StemCell Therapy

Despite dozens of federal employees testing positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus this month, and despite the White House asking executive agencies to offer maximum telework flexibilities to eligible workers, most of the 2.1 million people who make up the federal workforce are reportedly still being forced to report to their offices.

For weeks, the Trump administration said it was preparing federal employees to be capable of handling a heavy workload while telecommuting, but the administration has been very slow in rolling out any specifics regarding the transition and very few on the federal workforce are currently being permitted to work remotely. That includes many who told the Washington Post on Sundaythat they are already fully set up to work from home.

One senior manager at a federal agency who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the Post that those in charge are scared to death to make decisions on remote work without getting explicit approval from the top.

Every agency is scared to death to do anything without getting approval, and they dont want to be first, the senior manager said.

Lauri Dahlem, a legal assistant at the Social Security Administrations disability hearing office in Michigan, told the Post that her request to work remotely was denied despite the fact that her husband was recovering from complications from a stem cell transplant to treat cancer and all of her work can be completed from home.

My supervisor said I was exempted because Im only taking care of someone whos sick, said Dahlem, an Army veteran and former military police officer.I want to work. Im a very capable worker. Its insane.

Dahlem also noted that all eight of the administrative law judges that work in her office were still hearing cases in-person as of Friday.

Were seeing agency after agency not release people to work from home, David Cann, director of field services and education at the American Federation of Government Employees, also told the news outlet.If Im a manager who is a jerk, or disengaged, theyre saying, Im not going to do it.

[image via Drew Angerer/Getty Images]

See the rest here:
Many Federal Workers Must Still Go to Work Because Agencies Are Scared to Death of Making Decisions - Law & Crime

Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size

You can't see the virus behind the world's latest pandemic with the naked eye but, plotted on a graph, it looks like one side of a mountain, climbing skyward as case numbers soar past 197,000 people in little more than three months. Eventually, epidemiologists say, that trajectory will start to fall. Immunity in the population will build up against the mystery illness, now known as COVID-19, and it will begin to die out.

But in the middle, there will still be that mountain peak the curve everyone is talking about. The steeper it is, the more exponential the spread of the virus; the flatter it is, the slower, the less stress on health services, and the more lives that will be saved in the months ahead.

So how do we flatten the curve? What is herd immunity? And what are countries around the world, including Australia, doing to fix the picture?

This graph shows the theory behind "flattening the curve". Many doctors including in Australia say the capacity of most healthcare systems fall below the dotted line, making the peak likely to be even more intense and the need for containment, not just a slowdown more critical.Credit:Matthew Absalom-Wong

The fight against COVID-19 is about medicine, of course. But its also about mathematics (and money). When a new epidemic explodes onto the scene, experts look for two main numbers: how many people each patient will infect and how many people will die from the disease. This helps them plot an arc for the outbreak: how far it will likely spread before a vaccine is rolled out or enough people who have recovered from the illness with virus-fighting antibodies in their system build up "herd immunity" against it.

Flattening this curve means slowing how fast the virus moves through the community. There might still be a lot of cases. But limiting opportunities for the bug to jump from person to person by adopting "social distancing" measures (such as staying 1.5 metres away from others and avoiding public spaces) as well as improving hygiene and isolating those infected or exposed will stretch out the spread of COVID-19 over time, giving doctors, economies (and vaccine-makers) space to breathe.

If the curve keeps climbing, we will see a surge of cases needing medical intervention all at once and hospitals will likely run out of life-saving machines such as ventilators, which have been critical in treating patients stricken by more serious cases of the respiratory illness. That would push up the death toll and force impossible triage choices like the ones already facing doctors on the frontlines of the Italian outbreak (where an age limit has even been proposed in intensive care wards to free up beds for a growing number of younger patients in their 40s and 50s). It's why some doctors, including in Australia, say simply flattening the curve will not be enough to push it back into the reach of the healthcare system - the virus must be stopped in its tracks through containment in line with what the World Health Organisation is calling for, and even the lockdowns seen in China.

Loading

So far it's estimated about one in five people infected with the new virus will need medical intervention such as ventilation to recover and about 1 per cent of all patients will die. That's 10 times higher than the mortality rate for seasonal flu but still much less than the first (and now infamous) coronavirus outbreak SARS in 2003. Unfortunately, the new virus is also more infectious. Each person with COVID-19 is likely to infect two or three people meaning that growth curve can quickly become exponential, according to the Grattan Institute.

Every day counts once the pandemic clock starts ticking, warns Dr Michael Ryan, who heads up the WHO's emergency response team. "Be fast. Have no regrets," he told the world on March 13. "You must be the first mover. The virus will always get you if you dont move quickly."

During the world's last severe pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, the US city of Philadelphia took 14 days to mount a public health response after its first case, even pressing ahead with a big public march. St Louis, meanwhile, cracked down on people's movement and gatherings within just two days of the influenza strain entering its borders. By the end of the crisis, its death toll was less than half of Philadelphia's.

Dr Stephen Duckett and his colleagues at Grattan have been tracking the scale and speed of new COVID-19 infections in nations all around the world. Cases might appear in just a trickle at first but, once countries crack the 100 mark, the virus seems to either explode rapidly such as in China initially, and then Iran, Italy, the US, and Spain or slow to a flatter line as has been recorded elsewhere including Singapore and Hong Kong. Dr Duckett says nations that moved fast to test and track suspected cases and then brought in tough social distancing or containment measures along the lines of the St Louis model have already seen their infection growth fall, even after rapid early spread.

In lieu of a vaccine, countries from China and Italy to the US and Israel are turning to increasingly medieval methods to stem the tide of the pandemic, closing borders, raising barricades and shutting down much of daily life such as restaurants and workplaces. Other countries like Singapore and Taiwan have brought their case loads under control by getting ahead of the curve early rather than bringing in lockdowns later, ramping up testing, forensically tracing cases back to other people who may have been exposed and making social distancing the norm. (The Philippines has even temporarily quarantined its financial markets, becoming the first country to shut down financial trading in response to the pandemic).

Australia still has comparatively few patients with COVID-19 compared to other parts of the world but our own curve is accelerating. New cases have more than tripled in the past week alone, climbing from 112 on March 10 to 454 as of March 17.

"We're on the scary part of the curve," Dr Duckett says. "Italy had about the same number of cases on February 26, and now has more than 28,000."

In places like Italy, patients doubled roughly every two days. This past week, Australian cases doubled about every 3-4 days, Dr Duckett says, putting us on a similar trajectory to the UK and Spain.

Australian health authorities have also been meeting daily to wargame likely infection rates. Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has said the best outcome is that the virus infects just 20 per cent of the Australian population 5 million people but 60 per cent of Australians, or 15 million, could catch it, a catastrophic scenario for hospitals.

The Morrison government is ramping up medical resources and staff and has already banned "non-essential" indoor gatherings of more than 100 people, (and public events over 500). But so far it's stopped short of telling people to stay home from work, school or restaurants or off public transport in line with some other countries like the US and the UK. As the outbreak gathers steam, many experts, including doctors, are now asking: why wait?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Australian schools, like those in Singapore, will stay open at this stage, based on advice closures would cause unnecessary disruption considering only a tiny fraction of confirmed COVID-19 cases so far have been in children. Health Minister Greg Hunt says we need to adopt a "war-time spirit" and work together to get through the next few months. Of course, under the exponential maths of contagion, that actually means our lives need to take a step (or two) farther apart. Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy urges people to think before every physical interaction - washing their hands, cutting out handshaking and kissing hello and keeping clear of others as much as possible. (The US, meanwhile, is telling people to avoid meeting in groups of more than 10 and in Austria that number is down to a cosy five.)

COVID-19 first emerged in humans in late 2019, at a wet market in the sprawling city of Wuhan, China. At first, local authorities were perplexed by the mysterious cases of pneumonia and tried to keep them quiet. The illness was not formally linked to a new strain of coronavirus until early January, when millions of people were already travelling for the country's biggest holiday, Lunar New Year. Infections exploded.

Loading

But then China's Communist government did something without precedent in modern times it locked down cities and transport across huge swathes of the country, grounding tens of millions. Factories shut down. Schools and offices closed. Streets emptied.

At the time, such a move seemed unthinkable in a Western democracy (and there are still concerns for those stuck under Wuhan's enduring lockdown). But, in the maths, it appears to be working. China was clocking up more than 3000 new cases a day in early February. By mid-March, that number had fallen to less than 30. Its government has already claimed "a great victory" over the virus, even as it prepares for a possible second wave. The WHO says the turnaround is a sign the pandemic can still be contained with "aggressive measures", lashing countries for their slow responses thus far.

But it's less clear if lockdowns will work for Europe or the Middle East, the next frontiers of the pandemic. In Italy and Iran, early cases appeared to again spread under the radar until a sudden surge hit hospitals (and even Iran's parliament). Both governments were slow to act; in Iran, for reportedly political reasons. In Italy, the government was at first reluctant to impose such draconian measures on its densely populated cities, like turning soccer fans away from matches or closing bars. But blockades in the north, where the outbreak began, failed to stop infections leaking into the rest of the country and beyond.

Now Italy has gone into its own style of lockdown (followed by countries such as Spain, France and Germany, as cases in those nations also rise). People are mostly staying home, shops are running on restricted hours and people queuing for supplies must stand 1.5 metres apart. From their windows, Italians in home quarantine sing to each other.

Some experts point out that the two countries which appear to have turned the tide on a rapid outbreak China and South Korea have gone further than just lockdowns. Knowing most infections so far have come from close contact in hospitals or family groups, those with (and sometimes without symptoms) are taken out of their homes and put into hospital isolation instead a move recommendedby the WHO. Milder cases are kept together in huge pop-up fever clinics, often in converted stadiums and gymnasiums, and those still being tested kept away from confirmed cases, after old horror stories of infection circulating in SARS quarantine.

Loading

Both countries, including success stories such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, have also been aggressively hunting for cases temperatures are taken before entering any building. If you have a fever, you must roll up to a specialised clinic or "drive-through" for testing.

These parts of the world have been hit hard by dangerous coroanvirus outbreaks of the past, including SARS, Dr Duckett notes, and so their people were already primed for the health checks to come. When word came from China that another coronavirus had jumped from animals to humans, countries like Singapore and Taiwan acted quickly. Social distancing has since been playing out without need for stricter lockdowns or domestic travel bans. While Hong Kong faced criticism for not closing its borders to mainland China fast enough, months of anti-Beijing protests means schools were already teaching online and many people working from home.

South Korea, meanwhile, saw cases erupt within a religious sect and quickly deployed particularly exhaustive detective work to track down close contacts of known cases famously using CCTV to trace people back to a specific bus or taxi and even prosecuting those who lied about their movements.

The island nation of Singapore looked in danger of being overrun in February when it was recording the second-highest volume of cases outside China. But it has since flattened its own curve through quick detection and diagnosis as well as strictly enforced home quarantines (featuring spot checks and twice-daily location monitoring with serious penalties applying for a breach.) Meanwhile, countries such as China, Iran and Israel are deploying their notoriously invasive surveillance networks, including tracking phones, to keep tabs on people under isolation and close in on suspected cases.

Australia also has powers to order people into quarantine and some states such as Victoria have started to mobilise police forces to help enforce such orders if required. But other experts including Adjunct Professor at UNSW Bill Bowtell, who helped design Australia's response to the AIDS crisis, have warned punitive measures will only keep people away from testing clinics.

Lining up for a "fever clinic" at Sir Charles Gairdner hospital in Perth.Credit:Nine

WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has blasted governments around the world for giving up on widespread testing and contact tracing, "the backbone" of any response, even as they ramp up social distancing measures.

"You cannot fight a fire blindfolded and we cannot stop this pandemic if we don't know who is infected," he said on March 16. "Test every suspected case. If they test positive, isolate them and find out who they have been in contact with. And test those people too."

A lab test for samples of the virus was created quickly. But faster blood tests are still only widely available in China, where diagnosis has been industrialised. At a fever clinic, you will be met by a healthcare worker in full protective gear, testing white blood cell counts and deploying handheld portable CAT scanners to check for the tell-tale "ground glass" inflammation of COVID-19 in the lungs. Even there, a recent study found two thirds of reported cases could be traced back to undiagnosed patients suggesting the virus could be spreading under the radar even from people with fewer symptoms who shed less virus.

In the US, low testing rates and diagnosis delays from a botched roll-out of intial tests has been blamed for a sudden explosion of cases across Washington, New York and California many fear the US has since missed its window for containment.

As test kits run low elsewhere, Australia is only testing people considered at risk either from recent overseas travel, exposure to a confirmed case or, in some cases, an unexplained and severe bout of pneumonia. But aged care residents and doctors with symptoms can now be tested too. Health Minister Greg Hunt insists Australia is still testing more than most countries: 81,000 tests so far, with an additional 97,000 kits set to arrive in clinics.

The term "herd immunity" has now also gone viral amid speculation Britain's government was lagging behind other nations in imposing social distancing measures as part of a bold plan to allow the virus to sweep through the population, (and so build up their immunity against it).

In the modern era, community resistance to a virus is commonly achieved through a vaccine. Experts, including in Australia, have warned that stalling protections against COVID-19 for the sake of encouraging natural resistance among "the herd" could be "catastrophic", costing lives without much slow down.

The United Kingdom still plans to seal off those considered particularly vulnerable to complications from the new virus, including the old, unwell and pregnant women, for three months. But it's since brought forward social distancing - following the US in announcing new measures warning people to stay home from work and to avoid crowded public places such as pubs and cinemas.

Now the Netherlands has revealed it will embrace a COVID-19 strategy of its own based on herd immunity, saying mass lockdowns are not feasible.

Analysis of virus-fighting strategies by the Imperial College London found targeted measures such as isolating those exposed to the virus or at risk of serious complications could reduce peak demand on hospitals by about two thirds. But researchers noted this would still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and instead recommended a wider "suppression" where more people in the community stay home.

The problem, as Professor Murphy in Australia has also stressed, is keeping it up over the months ahead without burn out. "You can't just shut things down for two weeks and that's it. It has to keep going."

Sherryn Groch is the explainer reporter for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

Read the original post:
Coronavirus: How are countries flattening the curve and do lockdowns work? - Sydney Morning Herald

Museums in New York have closed their doors to the public, the citys opera is silent, Broadway lights are fading as the city bans all gatherings exceeding 500 people.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo has already publicized this restriction on gatherings hat include more than 500 people. However, it is just a temporary ban and soon the coronavirus is under control, everything would be back to normal he says.

He has also announced the time for this ban. It would be imposed this Friday, at 5 pm in the evening, all across the US. But it doesnt include public services centers like hospitals, dispensaries, nursing homes, schools, etc.

Ban on the Broadway theaters has already been made effective as of April 12thand confirmed by the Broadway League, which is a local organization of producers and proprietors of these Broadway theatres.

Also read- Can Scientists Cure HIV With Stem Cell Therapy?

Governor Cuomo says; As soon as we can go back to normal well go back to normal. But we are still ascending, we are still on the upward trajectory of this disease.

So far, the city has reported 95 confirmed cases of coronavirus, confirms Cuomo. There are 300+ reported cases all across the US and the maximum number of these cases are being reported from a suburban area of New York City, New Rochelle.

Different cultural groups in the city have acknowledged the ban, showing support in coronavirus prevention plan by the government. Three of the most important public places shutting down for an unannounced time include the Metropolitan Museum of Art in three locations, the Metropolitan Opera and Carnegie Hall.

President of the museum, Daniel Weiss said in his statement that; The Mets priority is to protect and support our staff, volunteers, and visitors,

He didnt give any date for Museum reopening.

On the other side, the opera company has confirmed canceling all the shows and performances till March 31st. In addition to that, Carnegie Hall has also confirmed closing for all types of public gatherings till the end of this month.

Closing of all these places shows that the New York administration is taking extreme measures to save the residents from coronavirus outbreak. On Wednesday, Cuomo announced that New York Citys famous St. Patricks Day Parade is postponed for this year. This is the first time in the last 258 years that New York would not witness its historic parade.

Also read- Coronaviruss Life is Just Three Days, New Test Reveals

The city Mayor Bill de Blasio wrote in this tweet implying that the parade is not completely canceled but it may be announced on another day when the country is over this coronavirus fear.

Although coronavirus doesnt seem that dangerous; it only causes minor health problems such as flu, cough, and sore throat, leading to fever. But the older people and those with compromised immunity are at a high risk of complications that could take their lives.

Fortunately, a majority of coronavirus infected people are under treatment and showing recovery. In fact, China has discharged thousands of patients after a complete recovery.

The World Health Organization explains that people at an early stage of infection can be completely recovered within two weeks. However, the severe cases of coronavirus may take up to six weeks to show any sign of recovery. Additionally, the recovery time is highly dependent upon the age and health status of the patient.

View original post here:
Coronavirus Fear- New York Bans All Gatherings that Exceed 500 People - TheHealthMania

After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that thecoronavirus outbreakis officially a pandemic, countries around the world have responded accordingly.Universitiesin Canada and the US are closing, non-essential conferences andsports leaguesare being canceled, and people are being advised to halt all travel plans. Anyone can get infected, and the only way to slow down the outbreak is toreduce the number of people getting infected.

Amidst this fear, the most widespread advice for anyone experiencing symptoms is tosocially distance themselves. But what, exactly, does that mean? How is this different from self-isolation? What if you live with family? What if only one person in a family of four is experiencing symptoms? Why is this even important?

How do I know if I need to socially distance myself? How is that different from self-isolation and strict isolation?

Everyone should besocially distancingthemselves! Essentially, that means deliberately distancing yourself from other individuals to reduce COVID-19 transmission rates.

On the other hand,self-isolationor self-quarantine is when you have been in contact with someone who was diagnosed with the coronavirus, or someone who was exhibiting symptoms. Self-isolation also applies for people who are asymptomatic, but have secondary medical issues (diabetes, heart condition) that may make a coronavirus infection more dangerous for them.

Lastly,isolationis when you have been diagnosed with COVID-19, or if you are exhibiting any flu-like symptoms. At this point, you will receive instructions for isolation from your medical provider.

What does social distancing entail?

If possible,do not leave the house. Try to stay at least six feet away from other people, and avoid coming in direct contact with them. Social distancing can also be done by avoiding crowds and mass gatherings, canceling upcoming events, working from home, moving classes online, and communicating electronically instead of personally visiting people.

What if I live with other people?

Even if no one in the household is exhibiting symptoms, it is best to keep distance for at least two weeks, which would be the viruss incubation period.On the other hand, if you need to self-isolate, try to sleep in separate rooms, and keep6 feet away from each other. Frequently wash your hands, andfrequently keep your surrounding areas clean. If possible, avoid touching your face, especially after being in contact with shared possessions or furniture. Wash all plates and utensils thoroughly with warm soap and water, or use a dishwasher with a drying cycle.

How can I help vulnerable people?

If there are vulnerable and at-risk individuals in your neighborhood, consider getting groceries and other essentials for them, and leave the items at their doorstep. Frequently call or check up on your friends and family, since social distancing can be quite lonely.

Why is social distancing important for everyone, including young and asymptomatic people?

According to data fromSouth Korean authorities, translated byDr. Eric Feigl-Ding, young people between the ages of 20 and 29 are carrying 30% of the disease in South Korea, with the majority beingasymptomatic, meaning they are not experiencing symptoms. This means that while you mayfeelfine, if you are sick you can still infect a large number of people by just being out and about!

Why is social distancing important?

By now you have probably seen a version of the graph that explains why we need to "flatten the curve." Through social distancing and pro-active measures, we can not only delay the "peak" of the outbreak, easing demand for hospital and emergency services, but can also reduce how bad the outbreak could be.

Do you still have questions about social distancing, isolation, or anything else about the coronavirus pandemic?

Ask our community of scientists now!

Follow this link:
What does social distancing really mean? - Massive Science

GeneDx, a global leader in genomics andpatient testing, is celebrating its remarkable 20th anniversary throughout themonth of March.

The Gaithersburg, Maryland company has played an important role in the history of genetic sequencing and the rise of the BioHealth Capital Region as a global biohealth cluster. GeneDx was the very first company to commercially offer NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) testing in a CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments) lab and has been at the leading edge of genetic sequencing and testing for two decades. The companys whole exome sequencing program and comprehensive testing capabilities are world-renowned.

In its storied 20 yearhistory, GeneDx has provided genetic testing to patients in over 55 countries.The company is known globally as world-class experts in rare and ultra-rarediseases.

In 2000, GeneDx was founded by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists Dr. Sherri Bale and Dr. John Compton. These two genomics experts and thought leaders started GeneDx to complete an important mission: To provide rare and ultra-rare disease patients and families with diagnostic services that were not commercially available at that time.

Prior to launching GeneDx, Bale spent 16 years at NIH, the last nine as Head of the Genetic Studies Section in the Laboratory of Skin Biology. She has been a pioneer during her storied career, publishing over 140 papers, chapters and books in the field. Her 35-year career includes deep experience in clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular genetics research.

Before partnering with Bale to form GeneDx, Compton was an investigator at the Jackson Laboratory, and for the last nine years as a senior scientist in the Genetics Studies Section at the NIH. Comptons work on the molecular genetics of inherited skin disease and expertise in laboratory methodology is known throughout the world. Compton has remarkable experience in the development and application of molecular biological techniques to answer questions about genetics and epidermal differentiation.

GeneDx, like manysuccessful BHCR life science companies, had a humble start, operating initiallyout of the Technology Development Center incubator. Just six years later,GeneDx was acquired by BioreferenceLabs for approximately $17M.

From there, the companylaunched its first array CGH (Comparative Genomic Hybridization) or aCGH testin 2007. An array CGH is also called microarray analysis, which is a atechnique enabling high-resolution, genome-wide screening of segmental genomiccopy number variations (NIH). By 2008, GeneDx had launched its Cardiology NextGeneration Sequencing Panel and by 2011 the company had commercialized itsneurology testing program. In 2012, GeneDx launched its Whole Exome Sequencing (XomeDx) for which it has become so well known in the genomicfield. A year later its Inherited Cancer Panels hit the market. 2018 saw thecompany achieve a significant milestone when it announced ithad performed clinical Exome Sequencing on more than 100,000 individuals.

Both Bale and Comptonhave since retired and GeneDx is currently led by Chief Medical Officer Dr. Gabriele Richard;Chief Innovation Officer Kyle Retterer, MS;Rhonda Brandon, MS

Chief InformationOfficer; and Dr. Sean Hofherr, FACMG, CLIA Laboratory Director & ChiefScientific Officer.

GeneDx has come a longway from its incubator headquarters over the past two decades. With over 450employees, the company continues to deliver on its mission to provide crucialdiagnostic genetic testing capabilities to patients and families across theglobe.

Happy Anniversary GeneDX. Heres to many more.

Steve has over 20 years experience in copywriting, developing brand messaging and creating marketing strategies across a wide range of industries, including the biopharmaceutical, senior living, commercial real estate, IT and renewable energy sectors, among others. He is currently the Principal/Owner of StoryCore, a Frederick, Maryland-based content creation and execution consultancy focused on telling the unique stories of Maryland organizations.

Read the original post:
GeneDx Celebrates 20 Year History as Pioneer In Genetic Sequencing and Testing - BioBuzz

By Jason Arunn Murugesu

Jochen Tack / Alamy

As consumer genetic testing has risen in popularity, awareness of the value of genetic data has lagged behind. A survey of people in the US has found that 50 per cent would hand over their genetic data for $95 (70), on average.

Forrest Briscoe at Pennsylvania State University and his colleagues surveyed more than 2000 people about the use of genetic data, which can be stored in databases for police use, at direct-to-consumer genetic test firms, and for medical research.

I really felt like we needed updated information about how the public views these databases, says Briscoe. They are growing quickly, in number and size, but the information being used to inform design and governance is outdated.

Advertisement

The participants, a representative sample of the US population, watched a 3-minute video detailing both the commercial value of genomic data and genetic privacy issues. This included a statement that consumer genetic testing firm 23andMe sells access to its databaseto pharmaceutical firms for $140 per individuals data.

The participants were then split into five groups and asked whether they would grant access to their genetic data either as a donation or in exchange for money to one of five types of organisation: a non-profit hospital, a pharmaceutical company, a tech firm, a university research lab and a US federal research agency.

While 38 per cent said they wouldnt share their data, 50 per cent said they would if they were paid, and 12 per cent said they would do it for free.

The type of organisation that would use their data didnt affect willingness to share. That was a surprise, says Briscoe. We think this makes the case for a common governance framework for DNA databases, whoever they are owned by.

Those who said they wanted to be paid, expected a median of $130, but said they would accept $95 if they also received a health and ancestry report based on their genetic data. People who said they would give their data away said they would pay an average of $75 for such a report.

These results demonstrate the growing interest in maintaining a degree of control over personal information, says Tim Caulfield at the University of Alberta, Canada. The public has been told for decades that this research is essential and valuable and potentially profitable. They may be thinking, Okay, I believe you. Pay me.

Journal reference: PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229044

More on these topics:

See the article here:
Half of people in the US would sell their genetic data for $95 - New Scientist News

ANN ARBORAs doctors, scientists and governments try to get a grip on COVID-19, the University of Michigan startup Arbor Biosciences is providing free kits to capture the genetic code of virus samples.

Variations in that code reveal how the virus has morphed over timefor instance, enabling it to change from an animal disease to one that can be passed from one human to another.

The information could help shed light on how the genes of the virus, SARS-CoV-2, cause the symptoms of the disease COVID-19. But more important in the long run, it could help reveal the factors that enabled the virus to become infectious in humans.

By making the kit free, Arbor Biosciences brings more talent to the table fighting the new coronavirus. Cash-strapped research groups could test ideas within weeks, rather than having to revise a locked-down budget or go through the slow process of applying for a grant.

Jean-Marie Rouillard, an assistant research scientist in chemical engineering at U-M and co-founder and director of technology at Arbor Biosciences, and Alison Devault, director of genomics at Arbor Biosciences, answered questions about the kit and what it could do.

Why is genetic sequencing important for understanding the coronavirus outbreak?

Rouillard: In order to truly understand the evolutionary history of a virus like this one, researchers need to study similar or related viral genome sequences from many different contexts, such as wild animal populations. We anticipate that researchers will use our panel to reconstruct the genetic sequences of the virus SARS-CoV-2formerly known as the 2019 novel coronavirusfrom a variety of human and animal samples.

Many examples of genome sequences are needed to track a diseases historical spread. Already, genetic sequencing has suggested that coronavirus may have been circulating in Washington state since mid-January. In addition, genetic sequencing can help researchers understand how specific parts of the genome are linked to certain disease-causing properties, which may help inform the choice of appropriate medical treatments.

What does your panel do?

Devault: The myBaits Expert kit for the SARS-CoV-2 retrieves and isolates fragments of the viruss genome from any type of sample, such as blood from an infected animal or person. We use known portions of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to design baits that capture the fragments. Then, a researcher uses specialized software to digitally reconstruct an entire viral genome sequence.

How could it help with outbreaks like COVID-19?

Devault: We expect the research results from using our panel to be more relevant to preventing the next outbreak. The panel is not designed to diagnose, treat or cure a given patient. But it can be used to help determine which animal species are potential sources of COVID-19. In addition to identifying which animals pose a risk now, this use helps the global research community understand when and why this novel pathogenic virus emerged. If we know the conditions that enabled SARS-CoV-2 to appear, we may be able to prevent a future virus from following the same pathway.

How did you start offering these kits for free?

Devault: Several weeks ago, we received a request for such a panel from a researcher, which we were happy to manufacture very quickly and provide to them for free. We felt that due to the overall urgency of understanding the context of this disease, it was clear that we should make comprehensive study kits freely available ASAP to all members of the virology research community that wish to use this tool. While I hope no one would need to write a grant just to afford our kits, funding allocations can create barriers for new applications that dont fit into pre-approved budgets.

Since we announced the panel, weve heard from multiple different virology research groups that would like to use the kit, based in many different countries in North America, Europe and Asia. We were able to scale up production to ensure that we have enough kit materials in stock to quickly respond to all researcher requests.

Arbor Biosciences was started in 2005 by Rouillard and Erdogan Gulari, a professor of chemical engineering at U-M, under the name Biodiscovery LLC. Its technology has enabled some of the most difficult genetic sequencing successes, including the DNA of a horse that lived 700,000 years ago.

Continued here:
Free coronavirus sequencing kits for researchers offered by U-M startup - University of Michigan News

Please note that this article includes an image of human remains.

A friend of mine with Central American, Southern European, and West African ancestry is lactose intolerant. Drinking milk products upsets her stomach, and so she avoids them. About a decade ago, because of her low dairy intake, she feared that she might not be getting enough calcium, so she asked her doctor for a bone density test. He responded that she didnt need one because blacks do not get osteoporosis.

My friend is not alone. The view that black people dont need a bone density test is a longstanding and common myth. A 2006 study in North Carolina found that out of 531 African American and Euro-American women screened for bone mineral density, only 15 percent were African American womendespite the fact that African American women made up almost half of that clinical population. A health fair in Albany, New York, in 2000, turned into a ruckus when black women were refused free osteoporosis screening. The situation hasnt changed much in more recent years.

Meanwhile, FRAX, a widely used calculator that estimates ones risk of osteoporotic fractures, is based on bone density combined with age, sex, and, yes, race. Race, even though it is never defined or demarcated, is baked into the fracture risk algorithms.

Lets break down the problem.

First, presumably based on appearances, doctors placed my friend and others into a socially defined race box called black, which is a tenuous way to classify anyone.

Race is a highly flexible way in which societies lump people into groups based on appearance that is assumed to be indicative of deeper biological or cultural connections. As a cultural category, the definitions and descriptions of races vary. Color lines based on skin tone can shift, which makes sense, but the categories are problematic for making any sort of scientific pronouncements.

Second, these medical professionals assumed that there was a firm genetic basis behind this racial classification, which there isnt.

Third, they assumed that this purported racially defined genetic difference would protect these women from osteoporosis and fractures.

The view that black people dont need a bone density test is a longstanding and common myth.

Some studies suggest that African American womenmeaning women whose ancestry ties back to Africamay indeed reach greater bone density than other women, which could be protective against osteoporosis. But that does not mean being blackthat is, possessing an outward appearance that is socially defined as blackprevents someone from getting osteoporosis or bone fractures. Indeed, this same research also reports that African American women are more likely to die after a hip fracture. The link between osteoporosis risk and certain racial populations may be due to lived differences such as nutrition and activity levels, both of which affect bone density.

But more important: Geographic ancestry is not the same thing as race. African ancestry, for instance, does not tidily map onto being black (or vice versa). In fact, a 2016 study found wide variation in osteoporosis risk among women living in different regions within Africa. Their genetic risks have nothing to do with their socially defined race.

When medical professionals or researchers look for a geneticcorrelateto race, they are falling into a trap: They assume thatgeographic ancestry, which does indeed matter to genetics, can be conflated with race, which does not. Sure, different human populations living in distinct places may statistically have different genetic traitssuch as sickle cell trait (discussed below)but such variation is about local populations (people in a specific region), not race.

Like a fish in water, weve all been engulfed by the smog of thinking that race is biologically real. Thus, it is easy to incorrectly conclude that racial differences in health, wealth, and all manner of other outcomes are the inescapable result of genetic differences.

The reality is that socially defined racial groups in the U.S. and most everywhere else do differ in outcomes. But thats not due to genes. Rather, it is due to systemic differences in lived experience and institutional racism.

Communities of color in the United States, for example, often have reduced access to medical care, well-balanced diets, and healthy environments. They are often treated more harshly in their interactions with law enforcement and the legal system. Studies show that they experience greater social stress, including endemic racism, that adversely affects all aspects of health. For example, babies born to African American women are more than twice as likely to die in their first year than babies born to non-Hispanic Euro-American women.

Systemic racism leads to different health outcomes for various populations. The infant mortality rate, for example, for African American infants is double that for European Americans. Kelly Lacy/Pexels

As a professor of biological anthropology, I teach and advise college undergraduates. While my students are aware of inequalities in the life experiences of different socially delineated racial groups, most of them also think that biological races are real things. Indeed, more than half of Americans still believe that their racial identity is determined by information contained in their DNA.

For the longest time, Europeans thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. Their culturally attuned eyes saw this as obvious and unquestionably true. Just as astronomers now know thats not true, nearly all population geneticists know that dividing people into races neither explains nor describes human genetic variation.

Yet this idea of race-as-genetics will not die. For decades, it has been exposed to the sunlight of facts, but, like a vampire, it continues to suck bloodnot only surviving but causing harm in how it can twist science to support racist ideologies. With apologies for the grisly metaphor, it is time to put a wooden stake through the heart of race-as-genetics. Doing so will make for better science and a fairer society.

In 1619, the first people from Africa arrived in Virginia and became integrated into society. Only after African and European bond laborers unified in various rebellions did colony leaders recognize the need to separate laborers. Race divided indentured Irish and other Europeans from enslaved Africans, and reduced opposition by those of European descent to the intolerable conditions of enslavement. What made race different from other prejudices, including ethnocentrism (the idea that a given culture is superior), is that it claimed that differences were natural, unchanging, and God-given. Eventually, race also received the stamp of science.

Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus divided humanity up into racial categories according to his notion of shared essences among populations, a concept researchers now recognize has no scientific basis. Wikimedia Commons

Over the next decades, Euro-American natural scientists debated the details of race, asking questions such as how often the races were created (once, as stated in the Bible, or many separate times), the number of races, and their defining, essential characteristics. But they did not question whether races were natural things. They reified race, making the idea of race real by unquestioning, constant use.

In the 1700s, Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and someone not without ego, liked to imagine himself as organizing what God created. Linnaeus famously classified our own species into races based on reports from explorers and conquerors.

The race categories he created included Americanus, Africanus, and even Monstrosus (for wild and feral individuals and those with birth defects), and their essential defining traits included a biocultural mlange of color, personality, and modes of governance. Linnaeus described Europeaus as white, sanguine, and governed by law, and Asiaticus as yellow, melancholic, and ruled by opinion. These descriptions highlight just how much ideas of race are formulated by social ideas of the time.

In line with early Christian notions, these racial types were arranged in a hierarchy: a great chain of being, from lower forms to higher forms that are closer to God. Europeans occupied the highest rungs, and other races were below, just above apes and monkeys.

So, the first big problems with the idea of race are that members of a racial group do not share essences, Linnaeus idea of some underlying spirit that unified groups, nor are races hierarchically arranged. A related fundamental flaw is that races were seen to be static and unchanging. There is no allowance for a process of change or what we now call evolution.

There have been lots of efforts since Charles Darwins time to fashion the typological and static concept of race into an evolutionary concept. For example, Carleton Coon, a former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, argued in The Origin of Races (1962) that five races evolved separately and became modern humans at different times.

One nontrivial problem with Coons theory, and all attempts to make race into an evolutionary unit, is that there is no evidence. Rather, all the archaeological and genetic data point to abundant flows of individuals, ideas, and genes across continents, with modern humans evolving at the same time, together.

In this map, darker colors correspond to regions in which people tend to have darker skin pigmentation. Reproduced with permission from Dennis ONeil.

A few pundits such as Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute and science writers such as Nicholas Wade, formerly of The New York Times, still argue that even though humans dont come in fixed, color-coded races, dividing us into races still does a decent job of describing human genetic variation. Their position is shockingly wrong. Weve known for almost 50 years that race does not describe human genetic variation.

In 1972, Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin had the idea to test how much human genetic variation could be attributed to racial groupings. He famously assembled genetic data from around the globe and calculated how much variation was statistically apportioned within versus among races. Lewontin found that only about 6 percent of genetic variation in humans could be statistically attributed to race categorizations. Lewontin showed that the social category of race explains very little of the genetic diversity among us.

Furthermore, recent studies reveal that the variation between any two individuals is very small, on the order of one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), or single letter change in our DNA, per 1,000. That means that racial categorization could, at most, relate to 6 percent of the variation found in 1 in 1,000 SNPs. Put simply, race fails to explain much.

In addition, genetic variation can be greater within groups that societies lump together as one race than it is between races. To understand how that can be true, first imagine six individuals: two each from the continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Again, all of these individuals will be remarkably the same: On average, only about 1 out of 1,000 of their DNA letters will be different. A study by Ning Yu and colleagues places the overall difference more precisely at 0.88 per 1,000.

The circles in this diagram represent the relative size and overlap in genetic variation in three human populations. The African population circle (blue) is largest because it contains the most genetic diversity. Genetic diversity in European (orange) and Asian (green) populations is a subset of the variation in Africa. Reproduced by permission of the American Anthropological Association.Adapted from the original, which appeared in the book RACE.Not for sale or further reproduction.

The researchers further found that people in Africa had less in common with one another than they did with people in Asia or Europe. Lets repeat that: On average, two individuals in Africa are more genetically dissimilar from each other than either one of them is from an individual in Europe or Asia.

Homo sapiens evolved in Africa; the groups that migrated out likely did not include all of the genetic variation that built up in Africa. Thats an example of what evolutionary biologists call the founder effect, where migrant populations who settle in a new region have less variation than the population where they came from.

Genetic variation across Europe and Asia, and the Americas and Australia, is essentially a subset of the genetic variation in Africa. If genetic variation were a set of Russian nesting dolls, all of the other continental dolls pretty much fit into the African doll.

What all these data show is that the variation that scientistsfrom Linnaeus to Coon to the contemporary osteoporosis researcherthink is race is actually much better explained by a populations location. Genetic variation is highly correlated to geographic distance. Ultimately, the farther apart groups of people are from one another geographically, and, secondly, the longer they have been apart, can together explain groups genetic distinctions from one another. Compared to race, those factors not only better describe human variation, they invoke evolutionary processes to explain variation.

Those osteoporosis doctors might argue that even though socially defined race poorly describes human variation, it still could be a useful classification tool in medicine and other endeavors. When the rubber of actual practice hits the road, is race a useful way to make approximations about human variation?

When Ive lectured at medical schools, my most commonly asked question concerns sickle cell trait. Writer Sherman Alexie, a member of the Spokane-Coeur dAlene tribes, put the question this way in a 1998 interview: If race is not real, explain sickle cell anemia to me.

In sickle cell anemia, red blood cells take on an unusual crescent shape that makes it harder for the cells to pass through small blood vessels. Mark Garlick/Science Photo Library/AP Images

OK! Sickle cell is a genetic trait: It is the result of an SNP that changes the amino acid sequence of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. When someone carries two copies of the sickle cell variant, they will have the disease. In the United States, sickle cell disease is most prevalent in people who identify as African American, creating the impression that it is a black disease.

Yet scientists have known about the much more complex geographic distribution of sickle cell mutation since the 1950s. It is almost nonexistent in the Americas, most parts of Europe and Asiaand also in large swaths of Northern and Southern Africa. On the other hand, it is common in West-Central Africa and also parts of the Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula, and India. Globally, it does not correlate with continents or socially defined races.

In one of the most widely cited papers in anthropology, American biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone helped to explain the evolution of sickle cell. He showed that places with a long history of agriculture and endemic malaria have a high prevalence of sickle cell trait (a single copy of the allele). He put this information together with experimental and clinical studies that showed how sickle cell trait helped people resist malaria, and made a compelling case for sickle cell trait being selected for in those areas. Evolution and geography, not race, explain sickle cell anemia.

What about forensic scientists: Are they good at identifying race? In the U.S., forensic anthropologists are typically employed by law enforcement agencies to help identify skeletons, including inferences about sex, age, height, and race. The methodological gold standards for estimating race are algorithms based on a series of skull measurements, such as widest breadth and facial height. Forensic anthropologists assume these algorithms work.

Skull measurements are a longstanding tool in forensic anthropology. Internet Archive Book Images/Flickr

The origin of the claim that forensic scientists are good at ascertaining race comes from a 1962 study of black, white, and Native American skulls, which claimed an 8090 percent success rate. That forensic scientists are good at telling race from a skull is a standard trope of both the scientific literature and popular portrayals. But my analysis of four later tests showed that the correct classification of Native American skulls from other contexts and locations averaged about two incorrect for every correct identification. The results are no better than a random assignment of race.

Thats because humans are not divisible into biological races. On top of that, human variation does not stand still. Race groups are impossible to define in any stable or universal way. It cannot be done based on biologynot by skin color, bone measurements, or genetics. It cannot be done culturally: Race groupings have changed over time and place throughout history.

Science 101: If you cannot define groups consistently, then you cannot make scientific generalizations about them.

Wherever one looks, race-as-genetics is bad science. Moreover, when society continues to chase genetic explanations, it misses the larger societal causes underlying racial inequalities in health, wealth, and opportunity.

To be clear, what I am saying is that human biogenetic variation is real. Lets just continue to study human genetic variation free of the utterly constraining idea of race. When researchers want to discuss genetic ancestry or biological risks experienced by people in certain locations, they can do so without conflating these human groupings with racial categories. Lets be clear that genetic variation is an amazingly complex result of evolution and mustnt ever be reduced to race.

Similarly, race is real, it just isnt genetic. Its a culturally created phenomenon. We ought to know much more about the process of assigning individuals to a race group, including the category white. And we especially need to know more about the effects of living in a racialized world: for example, how a societys categories Race is real, it just isnt genetic. Its a culturally created phenomenon.and prejudices lead to health inequalities. Lets be clear that race is a purely sociopolitical construction with powerful consequences.

It is hard to convince people of the dangers of thinking race is based on genetic differences. Like climate change, the structure of human genetic variation isnt something we can see and touch, so it is hard to comprehend. And our culturally trained eyes play a trick on us by seeming to see race as obviously real. Race-as-genetics is even more deeply ideologically embedded than humanitys reliance on fossil fuels and consumerism. For these reasons, racial ideas will prove hard to shift, but it is possible.

Over 13,000 scientists have come together to formand publicizea consensus statement about the climate crisis, and that has surely moved public opinion to align with science. Geneticists and anthropologists need to do the same for race-as-genetics. The recent American Association of Physical Anthropologists Statement on Race & Racism is a fantastic start.

In the U.S., slavery ended over 150 years ago and the Civil Rights Law of 1964 passed half a century ago, but the ideology of race-as-genetics remains. It is time to throw race-as-genetics on the scrapheap of ideas that are no longer useful.

We can start by getting my friendand anyone else who has been deniedthat long-overdue bone density test.

Read the original:
Race Is Real, But It's Not Genetic - SAPIENS

Press release content from Globe Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation.

Click to copy

Denver, Colorado, March 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Patriot Shield, a leader in hemp logistics and security, is launching a new structured propagation program for hemp farmers for the 2020 growing season. Partnering with HempLogic, a global leader in hemp growing services, Patriot Shield is providing premium seeds from its genetics catalog, placed in potting trays with soil and nutrients, and pre-acclimated to the fields they will grow in.

Patriot Shield is offering this propagation program directly to farmers for as little as $0.50 per unit, cutting out middlemen to reduce upfront costs and enabling farmers to gain more control over their seedlings and clones. Farmers with limited capital can also take advantage of Patriot Shields financing terms, with only half of the investment due upfront and the other half due well after harvest. In addition, farmers can utilize Patriot Shields distribution channels, including its retail and wholesale subsidiary, Veteran HempCo, to further increase their return on investment.

We are very excited to help farmers start the 2020 growing season with superior seeds and service, lower initial costs, great financing, and more options to help sell their crop, said Andrew Ross, CEO of Patriot Shield. Our aim is to allow farmers to focus on what they do best: grow hemp.

In 2019, Patriot Shield transported over 4.5 million hemp seeds, starts, and clones for dozens of established genetics providers and licensed farms. The company has methodically selected and worked with leading global hemp geneticists and consultants to gain deep insights into genetic variables. The companys new structured propagation program for 2020 is a direct reflection of these strategic partnerships.

By advising farmers based on acres available, budget, knowledge, and experience with hemp, Patriot Shield links its catalog of partnered genetics to suit the needs of each individual client.

About Patriot Shield

Founded and managed by U.S. military veterans with deep expertise in logistics and security, Patriot Shield is a leading service provider to all areas of the supply chain in the American cannabis (hemp and marijuana) market, delivering end-to-end hemp logistics solutions from genetics consulting and seedling transport, to harvest strategy and processing, and product warehousing to distribution.

Patriot Shield ensures every link in the hemp supply chain is protected with custom security plans, a veteran guard force, and state-of-the-art technology, like tamper-proofing, GPS tracking, and video monitoring. Starting as a pioneer in the legal interstate transport of hemp in the U.S. through a landmark court case, now has operations or strategic partnerships across the US, including the key markets of California, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

# # #

Contact:800-267-8932

Attachment

-- Patriot Shield

Here is the original post:
Patriot Shield Announces Partnership with HempLogic, Launches New Propagation and Distribution Program for 2020 Season - Associated Press

Mar 12th 2020

THE ATOMIC bomb convinced politicians that physics, though not readily comprehensible, was important, and that physicists should be given free rein. In the post-war years, particle accelerators grew from the size of squash courts to the size of cities, particle detectors from the scale of the table top to that of the family home. Many scientists in other disciplines looked askance at the money devoted to this big science and the vast, impersonal collaborations that it brought into being. Some looked on in envy. Some made plans.

The idea that sequencing the whole human genome might provide biology with some big science of its own first began to take root in the 1980s. In 1990 the Human Genome Project was officially launched, quickly growing into a global endeavour. Like other fields of big science it developed what one of the programmes leaders, the late John Sulston, called a tradition of hyperbole. The genome was Everest; it was the Apollo programme; it was the ultimate answer to that Delphic injunction, know thyself. And it was also, in prospect, a cornucopia of new knowledge, new understanding and new therapies.

By the time the completion of a (rather scrappy) draft sequence was announced at the White House in 2000, even the politicians were drinking the Kool-Aid. Tony Blair said it was the greatest breakthrough since antibiotics. Bill Clinton said it would revolutionise the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases. In coming years, doctors increasingly will be able to cure diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinsons, diabetes and cancer by attacking their genetic roots.

Such hype was always going to be hard to live up to, and for a long time the genome project failed comprehensively, prompting a certain Schadenfreude among those who had wanted biology kept small. The role of genetics in the assessment of peoples medical futures continued to be largely limited to testing for specific defects, such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations which, in the early 1990s, had been found to be responsible for some of the breast cancers that run in families.

To understand the lengthy gap between the promise and the reality of genomics, it is important to get a sense of what a genome really is. Although sequencing is related to an older technique of genetic analysis called mapping, it produces something much more appropriate to the White House kitchens than to the Map Room: a recipe. The genes strung out along the genomes chromosomesbig molecules of DNA, carefully packedare descriptions of lifes key ingredients: proteins. Between the genes proper are instructions as to how those ingredients should be used.

If every gene came in only one version, then that first human genome would have been a perfect recipe for a person. But genes come in many varietiesjust as chilies, or olive oils, or tinned anchovies do. Some genetic changes which are simple misprints in the ingredients specification are bad in and of themselvesjust as a meal prepared with fuel oil instead of olive oil would be inedible. Others are problematic only in the context of how the whole dish is put together.

The most notorious of the genes with obvious impacts on health were already known before the genome was sequenced. Thus there were already tests for cystic fibrosis and Huntingtons disease. The role of genes in common diseases turned out to be a lot more involved than many had naively assumed. This made genomics harder to turn into useful insight.

Take diabetes. In 2006 Francis Collins, then head of genome research at Americas National Institutes of Health, argued that there were more genes involved in diabetes than people thought. Medicine then recognised three such genes. Dr Collins thought there might be 12. Today the number of genes with known associations to type-2 diabetes stands at 94. Some of these genes have variants that increase a persons risk of the disease, others have variants that lower that risk. Most have roles in various other processes. None, on its own, amounts to a huge amount of risk. Taken together, though, they can be quite predictivewhich is why there is now an over-the-counter genetic test that measures peoples chances of developing the condition.

In the past few years, confidence in sciences ability to detect and quantify such genome-wide patterns of susceptibility has increased to the extent that they are being used as the basis for something known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). These are quite unlike the genetic tests people are used to. Those single-gene tests have a lot of predictive value: a person who has the Huntingtons gene will get Huntingtons; women with a dangerous BRCA1 mutation have an almost-two-in-three chance of breast cancer (unless they opt for a pre-emptive mastectomy). But the damaging variations they reveal are rare. The vast majority of the women who get breast cancer do not have BRCA mutations. Looking for the rare dangerous defects will reveal nothing about the other, subtler but still possibly relevant genetic traits those women do have.

Polygenic risk scores can be applied to everyone. They tell anyone how much more or less likely they are, on average, to develop a genetically linked condition. A recently developed PRS for a specific form of breast cancer looks at 313 different ways that genomes vary; those with the highest scores are four times more likely to develop the cancer than the average. In 2018 researchers developed a PRS for coronary heart disease that could identify about one in 12 people as being at significantly greater risk of a heart attack because of their genes.

Some argue that these scores are now reliable enough to bring into the clinic, something that would make it possible to target screening, smoking cessation, behavioural support and medications. However, hope that knowing their risk scores might drive people towards healthier lifestyles has not, so far, been validated by research; indeed, so far things look disappointing in that respect.

Assigning a PRS does not require sequencing a subjects whole genome. One just needs to look for a set of specific little markers in it, called SNPs. Over 70,000 such markers have now been associated with diseases in one way or another. But if sequencing someones genome is not necessary in order to inspect their SNPs, understanding what the SNPs are saying in the first place requires that a lot of people be sequenced. Turning patterns discovered in the SNPs into the basis of risk scores requires yet more, because you need to see the variations in a wide range of people representative of the genetic diversity of the population as a whole. At the moment people of white European heritage are often over-represented in samples.

The first genome cost, by some estimates, $3bn

The need for masses of genetic information from many, many human genomes is one of the main reasons why genomic medicine has taken off rather slowly. Over the course of the Human Genome Project, and for the years that followed, the cost of sequencing a genome fell quicklyas quickly as the fall in the cost of computing power expressed through Moores law. But it was falling from a great height: the first genome cost, by some estimates, $3bn. The gap between getting cheaper quickly and being cheap enough to sequence lots of genomes looked enormous.

In the late 2000s, though, fundamentally new types of sequencing technology became available and costs dropped suddenly (see chart). As a result, the amount of data that big genome centres could produce grew dramatically. Consider John Sulstons home base, the Wellcome Sanger Institute outside Cambridge, England. It provided more sequence data to the Human Genome Project than any other laboratory; at the time of its 20th anniversary, in 2012, it had produced, all told, almost 1m gigabytesone petabyteof genome data. By 2019, it was producing that same amount every 35 days. Nor is such speed the preserve of big-data factories. It is now possible to produce billions of letters of sequence in an hour or two using a device that could easily be mistaken for a chunky thumb drive, and which plugs into a laptop in the same way. A sequence as long as a human genome is a few hours work.

As a result, thousands, then tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of genomes were sequenced in labs around the world. In 2012 David Cameron, the British prime minister, created Genomics England, a firm owned by the government, and tasked initially with sequencing 100,000 genomes and integrating sequencing, analysis and reporting into the National Health Service. By the end of 2018 it had finished the 100,000th genome. It is now aiming to sequence five million. Chinas 100,000 genome effort started in 2017. The following year saw large-scale projects in Australia, America and Turkey. Dubai has said it will sequence all of its three million residents. Regeneron, a pharma firm, is working with Geisinger, a health-care provider, to analyse the genomes of 250,000 American patients. An international syndicate of investors from America, China, Ireland and Singapore is backing a 365m ($405m) project to sequence about 10% of the Irish population in search of disease genes.

Genes are not everything. Controls on their expressionepigentics, in the jargonand the effects of the environment need to be considered, too; the kitchen can have a distinctive effect on the way a recipe turns out. That is why biobanks are being funded by governments in Britain, America, China, Finland, Canada, Austria and Qatar. Their stores of frozen tissue samples, all carefully matched to clinical information about the person they came from, allow study both by sequencing and by other techniques. Researchers are keen to know what factors complicate the lines science draws from genes to clinical events.

Today various companies will sequence a genome commercially for $600-$700. Sequencing firms such as Illumina, Oxford Nanopore and Chinas BGI are competing to bring the cost down to $100. In the meantime, consumer-genomics firms will currently search out potentially interesting SNPs for between $100 and $200. Send off for a home-testing kit from 23andMe, which has been in business since 2006, and you will get a colourful box with friendly letters on the front saying Welcome to You. Spit in a test tube, send it back to the company and you will get inferences as to your ancestry and an assessment of various health traits. The health report will give you information about your predisposition to diabetes, macular degeneration and various other ailments. Other companies offer similar services.

Plenty of doctors and health professionals are understandably sceptical. Beyond the fact that many gene-testing websites are downright scams that offer bogus testing for intelligence, sporting ability or wine preference, the medical profession feels that people are not well equipped to understand the results of such tests, or to deal with their consequences.

An embarrassing example was provided last year by Matt Hancock, Britains health minister. In an effort to highlight the advantages of genetic tests, he revealed that one had shown him to be at heightened risk of prostate cancer, leading him to get checked out by his doctor. The test had not been carried out by Britains world-class clinical genomics services but by a private company; critics argued that Mr Hancock had misinterpreted the results and consequently wasted his doctors time.

23andMe laid off 14% of its staff in January

He would not be the first. In one case, documented in America, third-party analysis of genomic data obtained through a website convinced a woman that her 12-year-old daughter had a rare genetic disease; the girl was subjected to a battery of tests, consultations with seven cardiologists, two gynaecologists and an ophthalmologist and six emergency hospital visits, despite no clinical signs of disease and a negative result from a genetic test done by a doctor.

At present, because of privacy concerns, the fortunes of these direct-to-consumer companies are not looking great. 23andMe laid off 14% of its staff in January; Veritas, which pioneered the cheap sequencing of customers whole genomes, stopped operating in America last year. But as health records become electronic, and health advice becomes more personalised, having validated PRS scores for diabetes or cardiovascular disease could become more useful. The Type 2 diabetes report which 23andMe recently launched looks at over 1,000 SNPs. It uses a PRS based on data from more than 2.5m customers who have opted to contribute to the firms research base.

As yet, there is no compelling reason for most individuals to have their genome sequenced. If genetic insights are required, those which can be gleaned from SNP-based tests are sufficient for most purposes. Eventually, though, the increasing number of useful genetic tests may well make genome sequencing worthwhile. If your sequence is on file, many tests become simple computer searches (though not all: tests looking at the wear and tear the genome suffers over the course of a lifetime, which is important in diseases like cancer, only make sense after the damage is done). If PRSs and similar tests come to be seen as valuable, having a digital copy of your genome at hand to run them on might make sense.

Some wonder whether the right time and place to do this is at birth. In developed countries it is routine to take a pinprick of blood from the heel of a newborn baby and test it for a variety of diseases so that, if necessary, treatment can start quickly. That includes tests for sickle-cell disease, cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria (a condition in which the body cannot break down phenylalanine, an amino acid). Some hospitals in America have already started offering to sequence a newborns genome.

Sequencing could pick up hundreds, or thousands, of rare genetic conditions. Mark Caulfield, chief scientist at Genomics England, says that one in 260 live births could have a rare condition that would not be spotted now but could be detected with a whole-genome sequence. Some worry, though, that it would also send children and parents out of the hospital with a burden of knowledge they might be better off withoutespecially if they conclude, incorrectly, that genetic risks are fixed and predestined. If there is unavoidable suffering in your childs future do you want to know? Do you want to tell them? If a child has inherited a worrying genetic trait, should you see if you have it yourselfor if your partner has? The ultimate answer to the commandment know thyself may not always be a happy one.

This article appeared in the Technology Quarterly section of the print edition under the headline "Welcome to you"

Go here to read the rest:
Genomics took a long time to fulfil its promise - The Economist

Progressive Genetics is suspending its manual milk recording service from 12:00pm tomorrow, Tuesday, March 17, due to the ongoing developments with Covid-19.

Taking measures to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus, the agricultural services firm sent out a text to customers of its manual milk recording service earlier today, Monday, March 16, to inform them of the development.

The manual milk recording will be suspended for a two-week period and is expected to resume on Monday, March 30, according to the company.

Speaking to AgriLand about the decision, Progressive Genetics milk recording manager Stephen Connolly explained: We have to be responsible.

We want to protect our staff, our contractors and our farmers. Thats whats most important.

The manager assured that Electronic do it yourself (EDIY) milk recording will continue over the two-week period, adding:

We have a protocol in place to minimise contact with the farmer and if a farmer is under pressure with a [somatic] cell count issue or anything like that we will get EDIY staff to drop bottles out so that the farmer can do samples themselves, if there is a spike in cell count.

Commenting on the suspension, Connolly said: It is unfortunate and regrettable, but you need a bit of common sense. We do need to put best practice in place and then hopefully after the next two weeks we can get back manual milk recording.

We all have to play our part. Its trying to minimise everything as much as possible. We all need to do our bit, whether it be Progressive Genetics or farmers or the public, just to minimise the risk.

The manager reiterated that EDIY services remain in place, adding that strict protocols are being adhered to regarding minimising contact and disinfecting equipment between farms.

If a farmer has a problem, we will get bottles out to them for milk recording and cell count; we wont leave anyone in the lurch.

Were available to be contacted in the office or our supervisors are available to be contacted if farmers have any issues or anything like that well be on call.

Its just unfortunate. Its a challenge but we have to put common sense and peoples safety before anything else, Connolly concluded.

RELATED STORIES

See original here:
Progressive Genetics to suspend manual milk recording due to Covid-19 - Agriland

With the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 on everyones mind these days, scientists are working to understand its characteristics. Tung Phan from the University of Pittburgh, for example, found many mutations in the genome of the virus, underlining its genetic diversity and the rapid evolution this pathogen is capable of.

This begs bigger questions, thoughlike what makes viruses so adaptable, and are they really alive?

First, their total number is staggering. It is estimated that there are 10 viruses for every bacterium on Earth. Curtis Suttle from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver compared the number of viruses in the oceans alone to the number of stars in the Universe, which is estimated to be 1023. Viruses outnumber stars by a factor of 10 million. If you lined them all up, that line would be 10 million light years long! To put it on a more conceivable scale, its been estimated that each day, more than 700 million viruses, mainly of marine origin, are deposited from Earths atmosphere onto every square meter of our planets surface.

The diversity of viruses is just as impressive. Some use DNA to pass on genetic information, some use RNA, and some use both during their life cycle. The information carrier can be single-stranded, double-stranded, or double-stranded with some regions being single-stranded. Viruses are like a natural lab seemingly playing around with genetic permutations and combinations. While most viruses are so small that they can only be observed directly with an electron microscope, others, like the giant Mimiviruses, reach the size of bacteria. When I worked in my lab with viruses that kill bacteriacalled bacteriophageswe did not count the actual viruses, but the number of bacteria they killed.

Viruses also have benefits. Most of the genetic information on Earth probably resides within them, and viruses are important for transferring genes between different species, increasing genetic diversity and ultimately enhancing evolution and the adaptation of various organisms to new environmental challenges. When life was first arising on Earth, they may have been critical to the evolution of the first cells. I imagine some kind of early Darwinian pond in which viruses and the first cells swapped genes with each other, nearly unimpeded, to come up with critical new adaptations, enhancing the survival of both under challenging early-Earth conditions.

So, are viruses alive?

It depends where we draw the border between non-life and life, which is likely a continuum toward increasing complexity. Does life require cells? Personally, I think thats a bithow should I say it?cell-centric rather than Earth-centric. In my view, viruses have to be counted as alive. We should recognize them as a fourth domain of life and not dismiss them, if only because they do in fact reproduce outside their own bodies. The parasitic bacteria that cause chlamydia are considered to be living. One hypothesis for the origin of viruses says that they, or at least some of them, could have evolved from bacteria that lost any genes not needed for parasitism. If so, could we say they evolved from living back to non-living?

Another thing I find intriguing: The more common RNA viruseslike the coronavirus behind the current pandemichave typically smaller genome sizes than DNA viruses, apparently because of a higher error-rate when replicating. Too many errors have the effect that natural selection disfavors them. It also limits the maximum size of these viruses.

This seems to support the hypothesis that life originated with an RNA world, and that for very primitive life RNA worked perfectly fine to pass on genetic information. As organisms grew in size, they required larger genomes and needed to transfer more information. At that point DNA outcompeted RNA as a type of informational code. But RNA survives as an essential part of terrestrial biology, as were seeing with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Like this article?SIGN UP for our newsletter

Original post:
There Are More Viruses on Earth Than There Are Stars in the Universe - Air & Space Magazine

A graphic representation of kinesin-2 transporting mRNA-protein complexes along the self-assembling highways of a neuron. mNRA localization signals read by the transport complex are indicated with capital Gs. Credit: S Maurer

It is the first time scientists have revealed how the brain shuttles genetic code within its cells.

Research published today (March 13, 2020) in Science Advances sheds new light on the molecular machinery that enables the shape, growth, and movement of neurons. It is the first time scientists have revealed how the brain shuttles genetic code within its cells, a process believed to be crucial for the formation and storage of long-term memories.

Brain cells, also known as neurons, are complex, specialized cells with long branches. To grow, neurons build proteins at specific locations of a branch so that they can form new protrusions, control the direction they move in and establish connections with other neurons. This process is especially important during brain development, helping different types of neurons find their place in the wider brain tissue. The genetic blueprint to build thousands of different types of useful proteins continuously travel around the cells branches in the form of mRNA, which is genetic information copied from DNA.

In this clip, packages of one to four yellow fluorescence-labeled mRNAs with an intact localization signal travel on microtubules assembled in a micro-chambers which is mounted onto a microscope. Blue mRNAs have mutated localization signal which are not recognized by the transport machinery. Credit: S Maurer and S Baumman

How neurons, the longest type of animal cell, get the correct genetic blueprints to the right place at the right time is an unanswered question. It was thought that they are transported by kinesins, elongated proteins with two feet that walk one foot over another to a target destination, but there was no direct evidence to prove this. Every living cell has a network of self-assembling highways to transport large molecular materials from one side to the other. Different vehicles busily move thousands of different cargoes around, with kinesins being the most common type.

Now scientists at the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Barcelona have found that a type of kinesin called KIF3A/B can transport mRNAs, using another protein called adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) as an adaptor that binds both the kinesin and the mRNA-cargo. The proteins transport at least two types of mRNA which code for tubulin and actin, two types of proteins that neurons use to build their cellular skeleton. This is essential to shape the cell so that it can form new connections with other neurons.

The findings are of interest because mRNAs play a key role in the storage and formation of memories. Previous studies show that mRNAs coding for the protein beta-actin continuously travel along synapses, the junction between two neurons. When synapses repeatedly receive a signal, the mRNA is used to make beta-actin proteins, which are important for reinforcing synapses and strengthening the attachment between two neurons. Repeatedly stimulating a synapse continuously reinforces the junction, which is thought to be how memories form.

mRNAs travel across relatively vast distances. Here they make their way across a network of microtubule roads 40 micrometers long. A typical neuron is ten times this length. Automated tracking of transported RNAs (lower panel) reveals the transport velocity and number of mRNAs transported in the same package. Credit: S Maurer and S Baumann

Spanish neuroscientist Santiago Ramon y Cajal first proposed that our brains store memories by strengthening neuronal synapses, changing shape so that brain cells would firmly grasp one another and conduct signals more efficiently, says Sebastian Maurer, researcher at the Centre for Genomic Regulation and lead author of the study. More than a century later we are describing one essential mechanism likely underlying his theories, showing just how ahead of his time he was.

The researchers synthetically recreated cellular self-assembling highways using pure components in a test tube,?revealing the function of individual building blocks and how they work together to transport mRNAs. Purified proteins suspected to be important for neuronal mRNA transport were labeled with different fluorescent dyes and studied with a highly sensitive microscope that can detect the rapid movement of single molecules.?

The researchers found that mRNAs and their adaptor APC switch on the kinesins ignition, activating the protein. Transported mRNAs were found to have a special localization signal that control the efficiency by which different mRNAs are loaded onto the kinesin. Even slight alterations to this signal affected the mRNAs journey to its target destination, showing the sophisticated mechanisms brain cells develop to control the logistics of thousands of different messages. When not carrying cargo, the kinesins shifted to energy saving mode to save fuel until their next job.

Finding the exact vehicle needed to transport mRNA is like looking for a needle in a haystack, which is why most people thought what it was impossible saysSebastian Mauer. But we did it, which would not have been possible without the CRG or the Spanish governments public funding for risky projects.

We will continue to investigate the transport systems that make up a neurons complex logistical network. Understanding the molecular machinery underlying the development of brain cells will be key to combating global challenges like dementia and neurogenerative diseases.

Reference: 13 March 2020, Science Advances.

See the original post here:
How the Brain Shuttles Genetic Code Within Its Cells to Grow and Create Memories - SciTechDaily

Could public health in India be better served by genome testing tailored specifically to the Indian population? The answer could be yes.

Diagnostic techniques have been built and developed for the developed markets so obviously, the cost structure is accordingly, argued Nikhil Jakatdar, chief executive officer (CEO) of GenePath Diagnostics in an interview with the Economic Times. The relevance of this test has been designed for the Caucasian population and so to bring it to India the challenge involves around how you make it relevant to the Indian genome.

This raises an important question. Given the genetic diversity of India, how can genetic testing kits tailored for the use on European genomes be fully optimised for testing within India? Keeping this in mind, to what extent would genetic testing kits built specifically with India in mind benefit Indias medical system?

The first study resulting from the GenomeAsia 100K project has revealed that Asia has at least ten distinct genetic ancestral lines, compared to the single genetic lineage found in northern Europe. Indias population is diverse, with many different ancestral lines in different regions. As such, genetics vary significantly across the country, meaning a single Indian genetic test would be an improvement on current testing methods, but would likely need a more tailored approach.

India represents almost twenty percent of the worlds population and is anticipated by some to become the worlds most populous nation in the coming decade. Despite this only 0.2 percent of fully mapped genomes in global databanks are of Indian origin.

However, despite Indias minuscule representation within global gene databases, numerous genes have been discovered among the Indian population that predispose individuals to certain diseases. A previous example of this was the finding that the Indian population has a high prevalence of a number of genes that are implicated as risk factors for diabetes. Some of these genes were found to be unique to the Indian subcontinent, indicating a unique risk factor to the Indian population. Knowledge of such genetic traits can allow for the healthcare system to adapt and focus on prevention in a way that is more effective among at-risk populations.

Tailoring genome testing to Indias population can allow for the tests to make note of these unique risk factors, granting far better accuracy when assessing an individuals chances of developing a condition in the future.

As Jakatdar notes in the interview, a lot of tests have been built from ground up through pure R&D [research and development] by us here [in India] so that is the huge milestone when you can actually create tests for Indian market built in India by companies in India. Many of these tests were designed for the US market, however, given the capacity for both research and production of new genetic testing products are already in the domestic market. The development of tests specifically for India is not a far-flung eventuality, but a very real possibility in the coming years.

Like Loading...

Related

Read more from the original source:
India-specific genome tests: The future of healthcare - Hyderus Cyf

At age 42, Amy Klein had already suffered three miscarriages and gone through several rounds of IVF. She wasnt done trying to have a baby. But she worried that her age likely meant that her eggs had chromosomal abnormalities that kept her from getting pregnant.

So starting in 2012, the health reporter opted for a controversial addition to the fertility toolkit: She went through four rounds of additional egg retrieval, and had those embryos frozen and genetically analyzed for abnormalities.

The basic in vitro fertilization (IVF) process kick-starts embryo formation by fertilizing an egg, or many, with sperm in a petri dish. Kleins plan was to add an optional and costly method called preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), to look for the most viable embryos in the bunch. Once the embryo reaches a stage called a blastocyst, technicians take a handful of cellssix or seven, aboutto test them for genetic abnormalities that could result in disease or miscarriage.

Read more:
The potential pitfalls of an IVF add-on - Quartz

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration announced that its Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) reported to the European Union and European Commission during the December 2019 Joint Sectoral Committee meeting of CVMs decision to include veterinary pharmaceuticals as part of the FDA/EU mutual recognition agreement (MRA) for pharmaceutical good manufacturing practice inspections.

The EU has also agreed in principle to include veterinary pharmaceuticals as part of the MRA, FDA said.

An MRA is an agreement between two or more countries to recognize a specific process or procedure of the other country, and this is the first step toward strengthening the use of each others animal drug inspection expertise and resources, FDA explained. The overall goal of the MRA is to produce greater efficiencies for both regulatory systems and provide a more practical means for both FDA and the relevant agencies in EU member states to oversee the large number of facilities that manufacture animal drugs in these locations.

FDA explained that by utilizing each others inspection reports and related information, an MRA can ultimately enable FDA and the EU to avoid duplication of some animal drug inspections and enable regulators to devote more resources to other areas where there may be greater risk.

Over the past year-and-a-half, CVM has made significant contributions toward the progress of the MRA framework to include veterinary medicines, the announcement said. This has included sharing information with the EU about CVMs oversight of animal drug manufacturing in the U.S., observing multiple audits and conducting initial evaluations of regulatory frameworks of EU member states and hosting EU-participated audits of two U.S. veterinary firms in June 2019.

To fully utilize all available informational resources, CVM is also considering FDAs experience and relevant data gathered during prior EU member state assessments of human pharmaceuticals, the agency said.

Going forward, CVM will continue to participate in the audits of the remaining EU member countries and will begin the assessment process for all of the member states that have been audited so far. Once FDA has completed an assessment of an EU member state and determined that its authority is capable, the MRA may be implemented for veterinary medicines with that authority, FDA said.

Likewise, once the EU has completed the assessment of and determined FDA capable for veterinary products, the MRA may be implemented for the U.S. as well.

For more information, see the MRA.

Original post:
Veterinary medicines to be included in FDA/EU agreement - Feedstuffs

The COVID-19 pandemic marks the third novel coronavirus outbreak of the 21st century.

Unlike the viruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, which were associated with outbreaks limited in scope, SARS-CoV-2the virus that causes COVID-19burned across the globe in just over two months since the first case was reported last December in Wuhan, China.

Most countries, including the United States, were soon scrambling to manage the public health crisis.

On March 11, the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. At the time, the WHO stated that more than 118,000 humancases of coronavirus disease had been reported in 114 countries, along with nearly 4,300 human deaths.

We are deeply concerned by both the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom said.

We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that have been found in dogs, cats, horses, cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, humans, and bats. Several bat coronaviruses have been shown to be zoonotic pathogens, and the human illnesses they cause range in severity from a mild cold to severe pneumonia, with the potential to be fatal.

Its important to recognize that there are a number of coronaviruses that have infected people for decades. These viruses often represent 10 to 20% of all the common colds in people, said Dr. Christopher W. Olsen, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and School of Medicine and Public Health.

For unknown reasons, neither SARS nor MERS were as highly infectious and adapted to human-to-human transmission as the COVID-19 virus.

Linda Saif, PhD, professor and coronavirus researcher, The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine

Dr. Olsen spent much of his career studying zoonotic infections and was a consultant to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the SARS epidemic. Coronaviruses in general arent becoming more lethal to humans, Dr. Olsen explained. Rather, the viruses that cause SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 are each novel coronaviruses that humans have no immunity against and are fully susceptible to.

While the SARS and MERS viruses are more lethal than the COVID-19 virus, neither are as infectious as this latest novel coronavirus, according to Linda Saif, PhD, a professor and coronavirus researcher at The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine.

The case fatality rates for SARS and MERS have been 10% and 34%, respectively, Dr. Saif explained. The estimated fatality rate for COVID-19 ranges from less than 1% to as high as 3.4%. For unknown reasons, neither SARS nor MERS were as highly infectious and adapted to human-to-human transmission as the COVID-19 virus, she said.

As RNA viruses, with their ability to recombine and acquire mutations, coronaviruses are more likely to evolve and gain the ability for interspecies transmission, similar to influenza viruses, Dr. Saif continued. This is partly why we are seeing coronaviruses more frequently causing these pandemics.

A likely explanation for the origin of the COVID-19 virus is that it is a recombinant coronavirus generated in nature from a bat coronavirus and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host, Dr. Saif explained. Initially, pangolins were thought to be that host, but viral sequencing indicated that likely isnt the case, she said.

Bats are as diverse as the viruses they carry.

With more than 1,300 bat species found throughout the world, bats are the second-largest order of mammals after rodents.

Researchers have studied bat behavior, feeding habits, migratory patterns, and echolocation. Yet few early studies looked at bats as hosts of viruses beyond the rabies virus.

That changed with the 2003 SARS epidemic, which was ultimately linked to bats. Since then, more than 120 viruses have been identified in various bat species, including several novel coronaviruses, as well as the Ebola, Hendra, and Nipah viruses.

Today, bats are increasingly considered one of the most important animal reservoirs for emerging infectious viruses.

The ways a bat might have directly infected a human with COVID-19 include a human eating the bat, in soup, for example, or coming into contact with bat feces or secretions at the exotic animal markets common in China, Dr. Saif said. Likewise, bat feces are sometimes sold in stores for use in Chinese traditional medicine, she said, adding that fruit or other foods contaminated with bat feces or urine might be a foodborne route of transmission to humans.

Veterinary epidemiologist Dr. Donald Noah isnt surprised that a novel zoonotic virus is responsible for the current pandemic.

Even when the COVID-19 pandemic is over, we're not going to be able to wash our hands of this, literally or figuratively.

Dr. Donald Noah, veterinary epidemologist and former deputy assistant secretary for biodefense against weapons of mass destruction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Something like this was going to happen, and it will happen again, said Dr. Noah, an associate professor of public health and epidemiology at Lincoln Memorial University College of Veterinary Medicine.

Prior to his academic career, Dr. Noah held senior leadership positions with the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where he served as deputy assistant secretary for biodefense against weapons of mass destruction. As acting deputy assistant secretary of defense, Dr. Noah was part of the government response to the 2009-10 pandemic of swine flu, or H1N1 influenza, that killed some 12,000 Americans.

Even when the COVID-19 pandemic is over, were not going to be able to wash our hands of this, literally or figuratively, Dr. Noah said. The ongoing expansion of human populations into wildlife habitats, he explained, means more frequent human-animal interactions that make exposure to a new zoonotic disease more likely.

Dr. Noah is hesitant to use the phrase silver lining about an ongoing pandemic, but he hopes Congress will be compelled to be proactive about preventing these public health crises before they begin by enacting 'one health' legislation.

Zoonotic pathogens dont perceive species differences. They dont perceive geographic boundaries, he said. The problem is disease surveillance and response systems have been traditionally siloed between the human, veterinary, and environmental communities.

Federal agencies have no choice but to merge their efforts against these pathogens. The alternative is to continue to accept unchecked disease emergence.

Theres not a lot we can do about disease emergence, Dr. Noah concluded, but what we can do is be better prepared to respond quicker, more effectively, and in a more collaborative way that minimizes the loss of life and economic hardships.

Dr. Saif said veterinarians should be involved in all aspects of zoonotic infections, in concert with a one-health approach.

Veterinarians need to be part of identifying the animal reservoirs and the intermediate hosts for these diseases, she said. This may focus on wildlife medicine, such as understanding the habitats and diversity of bat species as reservoirs for coronaviruses and multiple other viruses.

Additionally, studies of bat physiology and immunity are critical to understand how bats can harbor so many viruses without disease, according to Dr. Saif.

A similar emphasis is needed for avian species that transmit avian influenza and for swine as influenza hosts, she explained. The question of what factors influence interspecies transmission remains unknown.

Also, more veterinarians should be working with other researchers to develop the most appropriate animal models for these diseases since we cannot test antivirals or vaccines without an animal model that reproduces the human disease and responses.

Regarding whether a pet can be infected with COVID-19 virus by a sick owner, Dr. Saif noted that researchers will want to investigate that. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has indicated that there is no evidence that pets become sick and that there is also no evidence to suggest that pet dogs or cats can be a source of infection with SARS-CoV-2, including spreading COVID-19 to people. The AVMA has developed a series of FAQs that includes this topic.

Veterinarians should be at the forefront of this research to investigate if a new disease can cause a reverse zoonosis and transmit from humans to pets and livestock, she said

See the rest here:
Can veterinarians prevent the next pandemic? | American Veterinary Medical Association - American Veterinary Medical Association

Two members of the AVMA House of Delegates were elected in February to the Associations Board of Directors. Georgia delegate Seyedmehdi Mobini and Washington state delegate Sandy Willis ran uncontested races to replace the directors of districts IV and XI when their terms end this summer.

Dr. Mobini of Macon, Georgia, will replace Dr. Jos Arce as the board representative for Florida, Georgia, and Puerto Rico, whereas Dr. Willis of Mukilteo, Washington, will succeed Dr. Rena Carlson as the representative for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.

The board directorselect officially begin their six-year-term on the Board this August during the AVMA Convention in San Diego.

Dr. Mobini is a professor of veterinary science at Fort Valley State University in the College of Agriculture, Family Sciences, and Technology. He is a diplomate of the American College of Theriogenologists.

After receiving his veterinary degree in 1977 from Pahlavi University School of Veterinary Medicine in Iran, Dr. Mobini completed a mixed animal externship in Ireland and a residency in bovine surgery and medicine at Auburn University. Later, he worked on a dairy farm and served on the faculty at Pahlavi and Tuskegee universities. Additionally, he has served as a relief veterinarian in small animal emergency clinics and several mixed animal practices in Alabama as well as a small ruminant extension veterinarian for the state of Georgia.

Dr. Mobini has dedicated time throughout his professional career to organized veterinary medicine, including as a member of the Georgia VMA board of directors and the American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners. He has represented the Georgia VMA in the AVMA House of Delegates since 2015, first as an alternate delegate, then as a delegate.

Dr. Mobini was the AASRP representative to the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee from 2001-04 and a member of the AVMA Legislative Advisory Committee from 2011-17. He currently serves on the AVMA Committee on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities.

As a proud veterinarian for 42 years, with a diverse education and practical knowledge of the veterinary profession in the United States and other parts of the world, I have been engaged in organized veterinary medicine for many years and have a passion for the veterinary profession and the AVMA, Dr. Mobini said in his candidate statement. I am confident that I possess the tools and experience to successfully work with our District IV team to fulfill the responsibility of this position.

Dr. Willis is a small animal internist for Phoenix Lab, a veterinary diagnostic laboratory in Mukilteo, Washington, that was recently acquired by Zoetis Inc. She received her veterinary degree in 1984 from the University of California-Davis and later became a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.

In addition to Phoenix Lab, Dr. Willis has worked for Antech Diagnostics and Hills Pet Nutrition and as medical director for Seattle Humane.

Along with her role as Washington state delegate in the AVMA House of Delegates, Dr. Willis chairs the House Advisory Committee. As HAC chair, she serves on the Strategy Management Committee and Budget and Financial Review Committee and as a voting member of the American Veterinary Medical Foundation board of directors.

Dr. Willis has been a site visitor for the AVMA Council on Education since 2013. She served on the AVMA Governance Performance Review Committee, chaired both the task force and working group on volunteer engagement, and organized the Communications Section of the AVMA Convention from 2008-14. She is a past president of the Washington State VMA and is active in the Puget Sound VMA.

My leadership style is collaborative. I feel it is important that people are heard on an issue, Dr. Willis said in her candidate statement. Moving forward, however, a leader needs to mold varied opinions toward a definitive decision and direction. By putting myself in positions over the last five years that require me to think on my feet, listen, and choose a direction, I have fine-tuned my leadership skills. I have learned how to communicate effectively and, most importantly, listen.

Link:
Mobini, Willis elected to AVMA Board | American Veterinary Medical Association - American Veterinary Medical Association

Janet Sanford speaks about her experience as the second woman admitted to UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine

The California Aggie spoke to Janet Sanford about her experience for womens history month. Our HERstory series will continue throughout the month of March.

In a class of 45 students, Janet Sanford was the second of two women to be admitted to the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis. The school opened its doors to women in the 1950s, and Sanford graduated in 1957. Her admittance paved the way for future women to pursue a career in veterinary medicine. Since the 50s, women have even surpassed the number of men in the industry, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. At UC Davis, the veterinary school class of 2023 is overwhelmingly made up of women.

We did something right since its 80% women now, Sanford said.

Horse girl at heart

Growing up in South Wales, Sanford discovered her love of animals at a young age.

I started wanting to be a veterinarian when I was six, Sanford said. Then I met my first pony and got into horses.

Her work with horses inspired her to pursue study in veterinary medicine when she finally settled in California with her family.

I had started out wanting to take care of horses, Sanford said. One of the good things when I got [to Davis], because I was horse-crazy, was a very nice man in the horse barn. I had a horse given to me to take care of.

Despite being initially inspired by her love of horses, Sanfords ultimate career path involved smaller animals. She recalled a time she cared for a dog who had been bitten by a snake.

I married my husband who liked small animals, and I have loved small animals ever since, Sanford said.

Today, Sanford still loves looking after animals, both big and small.

My passion for horses has gone on to this day, Sanford said. I have just lost my saddle horse, but Im 87 years old [so] that was probably a good thing.

Differences in Davis

In addition to the increase in womens attendance, UC Davis today is different in other ways, according to Sanford.

To see the changes, its incredible, Sanford said. The size of the campus, now its amazing and has so many good programs.

When Sanford attended Davis, the campus was significantly smaller and more rural; she even lived in a farmhouse for part of her time at school.

There was only North and South Hall when I was there, Sanford said.

Fighting stereotypes

As a young woman, when sharing her future goals with others, Sanford often received negative feedback.

My local vet who took care of my animals said, Oh thats ridiculous, they dont take women, Sanford said. I said, Well its time they did.

When applying, Sanford faced opposition from within the veterinary school.

The first dean, he had old-fashioned ideas, but I was pretty determined, Sanford said. I had some very nice mentors that convinced the board that I should be there.

As a minority in her class, Sanford often felt that she was not taken seriously.

One male came up to me and said Youre taking up a mans place, youre never going to practice, Sanford said. But I held my own and didnt back down.

The other students at Davis, however, were more accepting.

I have enjoyed every minute of school and I never felt resented, Sanford said. I tried to pull my weight and do the best I could.

Written by: Sophie Dewees features@theaggie.org

The rest is here:
The second woman at UC Davis Veterinary School shares her path to education - The Aggie

Since last weeks column on COVID-19, the American Veterinary Medical Association has updated its advice to veterinarians.

The AVMA is now recommending that pets living in a household with a COVID-19-infected individual should not be brought to a veterinary office without first contacting the state public health veterinarian or other public health official.

Veterinarians are being asked to contact these officials for advice before accepting appointments from pets that have been exposed to COVID-19 positive individuals.

The AVMA frequently asked questions document includes the following advice for households with COVID-19 infections and pets that may require veterinary care:

If you are sick with COVID-19 you need to be careful to avoid transmitting it to other people. Applying some commonsense measures can help prevent that from happening.

Stay at home except to get medical care and call ahead before visiting your doctor.

Minimize your contact with other people, including separating yourself from other members of your household who are not ill; using a different bathroom, if available; and wearing a facemask when you are around other people or pets and before you enter a healthcare providers office

Out of an abundance of caution, the AVMA recommends you take the same common-sense approach when interacting with your pets or other animals in your home, including service animals. You should tell your physician and public health official that you have a pet or other animal in your home

If you are sick with COVID-19 or another communicable disease, you should stay at home, minimizing contact with other people, until you are well. Accordingly, if this is a non-urgent appointment that needs to be scheduled for your pet or service animal (e.g., annual wellness examination, routine vaccination, elective surgery), you should wait to schedule that appointment until your physician and your public health official believe you no longer present a risk of transmitting your infection to other people you may encounter during such a visit, including owners of pets or other animals and veterinary clinic staff.

If you are sick with COVID-19, and you believe your pet or service animal is ill, please seek assistance from your veterinarian and public health official to determine how to best ensure your pet or service animal can be appropriately cared for while minimizing risks of transmitting COVID-19 to other people

Talk with the public health official working with the person who is ill with COVID-19. Your public health official can then consult with a public health veterinarian who, in turn, can provide assistance to your veterinarian to ensure your pet or service animal is appropriately evaluated.

If the state public health veterinarian recommends that you take your pet or service animal to your veterinarian for an examination, please call your veterinarian in advance to let them know that you are bringing in a sick animal that has been exposed to someone with COVID-19. Advance notice will support the veterinary clinic/hospital in preparing for the proper admittance of that animal, including the preparation of an isolation area as needed. Do not take the animal to a veterinary clinic until you have consulted with the public health official and your veterinarian.

There is still no evidence that pets can transmit the virus to people or that they can become sick after exposure. However, this is an emerging disease and there is a lot that is still unknown.

The AVMA is posting frequent updates to its coronavirus information page at AVMA.org.

Please check there for the latest information related to COVID-19 and veterinary medicine.

The most up to date and reliable site for all COVID-19 information is coronavirus.gov. Please be careful believing other information sources.

Michael J. Watts, D.V.M., is a companion animal general practitioner and the owner of Clevengers Corner Veterinary Care in Amissville.

See the article here:
ASK DR. WATTS: If you have COVID-19, don't bring your pet to the vet without health expert's OK - starexponent.com