research and development statuses of these companies, their financial outlooks, and their expansion plans for the forecast period. In addition, the research report also includes the list of strategic initiatives that clearly explain the achievements of the companies in the recent past.

Competitive Landscape and Regenerative Medicine Products Market Share AnalysisRegenerative Medicine Products market competitive landscape provides details and data information by players. The report offers comprehensive analysis and accurate statistics on revenue by the player for the period 2015-2020. It also offers detailed analysis supported by reliable statistics on revenue (global and regional level) by players for the period 2015-2020. Details included are company description, major business, company total revenue and the sales, revenue generated in Regenerative Medicine Products business, the date to enter into the Regenerative Medicine Products market, Regenerative Medicine Products product introduction, recent developments, etc.The major vendors covered:AcelityDePuy SynthesMedtronicZimmerBiometStrykerMiMedx GroupOrganogenesisUniQureCellular Dynamics InternationalOsiris TherapeuticsVcanbioGamida CellGolden MeditechCytori TherapeuticsCelgeneVericel CorporationGuanhao BiotechMesoblastStemcell TechnologesBellicum Pharmaceuticals

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/checkout?rep_id=2785605&licType=S&source=atm

Strategic Points Covered in TOC:

Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product scope, market risk, market overview, and market opportunities of the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market

Chapter 2: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market which consists of its revenue, sales, and price of the products

Chapter 3: Displaying the competitive nature among key manufacturers, with market share, revenue, and sales

Chapter 4: Presenting global Japan Regenerative Medicine Products market by regions, market share and with revenue and sales for the projected period

Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: To evaluate the market by segments, by countries and by manufacturers with revenue share and sales by key countries in these various regions

Contact Us:

marketresearchhub

Tel: +1-518-621-2074

USA-Canada Toll Free: 866-997-4948

Email: [emailprotected]

About marketresearchhub

marketresearchhub is the one stop online destination to find and buy market research reports & Industry Analysis. We fulfil all your research needs spanning across industry verticals with our huge collection of market research reports. We provide our services to all sizes of organisations and across all industry verticals and markets. Our Research Coordinators have in-depth knowledge of reports as well as publishers and will assist you in making an informed decision by giving you unbiased and deep insights on which reports will satisfy your needs at the best price.

See original here:
Research report covers the Japan Regenerative Medicine Products Market Forecasts and Growth, 2019-2025 - Eurowire

Oct. 16, 2020 13:00 UTC

PRINCETON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Geistlich Medical business unit of Geistlich Pharma AG, a family owned, Swiss based global leader in regenerative solutions is proud to announce that the General Services Administration (GSA) has added Geistlich Derma-Gide Advanced Wound Matrix to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Geistlich Pharma focuses on a wide variety of clinical indications.

The GSA award will pave the way for physicians and staff of Veterans Administration facilities to utilize Geistlich Derma-Gide for the management of hard to heal wounds. The product is FDA cleared for a wide variety of indications, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, surgical wounds, and first/second degree burns (among others).

Advanced wound care for those in need

Geistlich Medical has partnered with Recon-Supply, a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business owned by Marine Corps veteran Stephen Clark and his wife Katy Clark. It was important to Geistlich Medical to partner with a SDVOSB in order to support and honor those that have served in the US Military, says Geistlich CEO Paul Note. We found a great organization in Recon-Supply and look forward to serving the Veterans Administration facilities as they treat those in need of advanced wound care. All nine of the Geistlich Derma-Gide sizes are a part of the FSS so that physicians and their staff have full access to the portfolio of products available to the broader healthcare market.

Novel second-generation xenograft

Geistlich Derma-Gide Advanced Wound Matrix is a novel second generation xenograft product that features an advanced 4D design: Dual-sourced, highly refined, bi-layered, and structurally optimized. It has demonstrated a 90% closure rate in its first 10 patient observational study recently published in International Wound Journal1. A larger prospective, randomized clinical trial is currently underway, with interim results to be published in late 2020.

1 Armstrong, DG, Orgill, DP, Galiano, RD, et al. An observational pilot study using a purified reconstituted bilayer matrix to treat nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2020; 17: 966 973.

About Geistlich Pharma

Geistlich Pharma has existed since 1851 and is family-owned. It specializes in the regeneration of bone, cartilage and tissue. More than 700 employees worldwide work for Geistlich in the area of regenerative medicine. With its twelve affiliates and 60 distribution partners, Geistlichs medical devices and medicinal products reach around 90 markets worldwide.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201016005406/en/

Go here to see the original:
Geistlich Derma-Gide Added to the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Schedule - BioSpace

Market Study Report, LLC recently added a report on Regenerative Medicine market that delivers a holistic view on industry valuations, market size, profit estimations, SWOT analysis and regional landscape of the market. In addition, the report points out key challenges and growth opportunities, while examining the current competitive standings of key players in during the forecasted timeline.

The research report on Regenerative Medicine market report provides a detailed analysis of this business landscape. The document analyses various market dynamics such as the opportunities and factors which drive the market growth. The market is poised to generate notable revenue and display a remunerative growth rate during the analysis timeframe, cites the report.

Request a sample Report of Regenerative Medicine Market at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/2440816?utm_source=technoweekly.com&utm_medium=SK

Additionally, the report assesses the existing market competition trends and elaborates on various risk factors which may hamper the growth of the Regenerative Medicine market during the analysis timeframe.

The document also highlights the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the growth of Regenerative Medicine market.

Additional takeaways of the Regenerative Medicine market report:

Details of the regional analysis of the Regenerative Medicine market:

Ask for Discount on Regenerative Medicine Market Report at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/check-for-discount/2440816?utm_source=technoweekly.com&utm_medium=SK

Table of Contents:

The key questions answered in the report:

For More Details On this Report: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-regenerative-medicine-market-2020-by-company-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2025

Related Reports:

1. Global Viral Vectors and Plasmid DNA Manufacturing Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-viral-vectors-and-plasmid-dna-manufacturing-market-2020-by-company-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2025

2. Global Flu Vaccine Market 2020 by Manufacturers, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-flu-vaccine-market-2020-by-manufacturers-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2025

Related Report : https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/at-302-cagr-deep-packet-inspection-dpi-market-size-poised-to-cross-usd-36-billion-by-2026-2020-10-15

Contact Us:Corporate Sales,Market Study Report LLCPhone: 1-302-273-0910Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150 Email: [emailprotected]

Read the original here:
Regenerative Medicine Market to Witness a Pronounce Growth During 2020 to 2025 - TechnoWeekly

HAIFA, Israel, Oct. 13, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:PSTI) (TASE:PSTI), a leading regenerative medicine company developing a platform of novel biological products, today announced that it has received clearance from the safety committee of an investigator initiated Phase I/II study to move forward with patient enrollment for cohort II. The study will evaluate PLX-PAD cells in the treatment of steroid-refractory chronic graft vs. host disease (GvHD) and is led by Principal Investigator Prof. Ron Ram, Director of the Hematology Blood and Marrow Stem Cell Transplantation Unit at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, Israel. Prof. Ram and his research staff are responsible for the design and implementation of the study at Sourasky Medical Center.

GvHD is a severe complication in patients who have undergone an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients in which the donated stem cells identify the recipient's body as foreign and attack it. The chronic form of GvHD (cGvHD) usually appears later than 100 days post-transplant.

Cohort I included 6 patients treated with 2 injections of 150 million cells, a week apart. At the 3-month follow up, interim safety results concluded that PLX-PAD cells were safe and that no treatment related side effects were reported. Efficacy results demonstrated that 4 out of the 6 patients reported improvement in symptoms that translated into a reduction in the severity of cGvHD with notable reduction in the required steroid doses for part of the patients. Based on these results, the study was approved to commence enrollment of 14 patients in cohort II to be treated with 4 injections of 150 million cells.

Prof. Ram of Ichilov Hospital commented, From our experience in having treated 6 patients in the study to date, we have so far found no negative side effects from the use of the PLX-PAD cells in the treatment of steroid-refractory cGvHD. Patients with significant GvHD skin disorders previously unresponsive to multiple types of therapy showed remarkable response. Responses were also observed for severe mouth ulcers which prevented patients from eating solid foods. This resulted in a major improvement of quality of life and tapering of steroid doses."

Pluristem is committed to contributing to the wellbeing and quality of life of our patients. cGvHD is an indication where we see a significant need to enhance the current course of treatment for this life-threatening condition among patients undergoing bone marrow transplants. The preliminary results from cohort I of this Phase I/II study, and prior preclinical data, both indicate that PLX-PAD cells may potentially treat cGvHD patients and mitigate symptoms. We are very pleased to cooperate with Prof. Ram and Sourasky Medical Center, and we place a high importance in examining PLX-PAD for this indication, stated Pluristem CEO and President, Yaky Yanay.

About cGvHDChronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) remains a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). The 2-year cumulative incidence of chronic GvHD requiring systemic treatment is 30% to 40% by National Institutes of Health criteria1. The hematopoietic stem cell transplants are used to treat bone marrow failure resulting from treatment of some blood or bone marrow cancers as well as other hematologic failures, such as aplastic anemia, which are not related to cancer. The donated cells identify the recipients body as foreign and attack it as a result. While acute GvHD usually appears in the first 100 days after a transplant, and in specific body systems, chronic GvHD can occur at any time (even several years) after a transplant, and may manifest in many parts of the body such as: skin, mouth, eyes, liver, intestines, lungs and joints. Long term immunosuppression is given to try to prevent or treat cGvHD. Since this treatment suppresses the immune system for a very long time, patients are at high risk of infections, and are prescribed multiple medications to try to address this major risk.

About Pluristem TherapeuticsPluristem Therapeutics Inc. is a leading regenerative medicine company developing novel placenta-based cell therapy product candidates. The Company has reported robust clinical trial data in multiple indications for its patented PLX cell product candidates and is currently conducting late stage clinical trials in several indications. PLX cell product candidates are believed to release a range of therapeutic proteins in response to inflammation, ischemia, muscle trauma, hematological disorders and radiation damage. The cells are grown using the Company's proprietary three-dimensional expansion technology and can be administered to patients off-the-shelf, without tissue matching. Pluristem has a strong intellectual property position; a Company-owned and operated GMP-certified manufacturing and research facility; strategic relationships with major research institutions; and a seasoned management team.

Safe Harbor StatementThis press release contains express or implied forward-looking statements within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other U.S. Federal securities laws. For example, Pluristem is using forward-looking statements when it discusses the patient enrollment for cohort II for its Phase I/II study of its PLX-PAD cells, the implication from the results of the first patient cohort in the study, the belief that GvHD is an indication that has a significant need for enhanced treatments among patients undergoing bone marrow transplants and that the preliminary results from cohort I of the study, and the prior preclinical data, indicate that PLX-PAD cells may potentially treat chronic GvHD patients and mitigate symptoms. These forward-looking statements and their implications are based on the current expectations of the management of Pluristem only, and are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements: changes in technology and market requirements; Pluristem may encounter delays or obstacles in launching and/or successfully completing its clinical trials; Pluristems products may not be approved by regulatory agencies, Pluristems technology may not be validated as it progresses further and its methods may not be accepted by the scientific community; Pluristem may be unable to retain or attract key employees whose knowledge is essential to the development of its products; unforeseen scientific difficulties may develop with Pluristems process; Pluristems products may wind up being more expensive than it anticipates; results in the laboratory may not translate to equally good results in real clinical settings; results of preclinical studies may not correlate with the results of human clinical trials; Pluristems patents may not be sufficient; Pluristems products may harm recipients; changes in legislation may adversely impact Pluristem; inability to timely develop and introduce new technologies, products and applications; loss of market share and pressure on pricing resulting from competition, which could cause the actual results or performance of Pluristem to differ materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by law, Pluristem undertakes no obligation to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. For a more detailed description of the risks and uncertainties affecting Pluristem, reference is made to Pluristem's reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact:

Dana RubinDirector of Investor Relations972-74-7107194danar@pluristem.com

_________________________________

1 Flowers ME, Martin PJ. How we treat chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2015 Jan 22;125(4):606-15. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-08-551994. Epub 2014 Nov 14. PMID: 25398933; PMCID: PMC4304105., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25398933/

View post:
Pluristem Announces Clearance to Move Forward with Enrollment for Cohort II in an Investigator-Led Phase I/II Chronic Graft vs Host Disease...

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still receiving investigational new drug applications (INDs) for cell and gene therapies, officials are concerned about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical trials.Its clear that COVID-19 has adversely affected all aspects of development of cell and gene therapies, said Peter Marks, director of FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), said at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicines Meeting on the Mesa. For some of the studies that are ongoing there are some real challenges to overcome in terms of endpoints that may have been missed.The pandemic also has disrupted global harmonization efforts around gene therapies, Marks said.We were on the cusp, in fact, working with global regulators trying to get towards more harmonization of gene therapy programs in different countries, he said. Were trying to keep it moving but its a challenge to do.Marks noted that before COVID-19 he spent about 75% of his time on cell and gene therapies, but the pandemic has forced him to shift priorities. Some things have less policy demands at this point in time. At this point in time its very much reversed and its probably 80% of my time on COVID-related activities.Marks also noted that CBERs Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) has been struggling to keep up with its workload even before the pandemic. With the influx of applications for cell and gene therapies over the last five years, Marks said the office, Should have doubled in size and its only modestly larger, 15-20% larger in size.Marks said he is not satisfied with the level of dialogue the agency has been able to have with gene therapy developers. Especially early on, we should be able to have this dialogue that really facilitates setting things up well so that our knowledge of the entire fieldwe help leverage that for every sponsor.Weve been so strapped in terms of personnel that its hard to do that, Marks said, noting that COVID-19 has exacerbated things even further. Because the number of gene therapy applications hasnt fallen off dramatically, some of the trials may not be moving as quickly, but the applications keep coming in. Marks said that OTAT has also had to shift priorities during the pandemic and that he hopes the next user fee cycle will bring in the resources necessary to staff up further.Speaking on a separate panel with members of industry, OTAT Director Wilson Bryan echoed Marks sentiment.We were stretched thin before the pandemic, and with the flood of work that came in, it really had an impact, he said. Sometimes folks dont like to admit this, but we all know weve had delayed meetings, weve had to delay review of some applications because of giving priority to the pandemic.However, Bryan said the office is getting its balance and is working to catch up on some of its delayed activities.Bryan expressed some worry about the financial well-being of some of the smaller companies his office works with. Were hearing a lot about their struggles to stay afloat and continue and finish off their development programs and whether or not those development programs are going to be sufficient to meet regulatory standards, he said.One of the challenges, said Timothy Schroeder, CEO of CTI Clinical Trial & Consulting, will be dealing with gaps in data from clinical trials. The question is going to be how do sponsors, how do regulatory authorities and how do companies such as ourselves fill those gaps?On the regulator side, Bryan said his office is working with companies on an individual basis to sort out those issues, which differ from one indication to the next.Bryan added that one positive to come of the pandemic is greater interest in remote outcome assessments in clinical trials. If we have an energy now to develop outcome measures and validate outcome measures that allow us to reliably capture information from patients in remote locations, that will ultimately facilitate development, he said.The pandemic also has significantly disrupted FDAs ability to conduct surveillance and preapproval inspections. While the agency has resumed some domestic inspections and mission-critical foreign inspections, it also is leveraging other sources of information, including inspection reports from other regulators, and requesting documents from applicants and facilities in lieu of on-site inspections where possible. (RELATED: FDA issues pandemic inspections FAQ guidance, Regulatory Focus 19 August 2020).Were considering virtual inspections, particularly for companies where the site has a track record, but if its a site that is brand new with no track record or if its a site with that has a bad track record, were hesitant to do that, Bryan said.Bryan also raised the prospect of FDA inspectors tagging along remotely for an inspection being conducted by other regulators. Is it possible that we could have an inspection by European inspectors and have US regulators going along for a virtual inspection at the same time? We think about those things, I dont know that weve done them yet, Bryan said, adding that he is not sure whether FDA inspectors would be comfortable with the information they would get.Curran Simpson, chief operations and technology officer at REGENXBIO, said he sees promise in virtual audits and believes the level of documentation a site provides can be indicative of its compliance.How often have I walked into a manufacturing facility thats well-run but has terrible documentation? Almost never. I think virtual audits, if you do a risk-based approach and the audit partner has the ability to send documentation in an efficient way and you have experienced people doing this, I think youre going to get the same flavor of an audit very quickly from the level of the documentation, he said.Of course, youll want to accompany that to the extent possible with imaging of the facility, Curran said, To see if those practices are being followed, the overall cleanliness of the facility and the management of material movement If you dont get a good impression from the documentation that youre working through, its probably a bigger issue that you want to escalate.Amy DuRoss, co-founder and CEO of Vineti, an enterprise software company specializing in advanced therapies, expressed some doubts about the current potential for fully remote audits.Certainly our piece of the chain because were enterprise software is readily auditable remotely, but I would say that the overall system and in manufacturing, Im not sure weve evolved as a species yet to adapt our remote techniques to get a full picture I dont think were there yet, she said.

Link:
FDA officials, experts discuss impact of COVID-19 on cell and gene therapies - Regulatory Focus

The immune response to infections is a delicate balance. We need just enough action to clear away the offending bacteria or viruses, but not so much that our own bodies suffer collateral damage.

Macrophages are immune cells at the front line, detecting pathogens and kicking off an inflammatory response when needed. Understanding how macrophages determine when to go all-out and when to keep calm is key to finding new ways to strike the right balance particularly in cases where inflammation goes too far, such as in sepsis, colitis and other autoimmune disorders.

Two macrophages (blue) fighting to engulf the same pathogen (green). GIV/Girdin is shown in red.

In a study published October 14, 2020 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine discovered that a molecule called Girdin, or GIV, acts as a brake on macrophages.

When the team deleted the GIV gene from mouse macrophages, the immune cells rapidly overacted to even small amounts of live bacteria or a bacterial toxin. Mice with colitis and sepsis fared worse when lacking the GIV gene in their macrophages.

The researchers also created peptides that mimic GIV, allowing them to shut down mouse macrophages on command. When treated with the GIV-mimic peptide, the mices inflammatory response was tempered.

When a patient dies of sepsis, he or she does not die due to the invading bacteria themselves, but from an overreaction of their immune system to the bacteria, said senior author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Moores Cancer Center. Its similar to what were seeing now with dangerous cytokine storms that can result from infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Macrophages, and the cytokines they produce, are the bodys own immune-stimulating agents and when produced in excessive amounts, they do more harm than good.

Digging deeper into the mechanism at play, Ghosh and team discovered that the GIV protein normally cozies up to a molecule called Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). TLR4 is stuck right through the cell membrane, with bits poking inside and outside the cell. Outside of the cell, TLR4 is like an antenna, searching for signs of invading pathogens. Inside the cell, GIV is nestled between the receptors two feet. When in place, GIV keeps the feet apart, and nothing happens. When GIV is removed, the TLR4 feet touch and kick off a cascade of immune-stimulating signals.

Ghoshs GIV-mimicking peptides can take the place of the protein when its missing, keeping the feet apart and calming macrophages down.

We were surprised at just how fluid the immune system is when it encounters a pathogen, said Ghosh, who is also director of the Institute for Network Medicine and executive director of the HUMANOID Center of Research Excellence at UC San Diego School of Medicine. Macrophages dont need to waste time and energy producing more or less GIV protein, they can rapidly dial their response up or down simply by moving it around, and it appears that such regulation happens at the level of gene transcription.

Ghosh and team plan to investigate the factors that determine how the GIV brake remains in place when macrophages are resting or is removed to mount a response to a credible threat. To enable these studies, the Institute for Network Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine recently received a new $5 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health. Ghosh shares this award with her colleagues Debashis Sahoo, PhD, assistant professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Jacobs School of Engineering, and Soumita Das, PhD, associate professor of pathology at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

Co-authors of the study include: Lee Swanson, Gajanan D. Katkar, Julian Tam, Rama F. Pranadinata, Yogitha Chareddy, Jane Coates, Mahitha Shree Anandachar, Vanessa Castillo, Joshua Olson, Victor Nizet, Irina Kufareva, Soumita Das, all at UC San Diego.

Funding for this research came, in part, from the National Institutes for Health (grants AI141630, AI155696, CA100768, CA160911, DK107585, UL1TR001442, DK 0070202), DiaComp and Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Read the original post:
Protein that Keeps Immune System from Freaking Out Could Form Basis for New Therapeutics - UC San Diego Health

As President Trump claims that he is immune to COVID-19 and isolated reports emerge of reinfection, what is the truth about immunity to COVID-19?

To date, there have been six published cases of COVID-19 reinfection, with various other unverified accounts from around the world. Although this is a comparably small fraction of the millions of people known to have been infected, should we be concerned? To unpick this puzzle, we must first consider what we mean by immunity.

When we are infected with any pathogen, our immune system quickly responds to try to contain the threat and minimise any damage. Our first line of defence is from immune cells, known as innate cells. These cells are not usually enough to eliminate a threat, which is where having a more flexible "adaptive" immune response comes into play our lymphocytes.

Lymphocytes come in two main varieties: B lymphocytes, which make antibodies, and T lymphocytes, which include cells that directly kill the germy invaders.

As antibodies are readily measured in blood, they are often used to indicate a good adaptive immune response. However, over time, antibodies levels in our blood wane, but this doesn't necessarily mean protection is lost. We retain some lymphocytes that know how to deal with the threat our memory cells. Memory cells are remarkably long-lived, patrolling our body, ready to spring into action when needed.

Vaccines work by creating memory cells without the risk of a potentially fatal infection. In an ideal world, it would be relatively easy to create immunity, but it's not always that straightforward.

Although our immune system has evolved to deal with a huge variety of pathogens, these germs have also evolved to hide from the immune system. This arms race means that some pathogens such as malaria or HIV are very tricky to deal with.

Infections that have spilled over from animals - zoonotic diseases - are also challenging for our immune system because they can be completely novel. The virus that causes COVID-19 is such a zoonotic disease, originating in bats.

COVID-19 is caused by a betacoronavirus. Several betacoronaviruses are already common in the human population most familiar as a cause of the common cold. Immunity to these cold-causing viruses isn't that robust but immunity to the more serious conditions, Mers and Sars, is more durable.

Data to date on COVID-19 shows that antibodies can be detected three months after infection, although, as with Sars and Mers, antibodies gradually decrease over time.

Of course, antibody levels are not the only indication of immunity and don't tell us about T lymphocytes or our memory cells. The virus causing COVID-19 is structurally similar to Sars, so perhaps we can be more optimistic about a more durable protective response time will tell. So how worried then should we be about reports of reinfection with COVID-19?

The handful of case reports on reinfection with COVID-19 don't necessarily mean that immunity is not occurring. Issues with testing could account for some reports because "virus" can be detected after infection and recovery. The tests look for viral RNA (the virus's genetic material), and viral RNA that cannot cause infection can be shed from the body even after the person has recovered.

Conversely, false-negative results happen when the sample used in testing contains insufficient viral material to be detected for example, because the virus is at a very low level in the body. Such apparent negative results may account for cases in which the interval between the first and second infection is short. It is hugely important, therefore, to use additional measures, such as viral sequencing and immune indicators.

Reinfection, even in immunity, can happen, but usually this would be mild or asymptomatic because the immune response protects against the worst effects. Consistent with this is that most verified cases of reinfection reported either no or mild symptoms. However, one of the latest verified cases of reinfection which happened just 48 days after the initial infection actually had a more severe response to reinfection.

What might account for the worse symptoms the second time round? One possibility is the patient did not mount a robust adaptive immune response first time round and that their initial infection was largely contained by the innate immune response (the first line of defence). One way to monitor this would be to assess the antibody response as the type of antibody detected can tell us something about the timing of infection. But unfortunately, antibody results were not analysed in the recent patient's first infection.

Another explanation is that different viral strains caused the infections with a subsequent impact on immunity. Genetic sequencing did show differences in viral strains, but it isn't known if this equated to altered immune recognition. Many viruses share structural features, enabling immune responses to one virus to protect against a similar virus. This has been suggested to account for the lack of symptoms in young children who frequently get colds caused by betacoronaviruses.

However, a recent study, yet to be peer-reviewed, found that protection against cold-causing coronaviruses did not protect against COVID-19. In fact, antibodies recognising similar viruses can be dangerous accounting for the rare phenomenon of antibody-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE). ADE occurs when antibodies enhance viral infection of cells with potentially life-threatening consequences.

It should be emphasised, though, that antibodies are only one indicator of immunity and we have no data on either T lymphocytes or memory cells in these cases. What these cases emphasise is a need to standardised approaches in order to capture the critical information for robust evaluation of the threat of reinfection.

We are still learning about the immune response to COVID-19, and every piece of new data is helping us unpick the puzzle of this challenging virus. Our immune system is a powerful ally in the fight against infection, and only by unlocking it can we ultimately hope to defeat COVID-19.

Sheena Cruickshank, Professor in Biomedical Sciences, University of Manchester.

This article was originally published byThe Conversation. Read the original article.

See original here:
What We Know And Don't Know About COVID-19 Reinfection Cases - ScienceAlert

Having healthy juices is an easy and effective way to enhance your immunity to combat all diseases and infections. Here are 5 juice recipes from Arooshi Agarwal, Nutritionist and founder of Arooshis Nutrylife to amp up your immune system.

Our immune system works constantly without a pause and so it requires the best fuel for its performance in figuring out which cells belong to our body and which doesnt. These internal little wonderful warriors (antibodies) that protect us from diseases, infections, and what not needs ultimate care so that we are kept healthy and strong from inside. The immune system doesnt only need the right conditions to perform but also requires the right nutrition.

The current global crisis has made us realize the importance of immunity in our daily lives. Good immunity wont come easy without taking care of the gut (small intestine) and liver health. More than 70% of our immune system is in our gut which forms a foundation of our overall health. These two are one of the most important organs in our body that ensures the immunity that we need in our daily life to combat all sorts of illnesses. Having different types of juice is one of the most effective ways to boost our immune system. Hence, Arooshi Aggarwal, nutritionist and founder of Arooshis Nutrylife, shares some easy juice recipes.

5 juice recipes shared by nutritionist Arooshi Agarwal.

Green Juice

Green juice is a powerhouse of supplements for a solid immune system. It works best for detoxifying the liver.You need Wheat Grass, bottle gourd, a handful of mint leaves, and lime. Do not add salt or any condiments, try taking it raw. Blend these green veggies. You can adjust the consistency either with water or coconut water. The ideal time to consume this juice is in the morning.This juice is packed with antioxidants, iron, potassium magnesium which have a nerve and muscle relaxing effect. This juice helps in reducing the inflammation, cools down the body heat and antioxidants help in building up the antibodies.

White Juice

For this juice, you will need bottle gourd, green apple, celery and ginger. Ginger has always been the go-to food for colds. This is because it kills rhinovirus, the infectious agent responsible for the common cold. Celery is filled with sodium, a natural electrolyte that helps to treat dehydration. Green apples are also rich in vitamin C that boosts our immunity. Blend these together with water and drink.

Orange juice

For orange juice, you will be needing carrots, pumpkin, and apricots. This juice is rich in Vitamin A which is also fat-soluble vitamin and helps us fight against eye infections and provides a better vision.

Red juice

For this refreshing juice, you will need beetroot, tomato, ginger, garlic, and turmeric. These are wonder veggies to improve immunity. These veggies keep gut flora (good bacteria) healthy and improve gut health. Not only this juice refreshes the mood but also helps to treat influenza, runny nose, and body aches. This juice is so healthy that it calms down the symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis as turmeric, garlic, and ginger have strong inflammatory effects.

Yellow juice

For this, you will need pineapple, carrot mint leaves and lemon. This juice is loaded with immunity builders. It helps in treating cold, cough, and sore throat. Pineapple can reduce the bronchial inflammation which provides better respiration and relieves from the excess mucus formation. This juice is high on Vitamin C, vitamin A, iron, potassium, and antioxidants which also benefit the skin and hair health.

Remember

These five juices will be a blessing to your immune system and vital organs. Also remember, hydration, exercise, and a healthy diet play a very important role to keep your immune system up. While juicing may benefit your physical health, it is equally important to take care of your mental health. A healthy mind resides in a healthy body and vice versa!

Also Read:Significance of self screening in early detection of Breast Cancer explained by Dr Chandrani Mallik

x Your comment has been submitted to the moderation queue

View post:
Boost your immune system with THESE 5 healthy juice recipes shared by Nutritionist Arooshi Agarwal - PINKVILLA

At the front line of our immune system macrophages are standing by, detecting pathogens and kicking off an inflammatory response when needed. Understanding how these immune cells know when to go all-out and when to keep calm is critical to finding new ways to strike the right chord in cases where the immune system overreacts, such as in sepsis and other autoimmune disorders.

Researchers at the University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine report they have discovered a protein that acts as a brake on macrophages. Their findings, TLR4 signaling and macrophage inflammatory responses are dampened by GIV/Girdin, were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Sensing of pathogens by Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) induces an inflammatory response; controlled responses confer immunity but uncontrolled responses cause harm. Here we define how a multimodular scaffold, GIV, or Girdin, titrates such inflammatory response in macrophages, noted the researchers.

When the team deleted the GIV gene from mouse macrophages, the immune cells overreacted to small amounts of live bacteria. Mice with colitis and sepsis fared worse when lacking the GIV gene in their macrophages. They also created peptides that mimic GIV, which allowed them to put the brakes on mouse macrophages on command. When treated with the GIV-mimic peptide, the mices inflammatory response was tempered.

When a patient dies of sepsis, he or she does not die due to the invading bacteria themselves, but from an overreaction of their immune system to the bacteria, explained Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Moores Cancer Center. Its similar to what were seeing now with dangerous cytokine storms that can result from infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Macrophages, and the cytokines they produce, are the bodys own immune-stimulating agents and when produced in excessive amounts, they do more harm than good.

Further observation revealed that the GIV protein works together with TLR4. Outside of the cell, TLR4 is like an antenna, searching for signs of invading pathogens. Inside the cell, GIV waits between the receptors two feet. When in place, GIV keeps the feet apart, and nothing happens. When GIV is removed, the TLR4 feet touch and sends off immune-stimulating signals.

We were surprised at just how fluid the immune system is when it encounters a pathogen, said Ghosh, who is also director of the Institute for Network Medicine and executive director of the HUMANOID Center of Research Excellence at UC San Diego School of Medicine. Macrophages dont need to waste time and energy producing more or less GIV protein, they can rapidly dial their response up or down simply by moving it around, and it appears that such regulation happens at the level of gene transcription.

The researchers are looking forward to investigating the factors that determine how the GIV brake remains in place when macrophages are resting or is removed to mount a response to a credible threat. The Institute for Network Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine recently received a $5 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health. Ghosh shares this award with her colleagues Debashis Sahoo, PhD, assistant professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Jacobs School of Engineering, and Soumita Das, PhD, associate professor of pathology at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

Read the original:
Protein That Pumps the Brakes on Macrophages in Immune Overreaction - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Early in the coronavirus outbreak, hospital data from China revealed a startling disparity: COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, was killing far more men than women.

That difference persisted in other Asian countries, such as South Korea, as well as in European countries, such as Italy. Then, it appeared in the United States.

By mid-October, the coronavirus had killed almost 17,000 more American men than women, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every 10 women claimed by the disease in the United States, 12 men have died, found an analysis by Global Health 50/50, a U.K.-based initiative to advance gender equality in health care.

That disparity was one of many alarming aspects of the new virus. It bewildered those unfamiliar with the role of gender in disease.

But the specialized group of researchers who study that relationship was not surprised. It prepared an array of hypotheses. One possible culprit was male behavior. Perhaps men were more likely to be exposed to the virus due to social factors; a disproportionately male workforce, for instance, could place more men in contact with infected people. Or men's lungs might be more vulnerable because they were more likely to smoke in the earliest countries to report the differences.

What has become more evident, 10 months into this outbreak, is that men show comparatively weaker immune responses to coronavirus infections, which may account for those added deaths.

"If you look at the data across the world, there are as many men as women that are infected. It's just the severity of disease that is stronger in most populations in men," Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, a Tulane University physician who studies gender differences in such diseases as diabetes. In such cases, biology can help explain why.

- The male immune response. Women generally have stronger immune systems, thanks to sex hormones, as well as chromosomes packed with immune-related genes. About 60 genes on the X chromosome are involved in immune function, Johns Hopkins University microbiologist Sabra Klein told The Washington Post in April. People with two X chromosomes can benefit from the double helping of some of those genes.

Akiko Iwasaki, who studies immune defenses against viruses at Yale University, wanted to see how sex differences might play out in coronavirus infections. She and her colleagues cast a proverbial net into the immune system to fish out schools of microscopic fighters.

"We did a holistic look at everything we can measure immunologically," Iwasaki said, listing a litany of the molecules and cells that form the body's bulwark against pathogens: "cytokines, chemokines, T cells, B cells, neutrophils. Everything that we had access to."

In male patients, the T-cell response was weaker, the scientists found. Not only do T cells detect infected cells and kill them, they also help direct the antibody response. "It's like a master regulator of immune response. And when you have a drop in T cells, or in their ability to become activated, you basically lose the conductor of an orchestra," Iwasaki said.

The power of the immune system wanes as people age, regardless of sex. But what is a gentle decline for women is an abrupt dive off a cliff for men: Iwasaki's work indicates the T-cell response of men in their 30s and 40s is equivalent to that of a woman in her 90s.

And T cells aren't the only immune feature disproportionately impaired in men. Another paper, published in September in PLOS Biology, examined anonymous human genetic material collected along with viruses in nasal swabs.

That study found throttled defense signals in men. When a cell detects a virus, it performs the molecular equivalent of yanking the fire alarm, said one of the study's author, Nicole Lieberman, a research scientist at the University of Washington. That alarm is manifest in genetic messengers, called RNA, which react almost immediately.

The reaction should cause cells to churn out the first lines of defense, such as interferons, immune system molecules that, as the name suggests, interfere with the virus's ability to reproduce. Other molecules summon specialized immune cells to destroy the pathogens. "You want the fire alarm to go off for long enough that you can get the fire department there," Lieberman said.

Lieberman and her co-authors, however, found that in men and some older populations, the fire alarm shuts off early - maybe even before the firefighters have arrived. "That, I think, is the functional consequence, potentially, of what we're seeing here," she said.

- Harmful autoantibodies. Not only is the immune system in men weaker, but in some severe cases of the coronavirus, it may hobble itself. A study of nearly 1,000 patients with life-threatening COVID-19, published in Science in September, found evidence of molecular self-sabotage. Immune system fighters were acting against the body's defenses, like rebellious castle guards splintering their own gates. This flaw was much more prevalent in men than women.

Specifically, the researchers detected what are called autoantibodies, molecules that bind and neutralize parts of the immune system. Those neutralizers disabled a subset of defender molecules known as type-1a interferon. Simply put, having autoantibodies led to more viral replication.

Ninety-five of 101 people with autoantibodies against interferon were male. "Somehow males are probably more prone to develop such autoantibodies, but we do not know why," said study author Petter Brodin, a pediatrician at Sweden's Karolinska Institute who studies the immune system.

Interferon molecules come in several types, so it's possible these patients could be treated with another flavor of interferon, Brodin said. But that may be difficult, he acknowledged, because interferons are most helpful early in the course of an infection, before the disease progresses to life-threatening stages.

The lack of killer T cells, coupled with neutralizing antibodies, is "like a double whammy," Iwasaki said, "that would then ultimately increase the viral load in these men."

What's unusual about this result is that most autoantibody immune disorders appear in women, as is the case with the chronic disease lupus.

Iwasaki's research is examining whether female immune systems may play a role in people with long-lasting COVID-19, nicknamed long-haulers.

"There are thousands of people suffering from chronic symptoms," which may be debilitating, Iwasaki said. Many long-haulers are young and the majority of them, though not all, are women.

- Men behaving differently.

Beyond these biological differences, it would be simplistic to ignore how gender's other aspects, such as behavior and social norms, may also influence the pandemic.

Broadly speaking, men may be less likely to be worried about COVID-19 than women, fitting the pattern that women generally treat health risks more seriously. Women took a more cautious approach to the disease, a recent poll found, expressing more concern they could return to workplaces safely. Women are also more likely to follow expert advice such as mask-wearing and social distancing, according to another study that included surveys and observations of pedestrians' behavior in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.

Sarah Hawkes, a professor of global public health at University College London who, with her husband, co-directs Global Health 50/50, said that the image of men as risk-takers extends back hundreds of years to John Graunt, one of the first people to participate in the field now known as epidemiology.

After he reviewed England's death records, Graunt postulated in 1662 that "men, being more intemperate then women, die as much by reason of their Vices" - that is, male behavior was to blame. Hawkes argues that "350 years later," Graunt's point still stands. "It is undoubtedly a mixture of both biology and behavior" responsible for the health differences in men and women, she said.

The share of coronavirus deaths in women also rises with their share of the full-time workforce, according to a report by University of Oxford economist Renee Adams that used Global Health 50/50 data.

"The more you have women participating in the workforce, the smaller your sex difference becomes," Hawkes said. That lines up with gender inequalities - men are more likely to work in environments where they are exposed to air pollution and other harms, Hawkes said. When women start to enter those traditionally masculine spaces, she said, it "turns out, women can get as sick as men."

The gender disparities discovered in the response to COVID-19 have sparked a surge of interest in such differences more broadly. "Almost nobody, apart from the people working in the field, were interested in that difference between men and women in disease until February or March," when the first results showed that more men were dying, Mauvais-Jarvis said.

Even agencies at the forefront of public health, such as the CDC, were initially slow to reveal sex-disaggregated coronavirus data, Hawkes said. The U.K. public health surveillance system was similarly late. Hawkes took those delays as a sign of just how unimportant people considered this data, since it is so readily available: When people die, their death certificates state whether they were male, female or, in some places, nonbinary.

The CDC data finally made that information accessible in mid-April. The male-skewed patterns revealed in those deaths conform to what was seen in earlier outbreaks of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), both within the family of coronaviruses. And it is in line with other viral responses. "We know that women develop much better antibody response to flu vaccines," Iwasaki said.

Some of those experts are hoping to capitalize on this moment to shine a spotlight on other gender differences in health. The coronavirus, after all, isn't the only problem to afflict men and women unequally - so, too, do cancer, asthma, heart disease and other common illnesses, as Mauvais-Jarvis noted in a recent paper in the Lancet.

"The kinds of differences that we're seeing and outcomes in COVID-19 are not unexpected. They're not exceptional," Hawkes said. If there's surprise, it only demonstrates the widespread underestimation of the differences in men and women that persist even among physicians, she said.

Mauvais-Jarvis referred to this faulty approach as "bikini medicine" - in which clinicians view female patients as interchangeable with male ones, except for the organs covered by swimwear.

The coronavirus has helped accelerate the trend away from that outdated view. The "one positive that's come out of the pandemic," Hawkes said, is the sudden realization that gendered social factors and biology "may have a relationship with your life expectancy, your experience with illness, your risk of illness. It has made that conversation a little bit more real."

View original post here:
Why is coronavirus killing more men than women? - theday.com

On Oct. 7, 2020, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Dr. Jennifer A. Doudna were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work in the field of gene editing. On top of breaking barriers as the first two women jointly awarded the chemistry prize, Charpentier and Doudnas recognition is a huge step forward for the controversial field of genetic engineering.

Humans have been practicing a form of genetic engineering ever since we started cultivating plants and livestock. Grafting two plants together dates back centuries in both the East and the West, and selective breeding was a staple technique used by even the earliest farmers. These techniques arent using advanced technology to target and change certain genes, but nevertheless the point of these exercises was to eliminate or diminish unwanted characteristics and promote the characteristics that the farmer found most useful. Wild cabbage was bred to create broccoli, brussel sprouts and domesticated cabbage. Cattle were bred to increase their edible volume. This was all uncontroversial, but it was all gene editing.

Today the techniques have changed, but the underlying mission has stayed the same: improve quality of life. Public opinion has shifted, however. Currently, more than half of adults in the U.S. believe that using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as a food source is worse for your health than using non-modified foods. Of those, 88 percent believe that GMO foods will lead to health problems for the general populace. There is no such thing as non-modified food, but there is a stigma against food modified in a lab.

Part of this bias may be due to the way direct modification was introduced in the 1950s. In order to increase variation in plants so that selective breeding could be done more efficiently, scientists bombarded plants with radiation. This process, known as mutation breeding, was part of an effort to discover a peaceful use for the nuclear knowledge that was proliferating in the aftermath of World War II. Radiation was poorly understood by the general public in the mid-20th century. The possibilities of mutation due to radiation caused imagination to run rampant over reality: 1954s Them! stars giant insects caused by nuclear testing in the area.

The 1957 film Beginning of the End has grasshoppers eat mutated plants and then grow to enormous sizes. Even some of the most famous pop culture characters that exist today were formulated along these lines. In 1961 the Fantastic Four were given their powers by cosmic radiation. Spider-Man has had eight movies over the last 20 years, and he was famously bitten by a radioactive spider. These examples dont insinuate that people really believed that radiation could produce superheroes and skyscraper-sized insects, but they do reflect a general fear of the unknown that the gene modification of radiation could produce.

Radiation is no longer the bugaboo of the modern day, but fear of radiation has been displaced by fear of targeted gene editing, like the Crispr-Cas9 technique pioneered by Charpentier and Doudna. Some of this fear may be well founded: Theres no definite way to know that a gene edited plant or animal wont act similar to an invasive species. Presumably freed from some ailment or deficit that was limiting its growth, it is possible that a plant may grow at a pace that is higher than wanted by its creators. Nature is a delicate balance, and intervening must be done in a reasonable way that weighs the potential costs and benefits.

Mosquito reduction or elimination may not seem to be a worthwhile risk for something with unknown side effects, but that initial intuition would be wrong. Malaria, a disease transmitted mainly through mosquito bites, kills around 400,000 people per year. Zika and West Nile virus, while less deadly, are also transmitted into the human populace via mosquito. No other creature kills humans at the rate of mosquitoes. Despite the environmental damage that may be wreaked by the adjustment of the other flora and fauna to a lack of mosquitoes, gene editing to reduce mosquito population is a clear path to saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

With this sort of benefit in mind, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Florida state government recently came to an agreement that will release over 750 million genetically modified mosquitoes into Florida. This is no small action and could potentially disrupt the entire food web of Florida, and possibly beyond.

The plan in Florida is to introduce a strain of Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes, a spreader of the Zika virus, that are genetically engineered so that their female offspring die off. Mosquitoes bite to extract human blood, and in this exchange mosquitoes can transfer any diseases they are carrying. Mosquitoes only bite so that they can extract iron and proteins in human blood and transfer it to the fertilized eggs that will be the next generation of that mosquitos bloodline. As such, the only mosquitoes that bite, and thus have the chance to transfer diseases, are adult females. The firm Oxitec produced a modified mosquito whose female offspring cant grow out of the larval stage. No adult females means no blood sucking, which means no disease transmission and no new mosquito larvae being produced.

A similar plan was executed in Brazil, where the Aedes Aegypti mosquito population was cut by 89 to 96 percent. With such a large reduction in mosquito population, the benefits move beyond that of just public health. Thousands of tracts of land would become more usable and see an increase in value if mosquitoes died out. Even day-to-day activities like gardening or talking walks could become much more pleasant in the absence of mosquitoes.

2020 has already shown the effects of disease and failures of public health. COVID-19 has killed over a million people; over the last 10 years, malaria has killed over four million. We have to live with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future, but gene editing has given us a tool to end malaria. Genetically modified mosquitoes should not end in Florida or with Aedes Aegypti: they should be of all species, placed all over the globe. For months the world has lived under a new biological terror. Its time we release a new biological salvation.

View original post here:
Genetic modification is ready to serve humanity The Miscellany News - Miscellany News

Reading is a learned skill; no one is born reading. But learning to read relies on inborn human capacities for language and speech. And dyslexia is ageneticcondition that compromises thesebrain networks.

Yet laypeople are convinced that dyslexia results from troubleswith vision. And these errors matter. A parent who holds these views might fail to recognize her childs difficulties with rhymes and pig Latin (both require phonemic awareness) as warning signs. So why are we so wrong about dyslexia? Why do we mistake dyslexia for word blindness?

At first blush, these misconceptions seem rather innocent; laypeople, by definition, arent reading experts, so perhaps they just dont know better. But aspiringteachers, with ample educational training, make similar mistakes. Moreover, the pattern of mistakes suggests a deeper problem.

While these biases are unconscious, they demonstrably veer off reasoning in numerous areas, from our irrational fascination with the brain to ourfear of artificial intelligence; our troubles with dyslexia, then, are but one of its many victims. To counter these errors, information alone wont sufficea real change requires that we take a hard look within.

Reading, then, rests on decoding in more ways than one. For children to successfully decode printed words, we must all improve our decoding of the human mind.

Read the original post

Originally posted here:
Dyslexia shows the inborn nature of visual imagining and cognition - Genetic Literacy Project

If I had to place money on a neurotech that will win the Nobel Prize, its optogenetics.

The technology uses light of different frequencies to control the brain. Its a brilliant mind-meld of basic neurobiology and engineering that hijacks the mechanism behind how neurons naturally activateor are silencedin the brain.

Thanks to optogenetics, in just ten years weve been able to artificially incept memories in mice, decipher brain signals that lead to pain, untangle the neural code for addiction, reverse depression, restore rudimentary sight in blinded mice, and overwrite terrible memories with happy ones. Optogenetics is akin to a universal programming language for the brain.

But its got two serious downfalls: it requires gene therapy, and it needs brain surgery to implant optical fibers into the brain.

This week, the original mind behind optogenetics is back with an update that cuts the cord. Dr. Karl Deisseroths team at Stanford University, in collaboration with the University of Minnesota, unveiled an upgraded version of optogenetics that controls behavior without the need for surgery. Rather, the system shines light through the skulls of mice, and it penetrates deep into the brain. With light pulses, the team was able to change how likely a mouse was to have seizures, or reprogram its brain so it preferred social company.

To be clear: were far off from scientists controlling your brain with flashlights. The key to optogenetics is genetic engineeringwithout it, neurons (including yours) dont naturally respond to light.

However, looking ahead, the study is a sure-footed step towards transforming a powerful research technology into a clinical therapy that could potentially help people with neurological problems, such as depression or epilepsy. We are still far from that visionbut the study suggests its science fiction potentially within reach.

To understand optogenetics, we need to dig a little deeper into how brains work.

Essentially, neurons operate on electricity with an additional dash of chemistry. A brain cell is like a living storage container with doorscalled ion channelsthat separate its internal environment from the outside. When a neuron receives input and that input is sufficiently strong, the cells open their doors. This process generates an electrical current, which then gallops down a neurons output brancha biological highway of sorts. At the terminal, the electrical data transforms into dozens of chemical ships, which float across a gap between neurons to deliver the message to its neighbors. This is how neurons in a network communicate, and how that network in turn produces memories, emotions, and behaviors.

Optogenetics hijacks this process.

Using viruses, scientists can add a gene for opsins, a special family of proteins from algae, into living neurons. Opsins are specialized doors that open under certain frequencies of light pulses, something mammalian brain cells cant do. Adding opsins into mouse neurons (or ours) essentially gives them the superpower to respond to light. In classic optogenetics, scientists implant optical fibers near opsin-dotted neurons to deliver the light stimulation. Computer-programmed light pulses can then target these newly light-sensitive neurons in a particular region of the brain and control their activity like puppets on a string.

It gets cooler. Using genetic engineering, scientists can also fine-tune which populations of neurons get that extra powerfor example, only those that encode a recent memory, or those involved in depression or epilepsy. This makes it possible to play with those neural circuits using light, while the rest of the brain hums along.

This selectivity is partially why optogenetics is so powerful. But its not all ponies and rainbows. As you can imagine, mice dont particularly enjoy being tethered by optical fibers sprouting from their brains. Humans dont either, hence the hiccup in adopting the tool for clinical use. Since its introduction, a main goal for next-generation optogenetics has been to cut the cord.

In the new study, the Deisseroth team started with a main goal: lets ditch the need for surgical implants altogether. Immediately, this presents a tough problem. It means that bioengineered neurons, inside a brain, need to have a sensitive and powerful enough opsin door that responds to lighteven when light pulses are diffused by the skull and brain tissue. Its like a game of telephone where one person yells a message from ten blocks away, through multiple walls and city noise, yet you still have to be able to decipher it and pass it on.

Luckily, the team already had a candidate, one so good its a ChRmine (bad joke cringe). Developed last year, ChRmine stands out in its shockingly fast reaction times to light and its ability to generate a large electrical current in neuronsabout a 100-fold improvement over any of its predecessors. Because its so sensitive, it means that even a spark of light, at its preferred wavelength, can cause it to open its doors and in turn control neural activity. Whats more, ChRmine rapidly shuts down after it opens, meaning that it doesnt overstimulate neurons but rather follows their natural activation trajectory.

As a first test, the team used viruses to add ChRmine to an area deep inside the brainthe ventral tegmental area (VTA), which is critical to how we process reward and addiction, and is also implicated in depression. As of now, the only way to reach the area in a clinical setting is with an implanted electrode. With ChRmine, however, the team found that a light source, placed right outside the mices scalp, was able to reliably spark neural activity in the region.

Randomly activating neurons with light, while impressive, may not be all that useful. The next test is whether its possible to control a mouses behavior using light from outside the brain. Here, the team added ChRmine to dopamine neurons in a mouse, which in this case provides a feeling of pleasure. Compared to their peers, the light-enhanced mice were far more eager to press a lever to deliver light to their scalpsmeaning that the light is stimulating the neurons enough for the mice to feel pleasure and work for it.

As a more complicated test, the team then used light to control a population of brain cells, called serotonergic cells, in the base of the brain, called the brainstem. These cells are known to influence social behaviorthat is, how much an individual enjoys social interaction. It gets slightly disturbing: mice with ChRmine-enhanced cells, specifically in the brainstem, preferred spending time in their test chambers social zone versus their siblings who didnt have ChRmine. In other words, without any open-brain surgery and just a few light beams, the team was able to change a socially ambivalent mouse into a friendship-craving social butterfly.

If youre thinking creepy, youre not alone. The study suggests that with an injection of a virus carrying the ChRmine geneeither through the eye socket or through veinsits potentially possible to control something as integral to a personality as sociability with nothing but light.

To stress my point: this is only possible in mice for now. Our brains are far larger, which means light scattering through the skull and penetrating sufficiently deep becomes far more complicated. And again, our brain cells dont normally respond to light. Youd have to volunteer for what amounts to gene therapywhich comes with its own slew of problemsbefore this could potentially work. So keep those tin-foil hats off; scientists cant yet change an introvert (like me) into an extrovert with lasers.

But for unraveling the inner workings of the brain, its an amazing leap into the future. So far, efforts at cutting the optical cord for optogenetics have come with the knee-capped ability to go deep into the brain, limiting control to only surface brain regions such as the cortex. Other methods overheat sensitive brain tissue and culminate in damage. Yet others act as 1990s DOS systems, with significant delay between a command (activate!) and the neurons response.

This brain-control OS, though not yet perfect, resolves those problems. Unlike Neuralink and other neural implants, the study suggests its possible to control the brain without surgery or implants. All you need is light.

Image Credit: othebo from Pixabay

More here:
Scientists Found a New Way to Control the Brain With LightNo Surgery Required - Singularity Hub

SEATTLE, Oct. 15, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- AGC Biologics, a leading global biopharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO), has announced a leadership update at the United States and Copenhagen facilities. The changes are being made to strengthen the strategic development and executive oversight of the rapid growing facilities in the US and Copenhagen, and are effective at the date of release, October 15, 2020.

Jeffrey D. Mowery will join the Global Executive Team in the role of Senior Vice President of US Operations, based at company headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Andrea C. Porchia will become the General Manager and Site Head for the Copenhagen Operation.

In his new position, Mr. Mowery will oversee the new Boulder, Colorado facility rollout and ensure that progress is maintained at the expanding Seattle site. Mr. Mowery draws on more than two decades of industry expertise in small molecule, biologic and cell and gene therapy production and technology transfer expertise to deliver quality in his work at AGC Biologics.

"In his most recent role as General Manager of the Copenhagen, Denmark facility, J.D. Mowery achieved a period of strong growth, even with today's challenges from the COVID pandemic. We believe the US sites, and ultimately our customers, will benefit from his leadership skills, results oriented approach and broad operational expertise in the same way that Copenhagen has," said Kasper Moller, CTO of AGC Biologics. He continued, "as part of this transition, Andrea C. Porchia has been promoted to General Manager of the Copenhagen site where her broad and deep biologics experience, and ability to effectively navigate all aspects of biomanufacturing and development will be an indispensable asset for the Copenhagen Site and to our valued customers."

Through more than seven years at AGC Biologics, Ms. Porchia has taken on increasing responsibilities, both at the Copenhagen site and globally as Project Director, Business Development Representative, Global Head of Project Management and now General Manager. She leverages more than two decades of research and process expertise to enhance business operations with a critical focus on project management and customer service.

To learn more about the AGC Biologics global network of facilities, please visit: http://www.agcbio.com/.

About AGC Biologics

AGC Biologics is a leading global biopharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) committed to delivering a high standard of service to solve complex customer challenges. The company is driven by innovation and continuously invests in technologies to complement decades of proven expertise in drug development and manufacturing, including working through FDA, PDMA and EMA approvals. A range of customizable bioprocessing services includes development and manufacturing of mammalian and microbial-based therapeutic proteins, protein expression, plasmid DNA (pDNA) support, antibody drug development and conjugation, viral vector production, genetic engineering of cells, cell line development with a proprietary CHEF1 Expression System, cell banking and storage.

AGC Biologics employs more than 1,400 professionals worldwide who are dedicated to supporting customers at all phases of development through to commercialization, with critical expertise in process development, formulation, and analytical testing. The global service network boasts locations in the United States at Seattle, Washington and Boulder, Colorado; across Europe in Copenhagen, Denmark; Heidelberg, Germany; Milan and Bresso, Italy; and in Asia at Chiba, Japan.

Learn more at http://www.agcbiologics.com, or find us on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/company/agcbiologics/ and Twitter @agcbiologics.

See the original post here:
AGC Biologics Shifts Leadership Structure at United States and Copenhagen Sites to Support the Continued Development and Growth of the Regions -...

CLAIM

Fabricated genetic sequences were used to support the hypothesis that the virus arose naturally

DETAILS

Inadequate support: The preprint by Yan et al. offers no evidence to support their claim that the genetic sequences of other coronavirus strains were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally.Incorrect: The fact that multiple coronavirus strains share highly similar or identical genetic or protein sequences is not evidence that those viruses were fabricated. Shared genetic or protein sequences is common among viruses that belong to the same family and indicates their evolutionary relatedness.

KEY TAKE AWAY

There is no evidence supporting the claim by Yan et al. that genetic sequences of several coronaviruses were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally. The presence of highly similar or identical gene and protein sequences are common among organisms that are evolutionarily related to each other. Therefore, it is expected that members of the coronavirus family share similar or identical genetic or protein features. Scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the virus arose naturally in wildlife before it crossed over to humans.

REVIEW Uncertainty surrounding the origin of the novel coronavirus has provided fertile ground for breeding conspiracy theories, some of which Health Feedback previously found to be inaccurate and unsubstantiated (see here and here). The recent claim by virologist Li-Meng Yan that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is manmade is the latest in a long series of conspiracy theories stretching back to the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.

On 14 September 2020, Yan and her colleagues published a preprint on the online repository Zenodo claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a product of genetic engineering. A preprint is a research paper that has not been peer-reviewed by other scientists yet. Experts who examined the preprint found it was highly flawed and provided no supporting evidence for their claims, as detailed in this Health Feedback review.

Yan et al. published a second preprint on 8 October 2020 claiming that the virus is an unrestricted bioweapon and alleging that the genetic sequences of ten other coronaviruses are fabricated and do not exist in nature. Contrary to this claim, these ten coronaviruses, including RaTG13which is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 and has about 96% genome sequence identity to SARS-CoV-2[1]and some pangolin coronaviruses, were analyzed by other scientists and found to support the natural origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2[2-7]. The second preprint from Yan et al. received more than 130,000 views on Zenodo since it was published, and was promoted by outlets known for publishing misinformation, such as Zero Hedge and National Pulse.

The alleged motivation for fabricating genetic sequences is related to one of the primary claims by Yan et al., specifically that the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2. In support of this claim, Yan et al. point to the 100% identity in the envelope (E) protein sequence that exists between these three viruses. The E protein is a small protein on the surface of the membrane that encloses the viral genome and is important for producing virus particles that can efficiently infect cells[8].

Firstly, the claim that the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone to artificially create SARS-CoV-2 was presented in the first preprint by Yan et al. This claim was debunked by scientists, who pointed out that the genetic sequences of ZC45 and ZXC21 are very different to that of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the virus ZC45 is only 89% related to SARS-CoV-2, said Stanley Perlman, a professor at the University of Iowa who studies coronaviruses, in this FactCheck.org article:

Perlman said it would be nearly impossible to make the reverse genetics system needed to manipulate the virus and changing its sequence to arrive at SARS-CoV-2 would be virtually impossible since it would not be known how to manipulate the virus.

Kristian Andersen, a professor at Scripps Research who studies the evolution of viruses including SARS-CoV-2, also pointed out the incongruency of the claim on Twitter: This simply cant be true there are more than 3,500 nucleotide differences between SARS-CoV-2 and these viruses.

Marvin Reitz, a virologist at the University of Maryland, put it more bluntly in his review of the first preprint: [I]t still would require more than 3,000 nucleotide substitutions [for ZC45] to become SARS-CoV-2. This is not even slightly credible; it beggars reason.

A response by scientists at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security also provides a detailed rebuttal of the claims made by Yan et al. in their first preprint. It also highlights the implausible use of ZC45 and ZXC21 as the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2.

In short, ZC45 and ZXC21 are very different from SARS-CoV-2 in terms of genome identity. Altering a backbone from either of the two to transform it into the genome of SARS-CoV-2 would require a feat of genetic engineering that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish with current technology.

Based on their spurious initial assumption that ZC45 and ZXC21 provided the genetic backbone for SARS-CoV-2, Yan et al. claim that the genetic sequences of RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses were fabricated to obscure the link between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, and that RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses do not exist. To support this claim, they point to the observation that all these viruses also have an E protein sequence that is 100% identical to that of ZC45 and ZXC21.

The argument by Yan et al. that the genetic sequences of some coronaviruses were fabricated to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally does not hold up to scrutiny. In a Business Insider interview, Emma Hodcroft, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Basel and co-developer of the Nextstrain project that studies the evolution of pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, pointed out that most of the samples that Yans group says are fake predate the start of the pandemic. Hodcroft also explained:

This accusation implies there were years of coordination and fake sequence generation, Hodcroft said, adding: This is an incredible claim, and would require a significant evidence burden to back it up, which is missing from the paper.

Virologists have also analyzed the genome sequence of RaTG13 and found it to be authentic and supported by good-quality data.

Although some coronaviruses share certain identical genetic sequences with SARS-CoV-2, this is not evidence that the other coronaviruses were fabricated. Instead, similar or identical genetic and protein sequences of coronaviruses are evidence of their evolutionary relatedness, which is expected since these viruses all belong to the coronavirus family. Specifically, the E protein sequence of SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, and the other coronaviruses analyzed in the preprint by Yan et al. are indeed identical to that of ZC45 and ZXC21, but this in itself does not indicate that the RaTG13 and the other coronaviruses were fabricated to mimic the E protein sequence of ZC45 and ZXC21.

Lastly, one feature of concern in both preprints by Yan and her co-authors is the listing of their affiliations as the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation. These two organizations have no prior experience in conducting biological research and are linked to Stephen Bannon and Wengui Guo, both of whom have published COVID-19 misinformation in the past.

Overall, the claims in the second preprint by Yan and her colleagues are as ill-founded as the claims made in their first preprint. Evidence supporting claims that the virus was engineered is lacking. In contrast, scientific analyses support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally in wildlife before crossing over to humans during a zoonotic infection (transmission of pathogens from animals/insects to humans). There are numerous examples of emerging zoonotic pathogens causing disease outbreaks throughout human history and across the world[9].

Original post:
No evidence that coronavirus genetic sequences were fabricated, contrary to preprint by Li-Meng Yan and colleagues - Health Feedback