StemCell Therapy

Most people are aware that testing for antibodies in a persons blood can show if someone has had a specific disease, such as COVID-19. Those antibodies provide protection from getting the disease again.

But in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that antibody levels decline in individuals who have recovered from COVID-19, dropping by half every 36 days. Does that mean people who have recovered from COVID-19 have lost their immunity?

I am a geneticist interested in innate immune response the part of the immune system that we have at birth and how the innate immune cells educate antibody-producing cells about a pathogen and how to identify and destroy it. As Ill explain, antibodies are important for immunity, but they arent the only factor that counts.

The immune system is made up of two parts: innate immunity and adaptive or acquired immunity.

The innate immune system, which includes white blood cells called dendritic cells, monocytes and neutrophils, is present at birth and responds instantly to invaders. This group of white blood cells bombard pathogens with destructive chemicals and swallow and destroy viruses and bacteria. The innate immune system provides an instantaneous reaction to a pathogen. The problem is that its a blunt instrument it responds the same way to all perceived threats.

The adaptive immune system, which is made up of B cells and T cells, must learn about a pathogen and its characteristics from the innate immune cells. This system takes longer to kick in, but the up side is that it is very specific and in many cases lasts a lifetime.

The history of pathogen exposure is carried in so-called memory T cells and memory B cells. When an infection is defeated and gone, these cells reside in the peripheral tissues of the body such as lymph nodes or spleen and serve as a memory of the disease-causing virus. This immunological memory is responsible for the host defense and kicks into action in case of the second wave or attack of the pathogen.

It is normal for antibody levels to decline after a person has recovered from a disease. But the New England Journal of Medicine paper raised concerns because it suggests that we are losing our immunological memory which is as bad as losing a real memory.

B cells and antibodies are only part of the immune response. T cells help B cells produce antibodies which are proteins that can bind to a specific pathogen and destroy it.

The way this happens is that first the B cells swallow the virus and start producing antibodies.

T cells cannot swallow the virus. But a type of white blood cell called an antigen-presenting cell can. After it does, it shows different parts of the virus to the T cells. The T cells then learn about the virus which they can now seek and destroy.

T cells also stick to the B cells and send them the activation signals that help B cells ramp up antibody production.

It suggests that when there are fewer antibodies in the blood, there is a greater chance that a number of individual virus particles, called virions, will survive and escape destruction. Therefore, the remaining virions will continue to proliferate and cause disease.

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

Herd immunity refers to a population and occurs when a sufficiently high number of people within a community are immune to the virus and incapable of transmitting it. That provides protection for those who are still vulnerable. For example, if 60% of people are protected against COVID because they have survived the infection and carry antibodies it might protect (via less frequent interactions) the remaining 40% from getting sick.

But the results in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest that people with lower levels of antibody may still have the virus and may not have symptoms of the disease.

That means that if these people with low antibody levels hang around healthy, uninfected people, they present a danger to them because they can transmit the virus.

In general, the answer is no. If the virus attempts to cause a second infection, the memory B and T cells are able to recognize it, multiply million of times and defend the body against the virus, preventing it from triggering another full-blown infection.

The protection provided by memory T and B cells is the reason that vaccine-based protection works.

However, there are exceptions. A lifelong vaccine against the flu does not work because flus genetic code changes rapidly, altering the appearance of the flu, and therefore requires a new vaccine every season.

But with SARS-CoV-2, the problem as I see it, seems to be that those memory T cells and B cells seem to be wiped out.

Antibodies are proteins and last for only between three and four weeks in the blood circulation. To keep antibody levels high, B cells need to replenish them with a fresh supply. But in COVID-19, the declining antibody levels suggest that the cells that produce these antibodies are not present in sufficient numbers, which would explain the drop in antibody levels. Studies of how long immunity from COVID-19 last may shed more light, but for now we do not know the reason why.

Here is the original post:
Declining antibodies and immunity to COVID-19 why the worry? - The Conversation US

Something that gave me an even greater incentive to write my book, The 21 Day Immunity Plan, was the premature deaths of two family members who suffered and died because of a compromised immune system.

My older brother, Amit, died of a virus that affected his heart at the age of 13. Born with Downs syndrome, his compromised immune system was genetic and there was little that could have been done to prevent his death from crashing heart failure when he caught a tummy bug that most people would have been able to fight off.

The second was my mother, who over the four-week period of her final admission to hospital endured indescribable pain from an infection that affected her spine. Her compromised immune system was almost entirely rooted in lifestyle choices. Because the NHS was already overstretched, a heart attack was missed, treatment was delayed and she gasped for breath as fluid engulfed her lungs. Eventually she slipped into a coma as the infection spread through her body, and she passed away aged only 68.

Beyond my observations as a medical scientist and my duties as a clinical doctor to share knowledge on the link between metabolic health and immunity, I wrote my book from the perspective and motivation of someone who has had to deal with all the emotion and sadness of seeing a close family member die well before their time and in the most horrible of circumstances. No one needs to suffer like she did and no family member should have to witness it.

What Covid-19 has also done is expose areas in our health systems and personal well-being that have long been neglected, and which in themselves have made us more vulnerable to such a particularly pernicious virus. But in spite of the tragedy, the disturbing statistics and heartbreaking stories that have collectively gripped the world, we can draw from the lessons the virus has taught us and look to a brighter future.

The 21-day immunity plan is one that involves nutritious food, helps to regulate and reduce inflammation, combats insulin resistance and improves overall metabolic health. It should be enjoyable and be in keeping with all cultures and personal preferences.

It will help you to:

Over the course of the three weeks, you will follow an eating plan, you will be required to move your body daily, carry out breathing exercises, monitor and improve your sleep habits and be seeking to reduce your stress and improve your mental well-being by making a concerted effort to nurture and celebrate time with friends and family.

Please note that if you suffer from type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease and more specifically are taking medications, you must consult your doctor before starting the 21-day plan, as medication is likely to need adjusting/reducing and may potentially need to be stopped altogether.

We know that prolonged sitting and being more sedentary in general increases the risk of heartdisease, high bloodpressure and type 2 diabetes.

Regular cardiovascular exercise has the strongest evidence base when it comes to reducing the risk of many diseases. It has even been shown to significantly reduce insulin resistance within three months for those who start off with a sedentary lifestyle, even without weight loss.

Throughout the three weeks of this plan, I want you to go for a brisk walk for at least 30 minutes on five days each week. Subjectively, this is where you feel a bit out of breath to the point youre able to have a conversation but youll find it difficult to sing.

If you want to be very precise, then measuring your heart rateprovides a more objective measure of activity intensity.

You want to aim to get your heart rate within a range of 50 to 70 per cent ofyour maximum, which isrelated to your age. Thereason for this heart-rate range is based on numerous studies which reveal beneficial physiological changes in thebody startto occur once you exerciseat this level, including reduced insulinresistance.

See original here:
The 21-day plan to support your immune system and help fight off infections - Telegraph.co.uk

By: New York Times | Published: August 28, 2020 9:31:47 amThe two studies, which involved the same group of elite runners, swimmers, wrestlers, cyclists and other athletes, suggest that intense training amplifies our vaccine response. (PTI/File)

Written by Gretchen Reynolds

Two new studies of elite athletes found that working out amplifies the immune response to a flu shot.

If you are an athlete, you may gain greater immunity from a flu shot than people who are less active, according to two complementary and timely new studies of exercise and vaccinations. The two studies, which involved the same group of elite runners, swimmers, wrestlers, cyclists and other athletes, suggest that intense training amplifies our vaccine response, a finding with particular relevance now, as the flu season looms and scientists work to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.

Having an immune system primed to clobber infections and respond robustly to vaccinations is obviously desirable now, during the ongoing pandemic. And in general, exercise aids immunity, most science shows. People who work out often and moderately tend to catch fewer colds and other viruses than sedentary people. More immediately, if you exercise your arm in the hours before a flu shot, you likely willdevelop a stronger antibody responsethan if you rest that arm, a few small studies indicate.

But there have also been suggestions that under certain circumstances, exercise may dampen the immune response. Some epidemiological research and personal stories from athletes hint that intense, exhausting exercise might be detrimental to immunity in the short term.Marathon racers, for example, report catching colds at disproportionately high rates soon after a race, although some physiologists suspect thesepost-race respiratory problems are inflammatory, not infectious.

The upshot, though, is that many questions have remained unanswered about whether and how strenuous workouts affect immunity and our bodies ability to respond favorably to a vaccination, such as the seasonal flu shot.

So, for the new studies, scientists from Saarland University in Germany and other institutions decided to convince a large group of competitive athletes to get vaccinated, an effort more difficult than most of us might expect. In surveys, elite athletes tend to report relatively low rates of vaccination for the flu and other conditions, since many worry the shot will cause side effects that affect their training.

But the researchers managed to recruit 45 fit, young, elite athletes, male and female. Their sports ranged from endurance events, like the marathon, to power sports, including wrestling and hammer throw, to team sports, such as basketball and badminton. All of the volunteers were in the middle of their competitive seasons during the studies.

For the first of the two experiments involving these athletes, which waspublished in January in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, the researchers hoped to establish whether being an athlete and having an athletes outsized fitness would goose or impede the young peoples immune reaction to a flu shot. So, the scientists also recruited an additional 25 young people who were healthy but not athletes to serve as a control group. They drew blood from everyone.

Afterward, all of the young people received a flu shot and kept notes about any side effects they felt, such as a sore arm. The groups returned to the lab for follow-up blood draws a week, two weeks and six months after the vaccination. Then the researchers checked their blood for anti-influenza immune cells and antibodies.

They found significantly more of those cells in the athletes blood, especially in the week after the shot, when everyones cellular reactions peaked. The athletes showed a more pronounced immune response, with presumably better protection against flu infection than the other young people, says Martina Sester, an immunologist at Saarland University and study co-author.

The researchers speculate that the athletes immune systems had been strengthened and fine-tuned by the daily physical demands and damages of training, allowing them to respond so effectively to the vaccine.

But those results, while notable, did not look at the acute effects of exercise and whether a single, intense workout might alter the bodys reactions to a vaccine, for better or worse. So, for the second of the new studies, which waspublished in July in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, the scientists returned to the same data, but focused now only on the immune reactions of the athletes.

They compared the numbers of immune cells and antibodies in those athletes who happened to have gotten their flu shot within two hours of their most recent training session against those of athletes whose shot had come a day after their last workout. If intense training blunted immune reactions, then the first group of athletes would be expected to show fewer new immune cells than those who had gotten their shot after a longer rest.

But the researchers found no differences. Whether the athletes inoculations came almost immediately after training or a day later, their immune reactions were the same. A strenuous workout beforehand had not lowered or boosted the response.

Together, the two studies tell us that being in shape is likely to increase our protection from a vaccination, no matter how intensely or when we work out before the shot, Sester says.

Of course, these studies focused on elite, competitive athletes, which most of us are not. But Sester believes even more-casual recreational athletes are likely to mount better flu-vaccine responses than sedentary people. Likewise, she and her colleagues expect high fitness should improve immune responses to other vaccines, including, potentially, a COVID-19 shot.

The basic principles of vaccine response are probably the same, she says. Future studies will have to confirm that possibility, though, if and when a vaccine becomes available.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Coronavirus Outbreak News, download Indian Express App.

Go here to see the original:
Exercise may boost your vaccine response - The Indian Express

Amid this week's news that a man in Hong Kong was reinfected with the novel coronavirus, STAT News Hellen Branswell asked health experts to predict how different types of immunity to the novel coronavirus, or a lack thereof, could dictate what a future with the virus would look like.

Researchers have been working to understand whether exposure to the novel coronavirus could protect people from future infection. Questions regarding immunity to the coronavirus haven't yet been answered definitively, but researchers have pointed to some preliminary evidence suggesting that people infected with the virus develop antibodies and other immune responses that could protect them against reinfection for at least several months to potentially a few years.

However, some health care providers have reported cases in which patients appeared to become reinfected with the virus. And on Monday, researchers in Hong Kong confirmed the first documented case of novel coronavirus reinfection. According to the researchers, a 33-year-old man who was first diagnosed with a novel coronavirus in March, and who had recovered from that infection, was later infected with a different strain of the virus that had been spreading throughout Europe in July and August.

That case has spurred even more questions about the type of immunity people may develop to the novel coronavirus, Branswell reports. Recently, she asked health experts to predict how different types of immunity to the virus, or a lack thereof, could dictate what a future with the virus would look like, and Vineet Menachery, a coronavirus researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch, came up with four different scenarios that are quite "hopeful," Branswell writes. However, she cautions that the scenarios described are merely "educated guesses, based on what's known about the way the immune system works in general, and how it responds to other coronaviruses."

Sterilizing immunity

The best-case scenario, Branswell writes, would be so-called "sterilizing immunity," which can fight off a virus "before infection can take hold."

According to Branswell, this type of immunity usually occurs when the body incurs a pathogen that induces strong and durable immune responses during initial infection, such as measles. But unfortunately for the current crisis, respiratory viruses that infect the mucus membranes in the nose and throatsuch as the novel coronavirusdon't usually result in sterilizing immunity.

"Sterilizing [immunity] in my view is out of the question, as with any respiratory virus," said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Stanley Perlman, a researcher at the University of Iowa, seemingly agreed, noting it was "not so likely" the novel coronavirus will induce sterilizing immunity.

The low likelihood that infection from the coronavirus can induce sterilizing immunity has raised concerns that a vaccine against the virus wouldn't be able to generate sterilizing immunity, either, Branswell writes. It's also sparked concerns that a vaccine wouldn't prevent the virus' spreadeven though it might reduce the severity of Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

"[W]e'd all like immunity that protects the individualprotects from infection and protects from transmission," said Malik Peiris, a coronavirus expert at Hong Kong University, but "[w]e may not achieve that, because protecting from infection of the upper respiratory tract and then transmission is quite a challenge."

Functional immunity

However, one type of immune response that may be "within reach," according to Branswell, is "functional immunity," which occurs when a body recognizes a pathogen, either due to a previous infection or vaccination. While people who develop this type of immunity could become reinfected with the pathogen at a later date, they would experience a milder, shorter infection.immunity, immunity, people who

"It may be possible to become infected again, without any change in the virus," said Christian Drosten, director of the Institute of Virology at Berlins Charit University Hospital. But "[t]he resulting infection will be mild or asymptomatic, with significantly lower levels of virus replication and onward transmission."

So ultimately, even though there would still be cases of coronavirus infection and Covid-19, the disease "won't have the impact it has now" under this immunity scenario, Peiris said. "It becomes manageable."

And, according to the experts, the immune responses we've seen so far to the novel coronavirus are in line with what they'd expect to see under this scenarioincluding in the recent Hong Kong case. While the man in that case experienced symptoms of Covid-19 during his first infection, he reportedly didn't experience Covid-19 symptoms during the second infection.

For his part, Menachery said he thinks it's likely that most people will develop functional immunity to the novel coronavirus.

"The idea there is that, yes, your antibodies might wane, but your memory responses aren't absent," he said. "I'm a believer that if you've gotten Covid-19, then your likelihood of dying from a second Covid-19 case is very low, if you maintain immunity."

And if people who are reinfected experience a lesser infection, they might also generate lower levels of the virus, meaning they could be less likely to pass it on, Branswell reports. "It may become a rare infection, although that is difficult to foresee given the size of the global population," Koopmans said.

In addition, children, who appear less likely to develop severe cases of Covid-19 than adults, might never experience a severe case of the disease after developing functional immunity over their lifetimes. "I think that's kind of how, in the long run, it would play out without the intervention of vaccines," Krammer said. "I think with vaccines, we just basically speed up that process."

However, experts warned of one big question regarding this type of immunity: Whether and to what extent people whose first infections did not result in symptoms of Covid-19, or who had very mild cases, would develop this longer-lasting immune response. Perlman was cautiously hopeful, saying he would hypothesize that such individuals would have sufficient protection against severe cases of the disease.

Waning immunity

The third scenario involves a variant of functional immunity called "waning immunity," Branswell writes, in which people who have been infected with or vaccinated against the novel coronavirus could experience a decreased level of protection over time. According to Branswell, this type of immune response is seen with four coronaviruses that cause common colds and can reinfect people "after a relatively short period of time."

For example, one Dutch study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, measured antibody levels for those four coronaviruses in 10 people for decades and "saw frequent reinfections at 12 months postinfection and substantial reduction in antibody levels as soon as six months postinfection," the researchers wrote.

Lia van der Hoek from Amsterdam University Medical Center, a senior author of the study, said she thinks waning immunity is the most likely immune response for people infected with the novel coronavirus.

But, she added, "It is completely unknown what the symptoms will be when reinfection occurs. This could be less, or worse, or equal. We scientists cannot make a prediction on that."

For his part, Menachery said he believes that, even if immunity faded over time, the reinfections would still be less severe. "You will never get as sick as you were the first time," Menachery said.

Lost immunity

A more dire scenario, according to Branswell, would be so-called "lost immunity," in which people who have previously been infected with the coronavirus lose immunity against the virus within a certain timeframeafter which point, any reinfection could be as severe as the first.

However, Branswell writes that "[n]one of the experts felt this was a possibility."

Menachery said people who "generate a response to clear the virus" will likely "maintain that immunity long term." However, he added that, for "people with mild or asymptomatic infection, it may not be lost immunity, but rather no immunity generated."

And overall, Branswell writes, if lost immunity is unlikely, then we will probably see the threat of Covid-19 decrease over time. "Our immune systems will know how to deal with" the novel coronavirus, she writes. "It could become the fifth human coronavirus to cause common colds."

But Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, warned that it might take a long time to reach such a point. According to Barouch, the majority of the world's population has yet to be exposed to the novel coronavirusand vaccinating everyone in the world could take years.

Further, Barouch added that it's unlikely only one of these immunity scenarios would occur. He explained that immunity often depends on a person's immune system, as well as the nature of their exposure to a pathogen. "The short answer is we don't know. So, anyone who gives you a scenario is providing a hypothesis," he said (Branswell, STAT News, 8/25).

Original post:
What does 'immunity' to Covid-19 really mean? Here are 4 possibilities. - The Daily Briefing

The severity of COVID-19 can vary hugely. In some it causes no symptoms at all and in others its life threatening, with some people particularly vulnerable to its very severe impacts.

The virus disproportionately affects men and people who are older and who have conditions such as diabetes and obesity. In the UK and other western countries, ethnic minorities have also been disproportionately affected.

While many factors contribute to how severely people are affected, including access to healthcare, occupational exposure and environmental risks such as pollution, its becoming clear that for some of these at-risk groups, its the response of their immune system inflammation that explains why they get so sick.

Specifically, were seeing that the risks associated with diabetes, obesity, age and sex are all related to the immune system functioning irregularly when confronted by the virus.

Inflammation can go too far

A common feature for many patients that get severe COVID is serious lung damage caused by an overly vigorous immune response. This is characterised by the creation of lots of inflammatory products called cytokines the so-called cytokine storm.

Cytokines can be really powerful tools in the immune response: they can stop viruses reproducing, for example. However, some cytokine actions such as helping bring in other immune cells to fight an infection or enhancing the ability of these recruited cells to get across blood vessels can cause real damage if they are not controlled. This is exactly what happens in a cytokine storm.

Many white blood cells create cytokines, but specialised cells called monocytes and macrophages seem to be some of the biggest culprits in generating cytokine storms. When properly controlled, these cells are a force for good that can detect and destroy threats, clear and repair damaged tissue, and bring in other immune cells to help.

However, in severe COVID the way monocytes and macrophages work misfires. And this is particularly true in patients with diabetes and obesity.

Diabetes, if not controlled well, can result in high levels of glucose in the body. A recent study showed that, in COVID, macrophages and monocytes respond to high levels of glucose with worrying consequences.

The virus that causes COVID, SARS-CoV-2, needs a target to latch onto in order to invade our cells. Its choice is a protein on the cell surface called ACE2. Glucose increases the levels of ACE2 present on macrophages and monocytes, helping the virus infect the very cells that should be helping to kill it.

Cytokines, small proteins released by a number of immune cells, play a key role in directing the immune response.

Image: scientificanimations.com

Once the virus is safely inside these cells, it causes them to start making lots of inflammatory cytokines effectively kick-starting the cytokine storm. And the higher the levels of glucose, the more successful the virus is at replicating inside the cells essentially the glucose fuels the virus.

But the virus isnt done yet. It also causes the virally infected immune cells to make products that are very damaging to the lung, such as reactive oxygen species. And on top of this, the virus reduces the ability of other immune cells lymphocytes to kill it.

Obesity also causes high levels of glucose in the body and, similar to diabetes, affects macrophage and monocyte activation. Research has shown that macrophages from obese individuals are an ideal place for SARS-CoV-2 to thrive.

Other risks tied to inflammation

The same sort of inflammatory profile that diabetes and obesity cause is also seen in some older people (those over 60 years). This is due to a phenomenon known as inflammageing.

Inflammageing is characterised by having high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Its influenced by a number of factors, including genetics, the microbiome (the bacteria, viruses and other microbes that live inside and on you) and obesity.

Many older people also have fewer lymphocytes the very cells that can specifically target and destroy viruses.

This all means that for some older people, their immune system is not only poorly equipped to fight off an infection, but it is also more likely to lead to a damaging immune response. Having fewer lymphocytes also means vaccines may not work as well, which is crucial to consider when planning a future COVID vaccine campaign.

Irregular inflammatory responses are emerging as a common theme across the different risk factors for severe COVID.

Image: EPA-EFE

Another puzzle that has been worrying researchers is why men seem so much more vulnerable to COVID. One reason is that cells in men seem to be more readily infected by SARS-CoV-2 than women. The ACE2 receptor that the virus uses to latch onto and infect cells is expressed much more highly in men than women. Men also have higher levels of an enzyme called TMPRSS2 that promotes the ability of the virus to enter the cells.

Immunology is also offering some clues on the sex difference. Its long been known that men and women differ in their immune responses, and this is true in COVID.

A recent pre-print (research that has not yet been reviewed) has tracked and compared the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in men and women over time. It found that men were more likely to develop atypical monocytes that were profoundly pro-inflammatory and capable of making cytokines typical of a cytokine storm. Women also tended to have a more robust T cell response, which is needed for effective virus killing. However, increased age and having a higher body mass index reversed the protective immune effect in women.

Studies like these highlight how different people are. The more we understand about these differences and vulnerabilities, the more we can consider how best to treat each patient. Data like these also highlight the need to consider variation in immune function and include people of varied demographics in drug and vaccine trials.

Originally posted here:
How does the immune response affect inflammation in COVID-19 patients? - World Economic Forum

NEW YORK, Aug. 27, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The GlobalSterile Filtration Marketis expected to reach USD 8.48 Billion by 2027, according to a new report by Reports and Data. Sterile filtration finds usage in the removal of contaminants and particulates from fluids comprising media with or without buffers, serum, reagents, biologic or proteinaceous samples, or other types of fluids. Filtration through a pore size of 0.2 m is essential to get a sterile filtrate by filtering particles and germs from fluids (liquids and gases) to prevent them from contaminating the end-products. As per the GMP guidelines and the guidelines by the (FDA), producers are required to perform a filter integrity test at the pre and post-production cycle. The test confirms that the filter is completely functional and that no undesirable components got through it.

Biopharmaceuticals products normally cannot be terminally sterilized, and thus it is crucial to use sterile grade filters in aseptic processing. Application of heat sterilization or any other process in biopharmaceutical drug products results in unwanted degradation of the product. Sterilizing membrane filtration frequently necessitated reducing the levels of bioburden within process streams to prevent the potential formation of biofilm. Further, to ascertain that the sterile filtered products uphold the pure form, a growing number of firms, especially the firms in the pharmaceutical sector, are deploying disposable process solutions to store or process the subsequent filtrate.

Request free sample of this research report at: https://www.reportsanddata.com/sample-enquiry-form/3464

The growing use of sterile filtration in the food & beverage industry, especially in breweries, is playing an instrumental role in driving market growth. Recent researches uphold the use of sterile filtration as the most appropriate method for brewers for controlling microbial hazards. Even though beer is alcoholic, acidic, anaerobic, and comprises hop compounds that ply the role of preservatives, certain microorganisms can survive in the chemical environment and thrive on rich nutrients present in beer. These kinds of microorganisms may result in beer spoilage forming a haze or sedimentation, a rancid/sour flavor, and over-carbonation, thus requiring the need for sterile filtration.

COVID-19 Impact Analysis

As global economies are experiencing the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, organizations are suffering losses, among various other challenges. Nevertheless, firms in the pharmaceutical industry are of immense importance in combatting the pandemic and are witnessing positive growth in the contagious disease landscape with the race for treatment approval therapy gaining momentum.

Biopharmaceutical companies are playing a significant role in human response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Various leading biotech companies are studying the genome to prepare a feasible vaccine for its treatment. Growing investments in R&D activities for making the vaccine are fuelling the growth of the sterile filtration market.

To identify the key trends in the industry, click on the link below: https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/sterile-filtration-market

Further key findings from the report suggest

Order Now: https://www.reportsanddata.com/checkout-form/3464

For the purpose of this report, Reports and Data has segmented the Global Sterile Filtration Market on the basis of type, membrane type, application, end-user, and region:

TypeOutlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

Membrane TypeOutlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

ApplicationOutlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

End-UserOutlook (Revenue, USD Million; 2017-2027)

Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million;2017-2027)

Have a Look at Similar Research Reports:

Laboratory Filtration Market- Filtration is a technique that is used to separate solids from liquids or solution by interposing a filter medium through which solutions or liquids can pass.

Virus Filtration Market - increasing emphasis and growing investment in R&D activities in the biotechnology sector, there has been an elevated demand for virus filtration.

Gene Expression Market - Gene expression is the method that refers to the process of measuring the activity of genes in order to comprehend the cellular functions.

In vivo CRO Market - Shifting of preference of pharmaceutical industries toward the outsourcing clinical and preclinical trials to focus on their core business, increasing frequency of outsourcing R&D activities.

Protein Engineering Market- Protein engineering is an emerging field that involves synthesis of new proteins as well as amendment in the existing protein structures that ultimately helps to achieve desired functions.

3D Cell Culture Market- The growth is mainly contributed by the government and non-government investments for cancer research & development, coupled with large scale end users for stem cell research.

About Reports and Data

Reports and Data is a market research and consulting company that provides syndicated research reports, customized research reports, and consulting services. Our solutions purely focus on your purpose to locate, target and analyze consumer behavior shifts across demographics, across industries and help client's make a smarter business decision. We offer market intelligence studies ensuring relevant and fact-based research across a multiple industries including Healthcare, Technology, Chemicals, Power and Energy. We consistently update our research offerings to ensure our clients are aware about the latest trends existent in the market. Reports and Data has a strong base of experienced analysts from varied areas of expertise.

Contact Us:John WHead of Business DevelopmentReports And Data | Web: http://www.reportsanddata.com Direct Line: +1-212-710-1370 E-mail: [emailprotected] LinkedIn | Twitter | Blogs

Read full Press Release at :https://www.reportsanddata.com/press-release/global-sterile-filtration-market

SOURCE Reports And Data

See the article here:
Sterile Filtration Market To Reach USD 8.48 Billion By 2027 | CAGR: 7.7% | Reports And Data - PRNewswire

During a virtual Case Based Peer Perspectives event, Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Leukemia, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, discussed testing and the treatment options for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), based on the a case of 71-year-old female patient.

Targeted OncologyTM: What testing would you order to confirm diagnosis if you saw this patient in the clinic?

BURGER: We need to establish the diagnosis by flow cytometry and then we would do, at a minimum, FISH cytogenetics and, ideally, the mutational status. Cytogenetics can change, butmutational status usually doesnt change. If thats been established somewhere outside [of your clinic], then you dont have to repeat that test.

Its important to repeat cytogenetics if you talk about the relapse setting. But here, were treating in the frontline setting, and she was tested. She was found to be IGHV unmutated and [positivefor] del(11q). That, traditionally, has been regarded as a higher-risk disease status because these patients respond OK to standard chemotherapy, but they have short remissions and survival times with FCR [fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (Rituxan)], BR [bendamustine plus rituximab], and those kinds of regimens compared with low-risk patients, such as those [who are positive for] deletion 13q and have IGHV mutated disease.

In terms of these sequences, when you see a patient with lymphocytosis, you send for flow cytometry, and part of the flow cytometry panel can test for additional markers, CD38 and ZAP-70. We have it [at MD Anderson], but Im not sure if there are any outside routine flow cytometry labs reporting CD38 positivity or negativity or ZAP-70. These markers used to be very popular 10years or so ago when IGHV-mutation status was not so commonly done and was more complicated to get. Nowadays, theres a shift with sending a sample directly for IGHV-mutation testing.

If you have that and the routine CLL FISH panel, then you have a good amount of information about your patient to say this is high-, low-, or an intermediate-risk disease. I think the main purpose for doing these is, first, to identify [patients with] high-risk disease who have a deletion 17p [del(17p)] or TP53 mutations. If its a young patient, you want to know that to [be able to] avoid chemotherapy. If its a young patient, [you may want to] send those patients for evaluation for stem cell transplant. For some patients, that is still something that eventually needs to be considered for those with del(17p).

What systemic therapy would you offer?

If you have treated with ibrutinib [Imbruvica] and youre comfortable with that, I dont think at this time there is a strong reason to change. In selected patients, it might be reasonable to tryswitching them from one [agent] to the other. But right now, for this patient, consensus says a BTK [Bruton tyrosine kinase] inhibitor is a good treatment.

Both ibrutinib and acalabrutinib [Calquence] can be used as single agents or in combination with CD20 antibodies. Weve done a clinical study with ibrutinib where patients were randomized to receive monotherapy versus a combination with rituximab, and the outcome was virtually identicalwhere patients had the exact same progression-free survival [PFS] with a single agentversus the combination with a CD20 antibody.1

CD20 antibodies with BTK inhibitors dont seem to add benefit in terms of survival if you go with the long-term BTK inhibitor treatment and if youre not planning to stop your treatment atsome point. What they do is they get patients into remission faster and you clear the disease faster if you add a CD20 antibody, but then you stop after 6 months. You continue your BTKinhibitor, and patients do great 2, 3, and 4 years later. Then, you dont see any effect in terms of longer-term PFS or overall survival [OS] from the addition of the CD20 antibody.

What data support the use of single-agent ibrutinib in patients with untreated CLL?

There are data from the RESONATE-2 study [NCT01722487], which randomized patients between ibrutinib and chlorambucil. This study was designed at the time when chlorambucil monotherapy was still the standard of care. Patients were randomized 1:1, and patients with del(17p) were excluded.2

What is nice about this study is that we have a long follow-up now.3 At the 5-year follow-up, you see this major difference in terms of PFS [HR, 0.146; 95% CI, 0.098-0.218]. There is also anoverall survival benefit [HR, 0.450; 95% CI, 0.266-0.761].

What [we saw was] that patients with del(11q) seemed to have a better PFS than those patients who lack del(11q) when they are treated with ibrutinib. Patients with del(11q) who are treated with chemotherapy do not do as well as those who lack this cytogenetic abnormality. The same is true here for [IGHV] mutational status.

The PCYC-1102-CA study [NCT01105247] opened around 2010, and we now have 7 to 8 years of follow-up. If you use a BTK inhibitor in the frontline setting, you can expect that most patients are going to do well for an extended period of time. At 5, 6, and 7 years or longer, 70% to 80% of patients are still in remission and have not died.4

Another randomized study that created some waves [is the E1912 study (NCT02048813)]. Weve been big proponents of FCR, which was the comparator arm [of this trial] versus ibrutinib. Patients receive either 6 cycles FCR or continuous ibrutinib [with rituximab] for the first 6 cycles.5

That study showed that compared with FCR, there was a significant increase in PFS [HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.57; P <.0001] but also in OS benefit from the BTK inhibitorcontaining regimen[HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.79; P = .009].

Would you say ibrutinib is the standard of care for treatment of CLL in the frontline setting?

Ibrutinib monotherapy, I would say, is the standard of care, but ibrutinib plus rituximab can be used. Some of you use it and, based on the data we just saw, the FDA has now officiallyapproved it.6 It doesnt mean you must use rituximab.

What other ibrutinib combinations are available?

The ALLIANCE trial [NCT01886872] had a single-agent ibrutinib arm versus ibrutinib plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.7 When you have patients randomized to receive ibrutinib/rituximab versus ibrutinib as a single agent, the [Kaplan-Meier survival] curves are basically identical, and thats what we got as well in a slightly diff erent patient population, mostlyrelapsed patients. In terms of PFS, rituximab doesnt seem to add very much when you go with continuous ibrutinib treatment. You see the difference for bendamustine/rituximab, with whichpatients have significantly shorter PFS.

I think the theme is the same over and over again with these randomized studies. With the new targeted agents, such as the BTK inhibitors and venetoclax [Venclexta], we see the samepattern. The new agents are doing better than our traditional chemoimmunotherapy.

ILLUMINATE [NCT02264574] is the study comparing ibrutinib/obinutuzumab [Gazyva] with another chemoimmunotherapy regimen, which has been somewhat popular for older populations, more frail patients for whom you dont want to use FCR or BR. You traditionally use chlorambucil alone and then more recentlyits combined with CD20 antibodies. The patients were randomized to either [ibrutinib/obinutuzumab] versus chlorambucil/obinutuzumab treatment.8

The results show a major PFS benefits for patients on the BTK inhibitor [HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.37; P < .0001]. There was a big difference for genetically high-risk patients [HR, 0.15; P <.0001] or patients who had bulky disease.

What other BTK inhibitors would you consider here?

Now were going to the second-generation BTK inhibitor, acalabrutinib [Calquence], which is somewhat more selective and doesnt inhibit some other kinases that ibrutinib does. Its a newBTK inhibitor with not as much long-term follow-up data available.

[In the phase 3 ELEVATE TN trial (NCT02475681)], you have 3 arms: single-agent acalabrutinib, acalabrutinib combined with obinutuzumab, and the comparator arm of chlorambucil/obinutuzumab. 9 If you give that to treatment-nave patients, those receiving BTK inhibitor alone or with the CD20 antibody do well. Its debatable if the PFS difference is significant, but clearly, the BTK inhibitortreated patients do much better than those receivingchlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

[If you look at the] subgroups of patients benefitting from the BTK inhibitor treatment versus obinutuzumab/chlorambucil, it basically shows that all subgroups have benefit. Some may be alittle more than others...but I think particularly patients that we traditionally called high risk are the ones who benefit the most from new agents. Theres less difference if you go into the lowriskpatient populations.

Are there data supporting the use of a BCL2 inhibition?

The other frontline option involves venetoclax, and thats coming from this CLL14 trial [NCT02242942]. Patients were receiving venetoclax/obinutuzumab or chlorambucil/obinutuzumab, and this is a finite treatment for 12 months. These are patients who were older and who have some comorbidities. Deletion(17p) was not excluded.10

There is a major difference in PFS favoring the new targeted agent venetoclax. Now its approved for the frontline treatment of selected patients,11 but you can also see in comparison to theBTK inhibitors [that] the follow-up is relatively short of 3 years.

With venetoclax, you get more complete remissions and some of these remissions are MRD [minimal residual disease] negative. As long as these differences are not translating into a survival benefit, those are just numbers.

Would you recommend venetoclax after the first line?

I dont think theres a reason to make that change [from BTK inhibitors] because venetoclax has its own issues in terms of how its used and adverse effects [AEs]. For that questionmaybe [we ask [is] venetoclax better in terms of outcome than a BTK inhibitor?

Its difficult to be better than the BTK inhibitor in the frontline CLL setting, and you need a very long follow-up to show any differences if there are any.

A substantial number of patients [treated with venetoclax] receive MRD-negative remissions with this combination. MRD negativity doesnt mean patients are cured. There is drop off in PFS, so MRD negativity doesnt mean those patients will survive and never need treatment again. Most likely, those patients eventually will lose MRD and eventually have disease progression and need treatment again. I think for those studies based on frontline venetoclax for 12 months, we just have to stay tuned and wait for what the long-term outcome is going to be.

What are the AEs of venetoclax?

You see more AEs that are reminiscent of chemotherapy days, where patients get more cytopenia. Its well established that venetoclax is myelosuppressive. Certainly, neutropenia can be seen, and less frequently, thrombocytopenia and anemia. If you treat a patient with venetoclax with or without a CD20 antibody, then you have to prepare for some patients having issueswith neutropenia and some who cannot be fully dose-escalated because of those cytopenias.

If the patient was younger, would you treat differently?

My answer would be no. I dont see any difference. This patient was 71 years old. We wouldnt use chemoimmunotherapy.

Somebody voted no. I think thats interesting because its something Im interested in [finding out about]. Im wondering if we have to accept treating patients with BTK inhibitorsfor very long periods or if we can maybe try it at least as an alternative treatment just for a certain period of time until we have the best response. Then, some patients maybe stop. I think thats interesting for a clinical trial.

Outside of clinical trials, Im not so sure. We have no data. But if you have a low-risk patient and you want to stop after 2 years and just see what happens, you need to tell the patient we dontknow whats going to happen and you have to watch that patient more closely. If its a patient with del(17p), a high-risk patient who was very symptomatic, I wouldnt do that. But in low-risk patients, I think its an interesting question and not totally unreasonable.

Over time, we will find new solutions. Everybodys working on transitioning BTK inhibitorsto limited-duration treatments for many reasons. Its not the optimal situation to have patients onkinase inhibitors for 5, 10, or 20 years. Right now, its a long-term treatment until we have better treatments.

References:

1. Burger JA, Sivina M, Jain N, et al. Randomized trial of ibrutinib vs ibrutinib plus rituximab in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2019;133(10):1011-1019. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-10-879429

2. Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(25):2425-2437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1509388

3. Burger JA, Barr PM, Robak T, et al. Long-term effi cacy and safety of fi rst-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with CLL/SLL: 5 years of follow-up from the phase 3 RESONATE-2 study. Leukemia. 2020;34(3):787-798. doi:10.1038/s41375-019-0602-x

4. Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, et al. Ibrutinib treatment for fi rst-line and relapsed/ refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: fi nal analysis of the pivotal phase Ib/II PCYC- 1102 study. Clin Cancer Res. Published online March 24, 2020. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2856

5. Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Kay NE, et al. Ibrutinib and rituximab provides superior clinical outcome compared to FCR in younger patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): extended follow-up from the E1912 Trial. Blood. 2019;134(suppl 1):33. doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126824

6. FDA approves ibrutinib plus rituximab for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. News release. FDA. April 21, 2020. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://bit.ly/3jV1hGW

7. Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA, et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(26):2517-2528. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812836

8. Moreno C, Greil R, Demirkan F, et al. Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in fi rst-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (iLLUMINATE): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):43-56. Published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):e10.doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30788-5

9. Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil and obinutuzmab for treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (ELEVATE TN): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1278-1291. Published correction appears in Lancet. 2020;395(10238):1694. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30262-2

10. Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Bahlo J, et al. Venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(23):2225-2236. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1815281

11. FDA approves venetoclax for CLL and SLL. News release. FDA. May 15, 2019.Accessed July 27, 2020. https://bit.ly/3jLnEOU

Read this article:
Burger Reviews BTK Inhibitors and Beyond in Frontline CLL - Targeted Oncology

Interim analysis to commence after 28 days; results anticipated by mid-October

VANCOUVER, Washington, Aug. 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CytoDyn Inc. (OTC.QB: CYDY), (CytoDyn or the Company"), a late-stage biotechnology company developing leronlimab (PRO 140), a CCR5 antagonist with the potential for multiple therapeutic indications, announced today the Company has reached the requisite number of enrolled patients in its Phase 3 trial for COVID-19 patients with severe-to-critical symptoms to perform an interim analysis following the 28-day phase of the trial.

This Phase 3 trial is a two-arm, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, adaptive design multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of leronlimab in patients with severe-to-critical symptoms of respiratory illness caused by COVID-19. Patients are randomized to receive weekly doses of 700 mg leronlimab or placebo, administered via weekly subcutaneous injection for two weeks. The study has three phases lasting 28 days: Screening Period, Treatment Period, and Follow-Up Period. The primary outcome measured in this study is: all-cause mortality at Day 28. Secondary outcomes measured are: (1) all-cause mortality at Day 14, (2) change in clinical status of subject at Day 14, (3) change in clinical status of subject at Day 28, and (4) change from baseline in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at Day 14. Recently, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) completed its first safety review of patients in the Phase 3 trial and reported it saw no cause to modify the study. The DSMC reviewed safety data from 149 of the 169 patients enrolled at the time of their review. The DSMC did not raise any concerns regarding safety and recommended the trial continue as planned.

Nader Pourhassan, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of CytoDyn, stated, We are very thankful for the many clinicians and their staff who have worked tirelessly to advance enrollment this quickly and for their care of these seriously ill patients. We are eager to perform an interim analysis of the data and remain optimistic the interim results will be consistent with those experienced by patients who received leronlimab through multiple EINDs (over 60) previously authorized by the FDA. And, in the event we are successful, we are well positioned with our distribution partner to accelerate distribution of leronlimab to patients throughout the U.S.

About Coronavirus Disease 2019CytoDyn completed its Phase 2 clinical trial (CD10) for COVID-19, a randomized clinical trial for mild-to-moderate patients in the U.S. Enrollment continues in its Phase 3 randomized clinical trial for the severe-to-critically ill COVID-19 population in several hospitals throughout the country.

SARS-CoV-2 was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China. The origin of SARS-CoV-2 causing the COVID-19 disease is uncertain, and the virus is highly contagious. COVID-19 is believed to typically transmit person-to-person through respiratory droplets. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some causing illness in people and others that circulate among animals. For confirmed COVID-19 infections, symptoms have included fever, cough, and shortness of breath. The symptoms of COVID-19 may appear in as few as two days or as long as 14 days after exposure. Clinical manifestations in patients have ranged from non-existent to severe and fatal. At this time, there are minimal treatment options for COVID-19.

About Leronlimab (PRO 140)The FDA has granted a Fast Track designation to CytoDyn for two potential indications of leronlimab for critical illnesses. The first as a combination therapy with HAART for HIV-infected patients and the second is for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Leronlimab is an investigational humanized IgG4 mAb that blocks CCR5, a cellular receptor that is important in HIV infection, tumor metastases, and other diseases, including NASH.Leronlimab has completed nine clinical trials in over 800 people and met its primary endpoints in a pivotal Phase 3 trial (leronlimab in combination with standard antiretroviral therapies in HIV-infected treatment-experienced patients).

In the setting of HIV/AIDS, leronlimab is a viral-entry inhibitor; it masks CCR5, thus protecting healthy T cells from viral infection by blocking the predominant HIV (R5) subtype from entering those cells. Leronlimab has been the subject of nine clinical trials, each of which demonstrated that leronlimab could significantly reduce or control HIV viral load in humans. The leronlimab antibody appears to be a powerful antiviral agent leading to potentially fewer side effects and less frequent dosing requirements compared with daily drug therapies currently in use.

In the setting of cancer, research has shown that CCR5 may play a role in tumor invasion, metastases, and tumor microenvironment control. Increased CCR5 expression is an indicator of disease status in several cancers. Published studies have shown that blocking CCR5 can reduce tumor metastases in laboratory and animal models of aggressive breast and prostate cancer. Leronlimab reduced human breast cancer metastasis by more than 98% in a murine xenograft model. CytoDyn is, therefore, conducting aPhase 1b/2 human clinical trial in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and was granted Fast Track designation in May 2019.

The CCR5 receptor appears to play a central role in modulating immune cell trafficking to sites of inflammation. It may be crucial in the development of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and other inflammatory conditions. Clinical studies by others further support the concept that blocking CCR5 using a chemical inhibitor can reduce the clinical impact of acute GvHD without significantly affecting the engraftment of transplanted bone marrow stem cells. CytoDyn is currently conducting a Phase 2 clinical study with leronlimab to support further the concept that the CCR5 receptor on engrafted cells is critical for the development of acute GvHD, blocking the CCR5 receptor from recognizing specific immune signaling molecules is a viable approach to mitigating acute GvHD. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to leronlimab for the prevention of GvHD.

About CytoDynCytoDyn is a late-stage biotechnology company developing innovative treatments for multiple therapeutic indications based on leronlimab, a novel humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the CCR5 receptor. CCR5 appears to play a critical role in the ability of HIV to enter and infect healthy T-cells.The CCR5 receptor also appears to be implicated in tumor metastasis and immune-mediated illnesses, such as GvHD and NASH.

CytoDyn has successfully completed a Phase 3 pivotal trial with leronlimab in combination with standard antiretroviral therapies in HIV-infected treatment-experienced patients. The FDA has agreed to provide written responses to the Companys questions concerning its recent Biologics License Application by September 4, 2020, in lieu of a Type A teleconference meeting for this HIV combination therapy.

CytoDyn is also conducting a Phase 3 investigative trial with leronlimab as a once-weekly monotherapy for HIV-infected patients. CytoDyn plans to initiate a registration-directed study of leronlimab monotherapy indication. If successful, it could support a label extension. Clinical results to date from multiple trials have shown that leronlimab can significantly reduce viral burden in people infected with HIV. No drug-related serious site injection reactions reported in about 800 patients treated with leronlimab and no drug-related SAEs reported in patients treated with 700 mg dose of leronlimab. Moreover, a Phase 2b clinical trial demonstrated that leronlimab monotherapy can prevent viral escape in HIV-infected patients; some patients on leronlimab monotherapy have remained virally suppressed for more than five years.

CytoDyn is also conducting a Phase 2 trial to evaluate leronlimab for the prevention of GvHD and a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial with leronlimab in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. More information is atwww.cytodyn.com.

Forward-Looking StatementsThis press releasecontains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Words and expressions reflecting optimism, satisfaction or disappointment with current prospects, as well as words such as believes, hopes, intends, estimates, expects, projects, plans, anticipates and variations thereof, or the use of future tense, identify forward-looking statements, but their absence does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements specifically include statements about leronlimab, its ability to have positive health outcomes, the possible results of clinical trials, studies or other programs or ability to continue those programs, the ability to obtain regulatory approval for commercial sales, and the market for actual commercial sales. The Companys forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance, and actual results could vary materially from those contained in or expressed by such statements due to risks and uncertainties including: (i)the sufficiency of the Companys cash position, (ii)the Companys ability to raise additional capital to fund its operations, (iii) the Companys ability to meet its debt obligations, if any, (iv)the Companys ability to enter into partnership or licensing arrangements with third parties, (v)the Companys ability to identify patients to enroll in its clinical trials in a timely fashion, (vi)the Companys ability to achieve approval of a marketable product, (vii)the design, implementation and conduct of the Companys clinical trials, (viii)the results of the Companys clinical trials, including the possibility of unfavorable clinical trial results, (ix)the market for, and marketability of, any product that is approved, (x)the existence or development of vaccines, drugs, or other treatments that are viewed by medical professionals or patients as superior to the Companys products, (xi)regulatory initiatives, compliance with governmental regulations and the regulatory approval process, (xii)general economic and business conditions, (xiii)changes in foreign, political, and social conditions, and (xiv)various other matters, many of which are beyond the Companys control. The Company urges investors to consider specifically the various risk factors identified in its most recent Form10-K, and any risk factors or cautionary statements included in any subsequent Form10-Q or Form8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by law, the Company does not undertake any responsibility to update any forward-looking statements to take into account events or circumstances that occur after the date of this press release.

CYTODYN CONTACTSInvestors: Michael MulhollandOffice: 360.980.8524, ext. 102Mobile: 503.341.3514mmulholland@cytodyn.com

Continue reading here:
CytoDyn Reaches Enrollment of 195 Patients in its Phase 3 Trial for COVID-19 Patients with Severe-to-Critical Symptoms - GlobeNewswire

NORTON, Mass. - What the first week of the FedEx Cup playoffs revealed was it is not the best time to be one of the biggest names in golf.

With the exception of Dustin Johnson, the runaway winner at The Northern Trust, the first event of the PGA Tour's FedEx Cup playoffs, some of the sport's brightest stars have looked a bit lost.

Sure, Tiger Woods closed with a 66, including a four-birdie run to start his final round, but all it did was mask three uneven days that had him in a spot he never wants to be in -- playing early in the morning on the weekend of a tournament as nothing more than an afterthought.

Rory McIlroy, who played poorly enough to be Woods' early morning playing partner on the weekend, had no other choice but to make a joke or two about his own mediocrity lately when it was all over. More telling was that he feels at times he is simply going through the motions.

Brooks Koepka didn't even make it to the first tee, withdrawing before the event began because his bad knee isn't getting any better.

Jordan Spieth and Phil Mickelson didn't make the cut, placing them outside the top 70, which is required to gain entry into next week's BMW Championship, the second stop of the FedEx Cup playoffs.

He admitted Sunday that life without fans has been a difficult adjustment. He has always fed off the energy of the galleries that engulfed him -- and used it as an advantage over opponents who were shell-shocked by all the people and all the commotion.

But the silence seems to be a secondary problem for Woods. The inconsistency in his game remains the central issue. At The Northern Trust, he struggled at times with his putting; during Saturday's ugly 2-over 73, he missed six putts inside 10 feet. Until Sunday, he was again off with his short irons, regularly leaving lengthy birdie putts instead of medium-to-short range opportunities. His average distance from the hole on approach was just under 37 feet, which doesn't provide a ton of realistic birdie chances.

"Every day is different," he said. "That's golf. Shot-to-shot is different. That's the ebb and flow of playing golf."

He has played three events since golf's return from a three-month shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic. He was a non-factor at both the Memorial and PGA Championship, finished tied for 37th and 40th. This week, at the Northern Trust, he had a strong opening round, then faded on Friday and Saturday. He's committed to this week's BMW Championship but hasn't earned a spot in the season-ending Tour Championship. And in this new, condensed schedule, the U.S. Open, the year's second major, is lurking right around the corner, set to begin Sept. 17 at ultra-difficult Winged Foot.

"This is going to be a long haul," he said.

Sure, the state of McIlroy's game is unsettling.

"If you need anyone to shoot even to 2-under for a week, I'm your man," he joked after finishing the week at, you guessed it, 2 under. "That's sort of what I've done the last few weeks. Everything is just a little off."

More concerning than his game might be his mindset.

"This is going to sound really bad, but I feel like the last few weeks, I've just been going through the motions," he said. "I want to get an intensity and some sort of fire, but I just haven't been able to. And look, that's partly to do with the atmosphere and partly to do with how I'm playing. I'm not inspiring myself, and I'm trying to get inspiration from outside sources to get something going."

On Saturday, with Woods, he started his round birdie/triple bogey/birdie. As he walked to the fourth tee he chuckled, "Yeah, 3-8-2 is a good area code." He was asked, in this time of playing tournaments without crowds and largely in silence, what the difference is now between a birdie and triple bogey?

"Honestly, not that much," he admitted. "It's not that much. Sometimes I come off a green and make a birdie, and I'm sort of -- you know, you're sort of laughing coming off a hole that you've just messed up, and you make a birdie, and it's sort of almost a more negative emotion in some ways. It's weird. It's very strange."

With two more playoff events and two more majors still on the 2020 calendar, how does he fix it?

"Do you go on YouTube and look at past successes do you give yourself something to sort of think about, a mantra as you go around?" he wondered. "There's different ways to do it. You know, what's always sort of done well with me is a bet or a game or a play for something. That sometimes gets something out of me. Maybe that's the strategy. I do that in practice rounds sometimes with [caddie and close friend] Harry [Diamond]. We make a lot of bets, and I try to shoot scores and try to win dinner or whatever it is. Maybe that's it. We're playing in the FedEx Cup [playoffs]. There's a lot of incentive here to play well. It's just trying to get it out of you."

McIlroy was on a roll before golf stopped in March. In the six events he played before the sport started at the Players Championship, McIlroy had not finished worse than a tie for fifth, and that included a win at the WCG-HSBC Champions. Since the return, has just one top-30 finish, a tie for 11th at the Travelers Championship.

"Yeah, it's just been a bit of a struggle," he said.

On Friday, as his round and season concluded, Jordan Spieth walked quickly off the 18th green at TPC Boston, never picking his head up as he headed toward the clubhouse. He had missed his second cut in six events, this one following a T-71 finish at the PGA Championship and a T-72 at the Wyndham Championship. He's had just one top-20 since a T-10 at the Charles Schwab Challenge, the first event after the break.

I'm a little uncertain. Like it feels pretty good, not great, but good enough to be able to compete," he said after the Wyndham Championship.

The missed cut at The Northern Trust meant he would not qualify for next week's BMW Championship, marking the first time in his career he did not advance to the second stage of the FedEx Cup playoffs. He hasn't made it to the season-ending Tour Championship since 2017. He hasn't won an event since the 2017 Open at Royal Birkdale, a stretch of 69 events.

"I'll keep trucking, I'll keep working hard," he said.

As long as his knee is up to it, the next time we'll see Koepka is at the U.S. Open, where he will try to win that major for the third time in four years. It's been an up-and-down year for the four-time major winner, who had a stem cell procedure on his left knee after last year's Tour Championship then re-aggravated when he slipped during an event in South Korea in October, which required him to sit out until January.

Since then, he's had just two top-10s, missed four cuts and had to withdraw from two events, one because of injury, one because his caddie, Ricky Elliott, tested positive for COVID-19.

Earlier this month, in search of his third consecutive PGA Championship, he entered the final round tied for fourth, just 2 shots off the lead. He faded on Sunday, shooting 74 to tie for 29th. The next week he missed the cut at the Wyndham Championship.

"Brooks is one of the biggest names in the game. We've all seen his physical struggles since last year," McIlroy said earlier this week. "It's maybe never a good time, but it's a better time than any other time to get it right. Take a few weeks off, try to get himself ready for the U.S. Open, and then the Masters coming up [in November]. I think it's smart on his part to do that and hopefully comes back healthy and comes back ready to play."

Like Spieth, Mickelson missed the cut and didn't qualify for the BMW Championship. So to get some work in before returning to what the site of one of his most painful major championship disappointments -- Winged Foot, site of this year's U.S. Open -- he needed to find a place to play.

Enter the PGA Tour Champions, the over-50 circuit that has an event this week in the Ozarks.

"I've been playing well and I want to play," he said. "I wish I was playing in Chicago next week but excited to play my first Champions event."

Mickelson, who turned 50 in June, has one top-20 finish and two missed cuts since golf's return. He had been reluctant to head over to the Champions Tour, making it clear he thinks he can still play -- and win -- on the PGA Tour.

"When I stop hitting bombs, I'll play the Champions Tour, but I'm hitting some crazy bombs right now," he joked in January.

Read more from the original source:
Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy and more -- This isn't the best time for some of the PGA Tour's biggest names - ESPN

NEW YORK, Aug. 28, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- iBio, Inc. (NYSE AMERICAN:IBIO) (iBio or the Company), a biotechnology innovator and biologics contract manufacturing organization, today announced that it has entered into an exclusive worldwide license agreement with Planet Biotechnology Inc. (Planet) for the development of Planets COVID-19 therapeutic candidate, ACE2-Fc.

ACE2-Fc is a recombinant protein comprised of human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) fused to a human immunoglobulin G Fc fragment (Fc). As an immunoadhesin, ACE2-Fc targets the coronavirus virions directly by using the ACE2 extracellular domain as a decoy to bind the spike protein and block infection of healthy cells, while the fused Fc domain prolongs the life of the protein in circulation. The design is expected to bring the benefit of a traditional neutralizing antibody while prospectively limiting the potential for viral escape given that ACE2 is also the target receptor for coronavirus for cell entry. Planets in vitro studies demonstrated that its ACE2-Fc blocks SARS-CoV-2 virus from infecting Vero E6 cells.

Under the terms of the agreement, iBio obtained an exclusive license to Planets ACE2-Fc. Planet is eligible to receive certain pre-specified payments upon achievement of clinical development milestones.

We see tremendous opportunity in our partnership with Planet to develop this novel immunoadhesin molecule as a potential COVID-19 disease treatment, said Tom Isett, Chairman & CEO of iBio. We believe the molecule may be effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that it has the potential to be rapidly re-designed in the FastPharming System to address mutations in the current virus, if any, as well as future coronaviral diseases.

Elliot Fineman, Planets President and CEO, commented, iBio is an ideal partner for Planet, offering experience in manufacturing plant-based biopharmaceuticals and rapid scale-up capabilities. We are eager to support iBio in the pre-clinical development of ACE2-Fc.

About Planet Biotechnology Inc.

Scientists at Planet Biotechnology identify and develop promising antibodies and receptor/ligand-Fc fusion proteins for the treatment and prevention of disease. Planets anti-infective programs focus on tick-borne diseases, coronaviruses, and multi-drug resistant pathogens. The Company uses a plant-based expression system to rapidly produce its antibody and receptor/ligand-Fc products.

About iBios COVID-19 Programs

On March 11, 2020, the Company filed four provisional patent applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in support of its COVID-19 vaccine platforms. The Company subsequently announced its virus-like particle (VLP) program (IBIO-200) and LicKM-Subunit vaccine program (IBIO-201) on March 18, and June 3, 2020, respectively, and pre-clinical studies were subsequently initiated. On August 27, 2020, the Company secured exclusive worldwide rights to an ACE2-Fc antibody therapeutic from Planet Biotechnology, Inc. If any of the COVID-19 biopharmaceutical development program(s) move into clinical trials, iBio has the capability to manufacture product candidates at clinical and commercial scales in its 130,000 square foot facility in Bryan, Texas. Originally built in 2010 with funding from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), iBios FastPharming Facility was part of the Blue Angel initiative to establish factories capable of rapid delivery of medical countermeasures in response to a disease pandemic.

About iBio, Inc.

iBio is a global leader in plant-based biologics manufacturing. Its FastPharming System combines vertical farming, automated hydroponics, and glycan engineering technologies to rapidly deliver high-quality monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, bioinks and other proteins. The Companys subsidiary, iBio CDMO LLC, provides FastPharming Contract Development and Manufacturing Services. iBios FastGlycaneering Development Service includes an array of new glycosylation technologies for engineering high-performance recombinant proteins. Additionally, iBio is developing proprietary products, which include IBIO-100 for the treatment of fibrotic diseases, as well as vaccines and therapeutics for COVID-19 disease. For more information, visit http://www.ibioinc.com.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTSCertain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Words such as "may," "might," "will," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," "predict," "forecast," "project," "plan," "intend" or similar expressions, or statements regarding intent, belief, or current expectations, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon current estimates and assumptions and include statements regarding the development of the novel immunoadhesin molecule as a potential COVID-19 disease treatment, the design bringing the benefits of a traditional neutralizing antibody while prospectively limiting the potential for viral escape given that ACE2 is also the target receptor for coronavirus for cell entry, the molecule being effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that it has the potential to be rapidly re-designed in the FastPharming System to address mutations in the current virus, if any, as well as future coronaviral diseases. While the Company believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on any such forward-looking statements, which are based on information available to us on the date of this release. These forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations and assumptions from those set forth or implied by any forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among others, the partnership with Planet being successful, the ability to develop the novel immunoadhesin molecule as a potential COVID-19 disease treatment and mutations in the current virus, the Companys ability to obtain regulatory approvals for commercialization of its product candidates, including its COVID-19 vaccines, or to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements, regulatory limitations relating to its ability to promote or commercialize its product candidates for specific indications, acceptance of its product candidates in the marketplace and the successful development, marketing or sale of products, its ability to maintain its license agreements, the continued maintenance and growth of its patent estate, its ability to establish and maintain collaborations, its ability to obtain or maintain the capital or grants necessary to fund its research and development activities, competition, its ability to retain its key employees or maintain its NYSE American listing, and the other factors discussed in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2019 and the Companys subsequent filings with the SEC, including subsequent periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K. The information in this release is provided only as of the date of this release, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release on account of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law.

Contacts:

Stephen KilmeriBio, Inc.Investor Relations(646) 274-3580 skilmer@ibioinc.com

Read more:
iBio and Planet Biotechnology Enter into Exclusive Worldwide License Agreement for the Development of a COVID-19 Therapeutic - GlobeNewswire

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 Food Biotechnology market.

Trusted Business Insights presents an updated and Latest Study on Food Biotechnology Market 2019-2029. 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 Food Biotechnology market during the forecast period (2019-2029).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 @ Food Biotechnology Market Research Report Forecast to 2029 (Includes Business Impact of COVID-19)

Abstract, Snapshot, Market Analysis & Market Definition: Food Biotechnology MarketIndustry / Sector Trends

Global Food Biotechnology Market size was valued at over USD 23 billion in 2018 and is anticipated to witness over 10% CAGR up to 2025.

Increasing penetration of advanced technologies to develop new products by modifying plants, animals, and microorganisms genes to provide innovative solutions is driving the market growth. Shifting trends towards healthy lifestyles accompanied by a rise in processed food demand has urged the F&B manufacturers to improve the nutritional content in their products, thereby generating new growth opportunities for the biotech-based industry players. Further, there is a requirement to enhance the shelf life and taste of food by the use of encapsulation techniques and other ingredients.

Strong growth in functional food & beverages and dietary supplements industry is resulting in increased competitiveness, thus propelling the food biotechnology market revenue. As per CCI, the global nutraceutical market including functional F&B and dietary supplements is projected to reach USD 241 billion in 2019, observing around 7% CAGR from 2014 to 2019. Factors such as robust expansion of food industry and low-cost biotech services particular in developing countries has escalated the adoption of services.

Stringent government regulations to enhance product quality and transparency are among the foremost aspects attributing to food biotech solutions. Also, modifications in labeling regulations asking for a declaration of GMOs, allergens, and nutritional content is surging the industry share. Further, consumer-driven movements such as clean label has urged food manufacturers to improve the quality by using natural ingredients instead of artificial constituents.

Changes in climatic conditions over the years has resulted in increased production of genetically modified (GM) crops or ingredients through the use of biotech services. This provides plants with improved resistance to diseases, insecticides, and herbicides, as well as extending the shelf life of the produce. However, growth in the organic food industry can hamper the demand for GM crops, thus affecting the food biotechnology industry share.

Market Segmentation, Outlook & Regional Insights: Food Biotechnology Market

Food Biotechnology Market, By Type

Transgenic segment dominates the global market accounting for over 75% share in 2018. Increasing demand for genetically modified crops to enhance productivity in low producing or harsh climatic conditions will drive segment growth. According to ISAAA, the global utilized area for biotech crops increased from 148 million hectares in 2010 to 190 million hectares in 2017. Countries including the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India holds over 90% of the total area under GM crop cultivation. Farmers shifting from conventional seeds to bio-seeds to improve their profit margins will escalate the market growth.

Germany Food Biotechnology Market Size, By Type, 2018 (USD Million)

Food Biotechnology Market, By Application

Global food biotechnology market through animal segment holds over 34% share in 2018. Increasing necessity to enhance milk production in dairy cattle with growing demand will propel industry expansion. Robust growth in meat consumption such as processed meat accompanied by increasing consumer awareness on nutritional benefits will drive the biotech applications. As per FAO, global meat production is projected to increase, reach around 48MT by 2025. Further, testing services for developing products to suit the human dietary requirements will drive market development.

Global food biotechnology market through plants is projected to account for over USD 22 billion in 2025. The key growth factors include an increase in the development of GM crops with pesticide resistance and abiotic stress tolerance to increase the yield. Reduction in the arable land area will further shift the preference towards biotechnological products. Enhanced focus on innovation of new food ingredients will surge the business revenues. Strong application outlook of biotech solutions to produce high-quality crops and reduce the health risk will augment business expansion.

Food Biotechnology Market, By Region

North America market is anticipated to cross USD 12 billion by 2025. High investments on technological advancements coupled with high consumer spending on nutritious products will augment the industry share. The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically modified crops with 75 million hectares area for biotech crops. Further, the presence of large multinational corporations, increasing private and government R&D investments, supported by favourable government policies will fuel the market growth. Further, positive application outlook of genetically modified yeast in developing new alcoholic beverages will support regional growth.

Asia Pacific Food Biotechnology Market, By Country, 2018 & 2025, (USD Million)

Asia Pacific food biotechnology market is projected to witness over 11% CAGR from 2019 to 2025. Countries including China, India, and Japan together dominate the regional market share. The demand for dietary supplements is increasing due to a shifting trend towards healthy lifestyles, thus increasing the demand for nutritional ingredients. Also, product innovations supported by the rise in per capita income will drive the biotech solutions on health foods. Further, the necessity to augment the agricultural output owing to the rise in population, along with severe climatic variations will drive the biotechnology industry share.

Key Players, Recent Developments & Sector Viewpoints: Food Biotechnology Market

Global market is competitive due to the presence of large multinationals and regional players. Key industry participants in market include BASF SE, Bayer CropScience AG, AquaBounty Technologies, ABS Global, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Arcadia Biosciences, Camson Bio Technologies Ltd, BDF Ingredients Zuchem, and Monsanto. Product development, geographic expansion, mergers, acquisitions, and collaborations are among the key strategies observed in the industry. For instance, in 2017, Bayer and Ginkgo Bioworks announced to launch a company to developing new technologies for engineering the plant microbiome.

Industry Viewpoint

Food biotechnology market is driven by the requirement for improving the productivity and quality of the edible items by altering genes. Growth in the food & beverages industry, increasing population, rising disposable incomes, and health awareness are among the major factors creating a long-term positive impact. Biotechnological product innovations among food manufacturers will provide lucrative opportunities for business growth. North America and Europe are among the early adopters of biotech services, however developing regions are also expected to implement advanced solutions in food industry. The penetration rate is high in Asia Pacific owing to strong R&D investments and the necessity for increasing the food productivity and animal milk output

Key Insights Covered: Exhaustive Food Biotechnology Market1. Market size (sales, revenue and growth rate) of Food Biotechnology industry.2. Global major manufacturers operating situation (sales, revenue, growth rate and gross margin) of Food Biotechnology industry.3. SWOT analysis, New Project Investment Feasibility Analysis, Upstream raw materials and manufacturing equipment & Industry chain analysis of Food Biotechnology industry.4. Market size (sales, revenue) forecast by regions and countries from 2019 to 2025 of Food Biotechnology industry.

Research Methodology: Food Biotechnology Market

Looking for more? Check out our repository for all available reports on Food Biotechnology in related sectors.

Quick Read Table of Contents of this Report @ Food Biotechnology Market Research Report Forecast to 2029 (Includes Business Impact of COVID-19)

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

Go here to read the rest:
Food Biotechnology Market: Trends, Applications, Industry Competitive Analysis, Growth,Forecast: 2019 to 2029 - The Scarlet

A rating of 95 puts Cytokinetics, Inc. (CYTK) near the top of the Biotechnology industry according to InvestorsObserver. Cytokinetics, Inc.'s score of 95 means it scores higher than 95% of stocks in the industry. Cytokinetics, Inc. also received an overall rating of 77, putting it above 77% of all stocks. Biotechnology is ranked 26 out of the 148 industries.

Analyzing stocks can be hard. There are tons of numbers and ratios, and it can be hard to remember what they all mean and what counts as good for a given value. InvestorsObserver ranks stocks on eight different metrics. We percentile rank most of our scores to make it easy for investors to understand. A score of 77 means the stock is more attractive than 77 percent of stocks.

Our proprietary scoring system captures technical factors, fundamental analysis and the opinions of analysts on Wall Street. This makes InvestorsObservers overall rating a great way to get started, regardless of your investing style. Percentile-ranked scores are also easy to understand. A score of 100 is the top and a 0 is the bottom. Theres no need to try to remember what is good for a bunch of complicated ratios, just pay attention to which numbers are the highest.

Cytokinetics, Inc. (CYTK) stock is trading at $24.50 as of 2:24 PM on Friday, Aug 28, a gain of $0.86, or 3.64% from the previous closing price of $23.64. The stock has traded between $23.65 and $24.95 so far today. Volume today is 824,667 compared to average volume of 1,027,773.

To see the top 5 stocks in Biotechnology click here.

Visit link:
Is Cytokinetics, Inc. (CYTK) the Top Pick in the Biotechnology Industry? - InvestorsObserver

The 62 rating InvestorsObserver gives to Trevena Inc (TRVN) stock puts it near the top of the Biotechnology industry. In addition to scoring higher than 77 percent of stocks in the Biotechnology industry, TRVNs 62 overall rating means the stock scores better than 62 percent of all stocks.

Trying to find the best stocks can be a daunting task. There are a wide variety of ways to analyze stocks in order to determine which ones are performing the strongest. Investors Observer makes the entire process easier by using percentile rankings that allows you to easily find the stocks who have the strongest evaluations by analysts.

Our proprietary scoring system captures technical factors, fundamental analysis and the opinions of analysts on Wall Street. This makes InvestorsObservers overall rating a great way to get started, regardless of your investing style. Percentile-ranked scores are also easy to understand. A score of 100 is the top and a 0 is the bottom. Theres no need to try to remember what is good for a bunch of complicated ratios, just pay attention to which numbers are the highest.

Trevena Inc (TRVN) stock is trading at $1.68 as of 9:51 AM on Friday, Aug 28, a rise of $0.11, or 7.01% from the previous closing price of $1.57. The stock has traded between $1.68 and $1.89 so far today. Volume today is low. So far 3,619,286 shares have traded compared to average volume of 15,506,572 shares.

To see the top 5 stocks in Biotechnology click here.

Continued here:
Is Trevena Inc (TRVN) The Right Choice in Biotechnology? - InvestorsObserver

The 41 rating InvestorsObserver gives to Tyme Technologies Inc (TYME) stock puts it near the middle of the Biotechnology industry. In addition to scoring higher than 33 percent of stocks in the Biotechnology industry, TYMEs 41 overall rating means the stock scores better than 41 percent of all stocks.

Searching for the best stocks to invest in can be difficult. There are thousands of options and it can be confusing on what actually constitutes a great value. Investors Observer allows you to choose from eight unique metrics to view the top industries and the best performing stocks in that industry. A score of 41 would rank higher than 41 percent of all stocks.

This ranking system incorporates numerous factors used by analysts to compare stocks in greater detail. This allows you to find the best stocks available in any industry with relative ease. These percentile-ranked scores using both fundamental and technical analysis give investors an easy way to view the attractiveness of specific stocks. Stocks with the highest scores have the best evaluations by analysts working on Wall Street.

Tyme Technologies Inc (TYME) stock has fallen -5.26% while the S&P 500 has gained 0.33% as of 2:25 PM on Friday, Aug 28. TYME is down -$0.06 from the previous closing price of $1.14 on volume of 1,253,542 shares. Over the past year the S&P 500 is up 19.54% while TYME is down -6.90%. TYME lost -$0.23 per share the over the last 12 months.

To see the top 5 stocks in Biotechnology click here.

Read this article:
Is Tyme Technologies Inc (TYME) Stock Near the Top of the Biotechnology Industry? - InvestorsObserver

Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc (SYRS) is near the middle in its industry group according to InvestorsObserver. SYRS gets an overall rating of 57. That means it scores higher than 57 percent of stocks. Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc gets a 65 rank in the Biotechnology industry. Biotechnology is number 26 out of 148 industries.

Analyzing stocks can be hard. There are tons of numbers and ratios, and it can be hard to remember what they all mean and what counts as good for a given value. InvestorsObserver ranks stocks on eight different metrics. We percentile rank most of our scores to make it easy for investors to understand. A score of 57 means the stock is more attractive than 57 percent of stocks.

This ranking system incorporates numerous factors used by analysts to compare stocks in greater detail. This allows you to find the best stocks available in any industry with relative ease. These percentile-ranked scores using both fundamental and technical analysis give investors an easy way to view the attractiveness of specific stocks. Stocks with the highest scores have the best evaluations by analysts working on Wall Street.

Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc (SYRS) stock is down -2.84% while the S&P 500 is higher by 0.33% as of 2:23 PM on Friday, Aug 28. SYRS has fallen -$0.38 from the previous closing price of $13.39 on volume of 312,289 shares. Over the past year the S&P 500 is up 19.54% while SYRS is higher by 18.60%. SYRS lost -$1.69 per share the over the last 12 months.

To see InvestorsObserver's Sentiment Score for Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc click here.

Go here to see the original:
Is Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc (SYRS) the Top Pick in the Biotechnology Industry? - InvestorsObserver

Impact Analysis of Covid-19

The complete version of the Report will include the impact of the COVID-19, and anticipated change on the future outlook of the industry, by taking into the account the political, economic, social, and technological parameters.

The Biotechnology market demand is anticipated to flourish during the forecast period 2018-2026. The report offers information related to import and export, along with the current business chain in the market at the global level. This report provides an in-depth overview of the Biotechnology market. This includes market characteristics, consisting of segmentation, market share, trends and strategies for this market. The Market Size section provides historical forecasts of market growth and future. An in-depth analysis of the major companies operating in the market is also mentioned in this research report.

Get FREE PDF Brochure Including COVID-19 Impact Analysis: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-pdf/4025

The global Biotechnology market is segmented on the basis of type and application.

It also provides market size and forecast estimates from the year 2018 to 2026 with respect to five major regions, namely; North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East & Africa (MEA), and South America (SAM). The Biotechnology market by each region is later sub-segmented by respective countries and segments. The report covers the analysis and forecast of top countries globally along with the current trend and opportunities prevailing in the region.

A thorough examination of the Biotechnology market includes each and every aspect, which begins with knowing the market, speaking with clients, and evaluating the complete data of the global market. For more clarification, the global market is segmented on the basis of the manufacture of the kind of products, and their applications. The report also delivers information as per the regions based on the geographical classification of the global Biotechnology market. The dynamic foundation of the global market is based on the calculation of product supply in different markets, their revenues, capability, and a chain of production.

Qualitative information will discuss the key factors driving the restraining the growth of the market, and the possible growth opportunities of the market, regulatory scenario, value chain & supply chain analysis, export & import analysis, attractive investment proposition, and Porters 5 Forces analysis among others will be a part of qualitative information.

Competitive Section

Key players operating the Biotechnology market are Abbott Laboratories, Amgen Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Inc., Roche, and Sanofi Aventis.

Furthermore, this study will help our clients solve the following issues:

Market dynamics- The study foresees dynamics of industries by using core analytical and unconventional market research approaches. This will help clients to use this insight provided to maneuver themselves through market uncertainties and disruptions

Identifying key cannibalizes Strong substitute for a product or service is the most prominent threat. Our clients can identify key cannibalizes of a market, by procuring our research. This helps them in aligning their new product development/launch strategies in advance

Spotting emerging trends-Our Ecosystem offering helps clients to spot upcoming hot market trends. We also track possible impact and disruptions which a market would witness by a particular emerging trend. Our proactive analysis helps clients to have early mover advantage

Interrelated opportunities- This report will allow clients to make decisions based on data, thereby increasing the chances that the strategies will perform better if not best in the real world

Apply Promo Code CMIFIRST1000 And Get Instant Discount Of USD 1000Quick [emailprotected] https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/buy-now/4025

All in all, the Biotechnology market research study elucidates a detailed evaluation of this business and projects this industry to register a commendable growth rate in the forthcoming years. The Biotechnology market analysis report also delivers important insights with respect to aspects such as the volume of sales, valuation forecast, market size, and the market competition trends as well as the market concentration rate.

About Us:

Coherent Market Insights is a global market intelligence and consulting organization focused on assisting our plethora of clients achieve transformational growth by helping them make critical business decisions. We are headquartered in India, having office at global financial capital in the U.S. and sales consultants in United Kingdom and Japan. Our client base includes players from across various business verticals in over 150 countries worldwide. We pride ourselves in catering to clients across the length and width of the horizon, from Fortune 500 enlisted companies, to not-for-profit organization, and startups looking to establish a foothold in the market. We excel in offering unmatched actionable market intelligence across various industry verticals, including chemicals and materials, healthcare, and food & beverages, consumer goods, packaging, semiconductors, software and services, Telecom, and Automotive. We offer syndicated market intelligence reports, customized research solutions, and consulting services.

To know more about us, please visit our website http://www.coherentmarketinsights.com

Contact:

Coherent Market Insights1001 4th Ave, #3200 Seattle, WA 98154, U.S.Email: [emailprotected]United States of America: +1-206-701-6702United Kingdom: +44-020-8133-4027Japan: +050-5539-1737India: +91-848-285-0837

More here:
Biotechnology Market Size Research, Business Opportunities, Top Manufacture, Industry Growth, Industry Share Report, Regional Analysis and Global...

The 65 rating InvestorsObserver gives to Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ARNA) stock puts it near the top of the Biotechnology industry. In addition to scoring higher than 82 percent of stocks in the Biotechnology industry, ARNAs 65 overall rating means the stock scores better than 65 percent of all stocks.

Trying to find the best stocks can be a daunting task. There are a wide variety of ways to analyze stocks in order to determine which ones are performing the strongest. Investors Observer makes the entire process easier by using percentile rankings that allows you to easily find the stocks who have the strongest evaluations by analysts.

These scores are not only easy to understand, but it is easy to compare stocks to each other. You can find the best stock in an industry, or look for the sector that has the highest average score. The overall score is a combination of technical and fundamental factors that serves as a good starting point when analyzing a stock. Traders and investors with different goals may have different goals and will want to consider other factors than just the headline number before making any investment decisions.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ARNA) stock is trading at $70.03 as of 2:24 PM on Friday, Aug 28, a gain of $0.90, or 1.3% from the previous closing price of $69.13. Volume today is above average. So far 660,189 shares have traded compared to average volume of 470,186 shares. The stock has traded between $68.58 and $70.77 so far today.

To screen for more stocks like ARNA click here.

Follow this link:
Where Does Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ARNA) Stock Fall in the Biotechnology Field? - InvestorsObserver

Tauriga Sciences Inc (TAUG) is around the bottom of the Biotechnology industry according to InvestorsObserver. TAUG received an overall rating of 24, which means that it scores higher than 24 percent of all stocks. Tauriga Sciences Inc also achieved a score of 11 in the Biotechnology industry, putting it above 11 percent of Biotechnology stocks. Biotechnology is ranked 24 out of the 148 industries.

Searching for the best stocks to invest in can be difficult. There are thousands of options and it can be confusing on what actually constitutes a great value. Investors Observer allows you to choose from eight unique metrics to view the top industries and the best performing stocks in that industry. A score of 24 would rank higher than 24 percent of all stocks.

These scores are not only easy to understand, but it is easy to compare stocks to each other. You can find the best stock in an industry, or look for the sector that has the highest average score. The overall score is a combination of technical and fundamental factors that serves as a good starting point when analyzing a stock. Traders and investors with different goals may have different goals and will want to consider other factors than just the headline number before making any investment decisions.

Tauriga Sciences Inc (TAUG) stock is flat 9.09% while the S&P 500 has risen 0.16% as of 1:43 PM on Thursday, Aug 27. TAUG is unchanged $0.00 from the previous closing price of $0.03 on volume of 769,766 shares. Over the past year the S&P 500 is up 20.64% while TAUG has risen 33.33%. TAUG lost -$0.04 per share the over the last 12 months.

To see InvestorsObserver's Sentiment Score for Tauriga Sciences Inc click here.

Originally posted here:
Is Tauriga Sciences Inc (TAUG) a Winner in the Biotechnology Industry? - InvestorsObserver

The latest research on the Global Food Biotechnology Market that covers growth factor, future trends, and focuses on overall knowledge that can help to make decisions on the current market situation. Food Biotechnology report provides information on Size, Type, Service, Output, Revenue, Growth Rate, Gross Margin, and opportunities with potential risk analysis. The Food Biotechnology research study defines top company profiles with trends around the world present in the market. The report also discusses financial developments with the effect of COVID-19 on the market of Food Biotechnology across years. TheFood Biotechnology research executes financial adjustments that occur on the market year after year, with details on future opportunities and risks to keep you ahead of the competitors.Food Biotechnology market research has driven you to expand your company.

Major Players Covered in this Report are:

ABS Global, Arcadia Biosciences, AquaBounty Technologies, BASF Plant Science, Bayer CropScience AG, Camson Bio Technologies Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, DuPont Pioneer, Evogene Ltd, Hy-Line International, KWS Group, Monsanto, Origin Agritech Limited, Syngenta AG

To Request an Exclusive Sample Report for Food Biotechnology Market @ https://www.marketgrowthinsight.com/sample/132600

Scope of the Food Biotechnology Market Report:

The demand for Food Biotechnology is projected to expand, during the forecast period, from USD million in 2020 to USD million by 2025. The global market report is a systematic study that focuses on the overall demand structure, development trends, business models and business of top countries in the global market for Food Biotechnology. The study focuses on well-known global Food Biotechnology suppliers, market segments, competition and the macro market.

The Food Biotechnology study focuses on the prospects for growth, constraints, and market analysis. The research offers Porters five-force Food Biotechnology industry analysis to understand the effect of various factors such as supplier power bargaining, competitor competition, new entrant challenge, competitor risk, and buyer bargaining power on the market.

Market Segmentation:

A brief overview of the global Food Biotechnology market has been presented according to the most recent report. TheFood Biotechnology evaluation notes the concept of service/product in many end-user sectors along with other implementations of these goods or services. The Global Food Biotechnology Market Report presented a thorough assessment of the latest industry developments, extensive regional analysis, and competitive analysis for the 2020-2025 review period.

Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, Food Biotechnology market share and growth rate, historic and forecast (2015-2025) of the following regions are covered:

North America (United States, Canada, Mexico)Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Others)Asia-Pacific (China, Australia,South Korea,Japan, India, Southeast Asia, Others)Middle East and Africa (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Others)South America (Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, Others)

Ask for Discount on this Premium Report @ https://www.marketgrowthinsight.com/discount/132600

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of Food Biotechnology are as follows:

KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED:

For More Details On this Report: https://www.marketgrowthinsight.com/inquiry/132600

About Us-

Market Growth Insight 100% Subsidiary of Exltech Solutions India, is a one stop solution for market research reports in various business categories. We are serving 100+ clients with 30000+ diverse industry reports and our reports are developed to simplify strategic decision making, on the basis of comprehensive and in-depth significant information, established through wide-ranging analysis and latest industry trends.

Contact Us:

Direct Line: +1 3477675477 (US)Email: [emailprotected]Web:https://www.marketgrowthinsight.com

Read more:
Food Biotechnology Market Research Report is Projected to Witness Considerable Growth by 2025 - thedailychronicle.in

Odonate Therapeutics Inc (ODT) is around the bottom of the Biotechnology industry according to InvestorsObserver. ODT received an overall rating of 33, which means that it scores higher than 33 percent of all stocks. Odonate Therapeutics Inc also achieved a score of 20 in the Biotechnology industry, putting it above 20 percent of Biotechnology stocks. Biotechnology is ranked 25 out of the 148 industries.

Analyzing stocks can be hard. There are tons of numbers and ratios, and it can be hard to remember what they all mean and what counts as good for a given value. InvestorsObserver ranks stocks on eight different metrics. We percentile rank most of our scores to make it easy for investors to understand. A score of 33 means the stock is more attractive than 33 percent of stocks.

These scores are not only easy to understand, but it is easy to compare stocks to each other. You can find the best stock in an industry, or look for the sector that has the highest average score. The overall score is a combination of technical and fundamental factors that serves as a good starting point when analyzing a stock. Traders and investors with different goals may have different goals and will want to consider other factors than just the headline number before making any investment decisions.

Odonate Therapeutics Inc (ODT) stock is trading at $17.65 as of 3:06 PM on Wednesday, Aug 26, a gain of $0.15, or 0.86% from the previous closing price of $17.50. Volume today is more active than usual. So far 551,544 shares have traded compared to average volume of 251,597 shares. The stock has traded between $16.85 and $17.98 so far today.

To see InvestorsObserver's Sentiment Score for Odonate Therapeutics Inc click here.

Read the original here:
Is Odonate Therapeutics Inc (ODT) The Right Choice in Biotechnology? - InvestorsObserver