StemCell Therapy

11-year-old Bertrand Might (center) surrounded by his family, including his father, Matt Might (second from right), and his mother, Cristina Might (second from left). Credit: The Might family

Scientists at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute have shown that cells from children with NGLY1 deficiency a rare disorder first described in 2012 lack sufficient water channel proteins called aquaporins. The discovery was published in Cell Reports and may help explain the disorders wide-ranging symptoms including the inability to produce tears, seizures and developmental delays and opens new avenues to find therapies to treat the disorder.

Our findings uncover a new and completely unexpected job for NGLY1, which was originally thought to only cleave sugars from proteins, says Hudson Freeze, Ph.D., director, and professor of the Human Genetics Program at Sanford Burnham Prebys and senior author of the study. This new information, which includes the molecular signals NGLY1 uses to drive aquaporin production, fundamentally shifts how we approach drug development. Most immediately, we can begin to screen for existing FDA-approved drugs that may increase aquaporin levels.

Burst cells are shown in orange, and intact cells are shown in blue (the dye used stains the DNA in a nucleus). Unlike normal cells (left), cells missing the NGLY1 protein (right) refused to split open when placed in distilled water. The cells pictured are from mice. Credit: Sanford Burnham Prebys

The first patient with NGLY1 deficiency, then-four-year-old Bertrand Might, was diagnosed in 2012. The condition occurs when both copies of the NGLY1 gene contain mutations. As a result, children with NGLY1 deficiency produce little or no N-glycanase1 a protein that removes sugars from proteins during the cells regular recycling process. Today, approximately 60 people in the world have been identified with NGLY1 deficiency. There is no cure, and existing treatments only address a few of the disorders symptoms.

This discovery is a giant leap forward in our understanding of NGLY1 deficiency and our ability to find a drug for the condition, says Matt Might, Ph.D., Bertrand Mights father and chief scientific officer of NGLY1.org, which funded the research. In addition to exploring new treatment avenues, we can immediately start to test currently available drugs to see if they may help Bertrand and other children living with NGLY1 deficiency.

Because of NGLY1s established role in helping recycle proteins, scientists predicted that cells that lack NGLY1 would fill with unrecycled proteins. However, despite numerous experiments by Freeze and others, this has not been observed.

Hudson Freeze, Ph.D., director and professor of the Human Genetics Program at Sanford Burnham Prebys and senior author of the study. Credit: Sanford Burnham Prebys

Mitali Tambe, Ph.D., a postdoctoral associate in the Freeze lab and the first author of the study, set out to shed light on this mystery when she made an unexpected discovery. While normal cells burst open when placed in distilled water, cells from children with an NGLY1 mutation refused to pop open.

At first I thought what every scientist initially thinks: I made a mistake, says Tambe. But this observation actually revealed a previously unknown role for NGLY1 protein.

The unexpected finding prompted the scientists to dig in deeper. In addition to studying skin cells from three children with NGLY1 deficiency, the researchers created human and obtained mouse cells that either lacked NGLY1 or produced excess amounts of the protein. In these studies, they found that cells that lacked the NGLY1 protein had fewer aquaporins proteins that connect the inside and outside of a cell and control water movement and were resistant to bursting open when placed in water. These results were reversed in cells that were given excess levels of NGLY1. The researchers also identified the molecular signals NGLY1 uses to instruct cells to produce aquaporins, proteins called Atf1 and Creb1, which may lead to useful drug targets.

In addition to regulating tear and saliva production, aquaporins are involved in many brain functions, such as cerebrospinal fluid production, explains Tambe. Lack of aquaporins may explain many of the symptoms seen in children who are NGLY1-deficient.

The scientists devised a clever experiment to determine if NGLY1 is regulating aquaporin levels through its expected sugar-removal function or in another manner. They created two cell types that either produced a normal NGLY1 protein or NGLY1 with the sugar-cleaving area disabled. The altered protein successfully altered aquaporin levels indicating that NGLY1 has a second function in addition to its sugar-removing (enzymatic) activities.

Our study shows there is more to NGLY1 than its well-known function of removing sugars from proteins, says Freeze. Together, our findings open important new paths to understanding the pathogenesis of NGLY1 deficiency and ultimately finding treatments.

Reference: N-Glycanase 1 Transcriptionally Regulates Aquaporins Independent of Its Enzymatic Activity by Mitali A. Tambe, Bobby G. Ng and Hudson H. Freeze, 24 December 2019, Cell Reports.DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.097

Research reported in this article was supported by the Bertrand Might Research Fund and NGLY1.org. Additional study authors include Bobby Ng.

Here is the original post:
11 Year-Old Bertrand Might Cant Cry Scientists Have Now Discovered Why - SciTechDaily

Image: Chromosomes and their telomeres (visualised in red). Credit: Thomas Ried, NCI Center for Cancer Research

You might not have heard of telomeres but theyre incredibly important they are the caps that protect the end of chromosomes. They work like the plastic tips that stop your shoelaces from fraying.

All cancers alter telomeres in order to survive, so by doing basic research to try to understand how telomere replication and processing works, Max and his team hope to identify possible new ways to target and treat cancer.

Having joined the Division of Cancer Biology in October 2019, Dr Max Douglasis now one of the newest Team Leaders at the ICR. I met him at our Chester Beatty Laboratories in Chelsea, where he told me more about his work.

Max studied for his PhD in biochemistry and cell biology at the University of Cambridge. He then joined Dr John Diffleys team in Londons Clare Hall Laboratories which later became part of the Francis Crick Institute where he focused on studying the early stages of DNA replication.

At the Crick, he helped establish in detail how a protein complex called the CMG replicative helicase that helps unwind DNA during replication, is assembled and activated.

Now at the ICR, Max leads his own research team studying DNA replication but in the context of telomeres and cancer.

My main project is to rebuild telomeres in the lab and then unpick how they work how they are replicated and how they are processed. This knowledge is generally useful, but we will focus on studying it in the context of cancer, explained Max.

Lets finish it:help us revolutionise cancer treatment. We aim to discover a new generation of cancer treatments so smart and targeted, that more patients will defeat their cancer and finish what they started.

Support our work

When a cell becomes cancerous, it divides more often and every time it divides, its telomeres become shorter and shorter. Once there is no telomere left, the DNA unravels, like a shoelace fraying, and the cell dies. This eventually happens in most healthy cells telomeres shorten over time until cell division is no longer possible, leading to cell death.

While this loss of telomere protection can cause cancer cells and healthy cells to die, it can also lead to a state of genome instability that helps cancer survive and spread.

We also know that cancer cells can escape death by making telomerase, an enzyme that prevents telomeres from getting short. Certain cells in our body, such as stem cells, are able to divide over and over again thanks to telomerase. Cancer cells take advantage of this enzyme and hijack it to maintain telomere length which enables them to continue to divide and spread.

In other words, telomeres seem to play a role in the death of cancer cells but theyre also crucial for their survival. However, the molecular steps that guide telomere replication and processing remain poorly understood.

By using genetics and replicating cellular processes in a test tube, through a technique known as reconstitution biochemistry, Max and his team hope to better understand how telomeres are processed, and how they are inherited from one generation of cells to the next.

If Max and his team can dissect how telomeres work and clarify their link to cancer, maybe well figure out new ways to treat it.

His research might seem quite distant from the clinic, but Max knows he belongs at the ICR, which has an exemplary track record in making discoveries that ultimately benefit people with cancer.

I really value the ICRs commitment to doing basic, laboratory science. Good basic science is necessary to understand cancer, and the ICR values that. Here, I can figure out how to use my findings to benefit people, and that, in turn, will also hugely benefit my work, Max said.

I feel very lucky to work at an institution with a mission, being able to do what I love while getting opportunities to make discoveries that could help people.

As a new Team Leader, Max is currently the only member of his team but a higher scientific officer will be joining this month, as well as a post-doctoral training fellow, who will be joining in March. They will also start recruiting for a PhD student. As he told me, he cant wait for the new team members to join him in January.

Im excited to supervise other people for the first time. I want to build a strong team and a good environment for them to thrive in.

View original post here:
Science Talk - Tell me more about telomeres: how 'basic' science can help us treat cancer - The Institute of Cancer Research

B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network AG (ETR:BNN) just released its yearly report and things are looking bullish. Results overall were solid, with revenues arriving 9.7% better than analyst forecasts at 40m. Higher revenues also resulted in substantially lower statutory losses which, at 0.58 per share, were 9.7% smaller than analysts expected. This is an important time for investors, as they can track a company's performance in its report, look at what top analysts are forecasting for next year, and see if there has been any change to expectations for the business. So we gathered the latest post-earnings forecasts to see what analysts' statutory forecasts suggest is in store for next year.

Check out our latest analysis for B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network

XTRA:BNN Past and Future Earnings, January 18th 2020

Following the latest results, B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network's four analysts are now forecasting revenues of 43.5m in 2020. This would be a solid 8.6% improvement in sales compared to the last 12 months. Per-share statutory losses are expected to see a sharp uptick, reaching 0.47. Before this earnings announcement, analysts had been forecasting revenues of 40.0m and losses of 0.29 per share in 2020. While next year's revenue estimates increased, there was also a large cut to EPS expectations, suggesting the consensus has a bit of a mixed view of these results.

There was no major change to the consensus price target of 17.80, with growing revenues seemingly enough to offset the concern of growing losses. It could also be instructive to look at the range of analyst estimates, to evaluate how different the outlier opinions are from the mean. There are some variant perceptions on B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network, with the most bullish analyst valuing it at 24.00 and the most bearish at 9.50 per share. This is a fairly broad spread of estimates, suggesting that analysts are forecasting a wide range of possible outcomes for the business.

Zooming out to look at the bigger picture now, one of the ways we can make sense of these forecasts is to see how they measure up both against past performance, and against industry growth estimates. We would highlight that B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network's revenue growth is expected to slow, with forecast 8.6% increase next year well below the historical 15%p.a. growth over the last five years. By way of comparison, other companies in this market with analyst coverage, are forecast to grow their revenue at 3.8% next year. So it's pretty clear that, while B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network's revenue growth is expected to slow, it's still expected to grow faster than the market itself.

Pleasantly, analysts also upgraded their revenue estimates, and their forecasts suggest the business is expected to grow faster than the wider market. The consensus price target held steady at 17.80, with the latest estimates not enough to have an impact on analysts' estimated valuations.

Still, the long-term prospects of the business are much more relevant than next year's earnings. We have forecasts for B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network going out to 2024, and you can see them free on our platform here.

Story continues

Another thing to consider is whether management and directors have been buying or selling stock recently. We provide an overview of all open market stock trades for the last twelve months on our platform, here.

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Read the original post:
B.R.A.I.N. Biotechnology Research and Information Network AG Just Released Its Full-Year Results And Analysts Are Updating Their Estimates - Yahoo...

Thursday, January 16, 2020

In a coordinated effort, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation on January 9, 2020. The website serves to streamline information regarding agriculture biotechnology products, which are regulated by FDA, USDA, and EPA. The implementation of the website is in response to the June 2019 Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products. The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation complements prior joint actions such as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, an Obama administration effort to reform the biotechnology regulatory process by enhancing transparency, predictability, and efficacy. Mintz has previously covered these coordinated efforts here.

Agriculture biotechnology products are products created through genetic engineering of plants, animals, and microbes. Each agency has a role in regulating biotechnology products: USDA has authority to approve all releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to ensure they do not create an environmental hazard; EPA must approve all crops that contain insect-killing genes; and FDA is responsible for evaluating whether GMOs are safe to eat. However, because of the interrelatedness of this area, agency regulatory oversight can be disjointed and unclear. Additionally, the advancement of technology can cause confusion in interpreting the regulatory requirements of each agency. Therefore, a primary goal of the website is to enhance customer service by allowing users to submit questions directly to the three agencies, as well as through providing a Frequently Asked Questions page.

The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation does not alter the regulatory process concerning agriculture biotechnology products. Instead, the website acts as an interactive archive containing information about the federal review process, while also enabling users to submit questions to the regulatory agencies with the expectation of a coordinated response. According to the FDA Press Release, "[t]he goals of this website are to provide enhanced customer service to innovators and developers, while ensuring Americans continue to enjoy the safest and most affordable food supply in the world and can learn more about the safe use of biotechnology innovations.

The website launch follows the October 2018 FDA announcement for its Plant and Animal Biotechnology Action Plan, which provides a risk-based regulatory approach to the oversight of plant and animal-derived products of biotechnology, with a focus on safety and effectiveness. One of the action plan's priorities is to coordinate a new biotechnology approach with EPA and USDA to clarify oversight of genome-edited products. According to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, M.D.: This is a time of unprecedented scientific innovation. Agricultural biotechnology promises to bring dynamic new products to the marketplace . . . Our approach balances our internationally respected, science-based review standards with our ongoing risk-based regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of our food supply.

While the Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation is a step towards meeting the goals set in the June 2019 Executive Order, additional efforts are needed to better coordinate biotechnology product regulation as technology continues to advance.

1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Link:
Unified Biotechnology Regulation Website Launched - The National Law Review

Low cost of capital has fueled exceptional returns for biotech and health stocks but will near zero cost financing last?

Biotechnology & Healthcare was the top performing investment company sector of the last decade producing a return of 491% from 2010 to 2019, compared to a return of 198% for the average investment company over the same period, according to the Association of Investment Trusts (AIC).

The UK Smaller Companies and Global Smaller Companies sectors were the second and third best performing sectors of the decade and delivered 379% and 330% respectively. European Smaller Companies (10th) also featured in the top ten.

Meanwhile the best performing investment companies over the past decade came from a variety of sectors, but companies in the UK Smaller Companies sector featured most strongly, making four appearances within the top ten.

Volta Finance was the best performing member company over the decade. The company from the Debt Structured Finance sector produced an impressive 959% share price total return from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019. It was followed by Lindsell Train in the Global sector, up 730%, and Baillie Gifford Shin Nippon from the Japanese Smaller Companies sector, up 678% over the same period.

Annabel Brodie-Smith, communications director of the AIC said: Its encouraging to see a diverse spectrum of investment company sectors perform so strongly over the last decade. While Biotechnology & Healthcare was the top performing sector by some margin, two UK equity sectors made it into the top ten despite the Brexit referendum and subsequent lack of clarity surrounding the UKs exit.

The closed-ended investment company structure lends itself particularly well to illiquid alternative investments and over the past decade the Private Equity and Infrastructure sectors have both delivered particularly strong returns. Three smaller company sectors feature in the top ten best performers, demonstrating that investment companies are the best vehicle for holding smaller companies which can be hard to sell in times of stress. In addition, investors who have favoured investment companies to gain overseas exposure via the Japan, Global and North America sectors have been handsomely rewarded.

Its always interesting to look back at the best performing companies, but its important to remember that past performance is not an indicator of future returns. Investment companies cover a broad variety of sectors, risk profiles and geographical exposure to match a range of investor needs. When investing you should consider your objectives and the level of risk you are willing to take and, if you have any concerns, you should speak to a financial adviser.

Jason Hollands, managing director, business development and communications at Tilney Investment Management Services said: The last decade has seen huge advances in medical discovery. When combined with an extraordinarily supportive, post global crisis environment for risk assets i.e. low cost of capital thats fueled exceptional returns for biotech and health stocks.

While there is no reason to doubt further advancements in medical science, we wont remain locked in a world of near zero real financing costs forever. Of particular relevance is mounting pressure across the global for greater controls over drug pricing, given the spiraling costs to health services. This could be particularly relevant if the Democrats win the US Presidential election as their nominees have been vocal on this as well as calling for a much more interventionist role for the state in the massive US healthcare market.

With regards to the overall observations below. The broad theme is that smaller companies across a variety of markets have been amongst the best performing parts of the market. Ironically this has taken place over a period during which investors have increasingly shunned them in the clamour for passive products that are overwhelming skewed to large-cap companies. Frankly, the more smaller companies are ignored, the greater the potential available for active managers to add value in this space by spotting winners that the wider market has yet to discover.

Further reading: Investment Trusts: A beginners guide

Read more:
Biotechnology and Healthcare is the best performing IT fund sector - What Investment

Ross Murdoch has been the CEO of Avecho Biotechnology Limited (ASX:AVE) since 2015. This analysis aims first to contrast CEO compensation with other companies that have similar market capitalization. Then we'll look at a snap shot of the business growth. Third, we'll reflect on the total return to shareholders over three years, as a second measure of business performance. The aim of all this is to consider the appropriateness of CEO pay levels.

Check out our latest analysis for Avecho Biotechnology

Our data indicates that Avecho Biotechnology Limited is worth AU$7.9m, and total annual CEO compensation was reported as AU$404k for the year to December 2018. We think total compensation is more important but we note that the CEO salary is lower, at AU$351k. We examined a group of similar sized companies, with market capitalizations of below AU$289m. The median CEO total compensation in that group is AU$379k.

So Ross Murdoch receives a similar amount to the median CEO pay, amongst the companies we looked at. This doesn't tell us a whole lot on its own, but looking at the performance of the actual business will give us useful context.

You can see a visual representation of the CEO compensation at Avecho Biotechnology, below.

ASX:AVE CEO Compensation, January 14th 2020

On average over the last three years, Avecho Biotechnology Limited has grown earnings per share (EPS) by 65% each year (using a line of best fit). It achieved revenue growth of 310% over the last year.

This shows that the company has improved itself over the last few years. Good news for shareholders. Most shareholders would be pleased to see strong revenue growth combined with EPS growth. This combo suggests a fast growing business. Although we don't have analyst forecasts shareholders might want to examine this detailed historical graph of earnings, revenue and cash flow.

With a three year total loss of 80%, Avecho Biotechnology Limited would certainly have some dissatisfied shareholders. This suggests it would be unwise for the company to pay the CEO too generously.

Ross Murdoch is paid around what is normal the leaders of comparable size companies.

We think that the EPS growth is very pleasing, but we find the returns over the last three years to be lacking. We'd be surprised if shareholders want to see a pay rise for the CEO, but we'd stop short of calling their pay too generous. CEO compensation is one thing, but it is also interesting to check if the CEO is buying or selling Avecho Biotechnology (free visualization of insider trades).

Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies.

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Originally posted here:
Should You Be Pleased About The CEO Pay At Avecho Biotechnology Limited's (ASX:AVE) - Yahoo Finance

We can readily understand why investors are attracted to unprofitable companies. For example, biotech and mining exploration companies often lose money for years before finding success with a new treatment or mineral discovery. But the harsh reality is that very many loss making companies burn through all their cash and go bankrupt.

Given this risk, we thought wed take a look at whether Vir Biotechnology (NASDAQ:VIR) shareholders should be worried about its cash burn. In this report, we will consider the companys annual negative free cash flow, henceforth referring to it as the cash burn. Well start by comparing its cash burn with its cash reserves in order to calculate its cash runway.

See our latest analysis for Vir Biotechnology

A companys cash runway is the amount of time it would take to burn through its cash reserves at its current cash burn rate. As at September 2019, Vir Biotechnology had cash of US$320m and no debt. Importantly, its cash burn was US$130m over the trailing twelve months. That means it had a cash runway of about 2.5 years as of September 2019. Thats decent, giving the company a couple years to develop its business. You can see how its cash balance has changed over time in the image below.

Some investors might find it troubling that Vir Biotechnology is actually increasing its cash burn, which is up 39% in the last year. And we must say we find it concerning that operating revenue dropped 4.0% over the same period. Taken together, we think these growth metrics are a little worrying. While the past is always worth studying, it is the future that matters most of all. For that reason, it makes a lot of sense to take a look at our analyst forecasts for the company.

Even though it seems like Vir Biotechnology is developing its business nicely, we still like to consider how easily it could raise more money to accelerate growth. Companies can raise capital through either debt or equity. One of the main advantages held by publicly listed companies is that they can sell shares to investors to raise cash to fund growth. By comparing a companys annual cash burn to its total market capitalisation, we can estimate roughly how many shares it would have to issue in order to run the company for another year (at the same burn rate).

Since it has a market capitalisation of US$1.6b, Vir Biotechnologys US$130m in cash burn equates to about 8.2% of its market value. Given that is a rather small percentage, it would probably be really easy for the company to fund another years growth by issuing some new shares to investors, or even by taking out a loan.

Even though its increasing cash burn makes us a little nervous, we are compelled to mention that we thought Vir Biotechnologys cash runway was relatively promising. Cash burning companies are always on the riskier side of things, but after considering all of the factors discussed in this short piece, were not too worried about its rate of cash burn. While we always like to monitor cash burn for early stage companies, qualitative factors such as the CEO pay can also shed light on the situation. Click here to see free what the Vir Biotechnology CEO is paid..

Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of companies insiders are buying, and this list of stocks growth stocks (according to analyst forecasts)

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Read more:
Companies Like Vir Biotechnology (NASDAQ:VIR) Are In A Position To Invest In Growth - Simply Wall St

Sofinnova Partners, a leading European venture capital firm based in Paris, London and Milan and specialized in Life Sciences, announced today the promotion of Michael Krel, PhD, to Partner of the Industrial Biotechnology team. Mr. Krel previously served as Principal on the team, where he focused on early-stage deals in Europe and North America.

"This promotion recognizes Michaels excellent skills in the field of industrial biotech, and also reinforces the leading role that Sofinnova Partners is playing in this emerging sector," said Denis Lucquin, Managing Partner of Sofinnova Partners. "We look forward to working with Michael in his new role, and to the continued value his experience and deep subject area expertise bring to our pioneering work in this space."

Mr. Krel said, "It has been a privilege to serve the firm, and to help pioneer its development in Industrial Biotech. I look forward to continuing our work in this important area, and to the potential impact these investments will have globally."

Sofinnova Partners Industrial Biotech franchise is dedicated to start-ups with a specific emphasis on synthetic biology, food, feed, agriculture, materials and chemicals, and represents more than 200 M under management.

Mr. Krel joined Sofinnova Partners as a Senior Associate in 2013 and has been involved in the venture capital firms investment activities in industrial biotech since then. Mr. Krel is an observer on the board of Comet Bio and a board member of EnobraQ and Afyren.

Prior to joining Sofinnova Partners, Michael spent six years in industrial biotech start-ups, holding business development positions. Additionally, Michael was a consultant focused on R&D strategic and organizational issues.

Mr. Krel has a graduate degree in engineering from Ecole Polytechnique and holds a PhD in organic chemistry from Paris X Orsay University.

About Sofinnova Partners

Sofinnova Partners is a leading European venture capital firm specialized in Life Sciences. Based in Paris, France, with offices in London and Milan, the firm brings together a team of 40 professionals from all over Europe, the U.S. and Asia. The firm focuses on paradigm-shifting technologies alongside visionary entrepreneurs. Sofinnova Partners invests across the Life Sciences value chain as a lead or cornerstone investor, from very early-stage opportunities to late-stage/public companies. It has backed nearly 500 companies over more than 45 years, creating market leaders around the globe. Today, Sofinnova Partners has over 2 billion under management.

For more information, please visit: http://www.sofinnovapartners.com

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200114005847/en/

Contacts

Press: Media: Kate BarretteRooneyPartners LLC+1 212 223 0561kbarrette@rooneyco.com

France Anne ReinS&I+33 6 03 35 92 05anne.rein@strategiesimage.com

Read this article:
Sofinnova Partners Announces the Promotion of Michael Krel to Partner of Industrial Biotechnology Team - Yahoo Finance

MIRAMAR, Fla., Jan. 17, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Generex Biotechnology Corporation (www.generex.com) (GNBT) (http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GNBT/quote) is pleased to announce that their subsidiary, Olaregen Therapeutix, Inc., is introducing an exciting new product, Excellagen Aesthetics for the cosmetic surgery and aesthetic dermatology market. FDA 510(k) cleared with an indication for the management of wounds, Excellagen Aesthetics is intended for use following facial rejuvenation procedures, including post-laser surgery, post-chemical peels, and post- skin ablation. Excellagen is a ready to use 3-dimensional wound conforming matrix that supports a favorable wound healing environment. It is designed to activate collagen, accelerate granulation, and promote new tissue growth by providing a structural scaffold for cellular migration and proliferation. Excellagen Aesthetics has been shown in vitro to trigger the localized release of endogenous growth factors including Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), a key biological mediator of wound healing.

Olaregen is rolling out Excellagen Aesthetics with a dedicated contract sales force uniquely positioned in major metropolitan areas across the United States where the majority of aesthetic dermatology procedures are clustered. Americans spent an estimated $8 billion on surgical and non-surgical aesthetic dermatology procedures in 2018 when there were over 340,000 facial rejuvenation performed.

Scott Emmens, Senior Vice President of Sales and Business Development at Olaregen commented, We have been working closely with the aesthetic dermatology community, and Excellagen Aesthetics is being tested with some leading dermatologists who are conducting case studies to evaluate the efficacy of our cellular tissue product in wound management as measured by patient reported down-time as well as patient satisfaction with post-treatment care. We are enthusiastic about the early response from patients and doctors who have tried the product after facial rejuvenation procedures including micro-needling and laser skin resurfacing, two procedures that result in post-treatment pain and significant healing times that limit daily activities. We look forward to engaging with the dermatology community to introduce Excellagen Aesthetics and show how our FDA-cleared product can be used to the benefit of their patients and their practice.

About Generex Biotechnology Corp.

Generex Biotechnology is an integrated healthcare holding company with end-to-end solutions for patient centric care from rapid diagnosis through delivery of personalized therapies. Generex is building a new kind of healthcare company that extends beyond traditional models providing support to physicians in an MSO network, and ongoing relationships with patients to improve the patient experience and access to optimal care.

In addition to advancing a legacy portfolio of immune-oncology assets, medical devices, and diagnostics, the Company is focused on an acquisition strategy of strategic businesses that complement existing assets and provide immediate sources of revenue and working capital.

About Olaregen Therapeutix

Olaregen Therapeutix, Inc. is a regenerative medicine company focused on the development, manufacturing and commercialization of products that fill unmet needs in the current wound care market. The company aims to provide advanced healing solutions that substantially improve medical outcomes while lowering the overall cost of care. Olaregen's first product introduction, Excellagen (flowable dermal matrix) is a topically applied product for dermal wounds and other indications. Excellagen is a FDA 510K cleared device for a broad array of dermal wounds, including partial and full thickness wounds, pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, chronic vascular ulcers, tunneled/undermined wounds, surgical wounds (donor sites/ grafts, post-Mohs surgery, post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence), trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns and skin tears) and draining wounds, enabling Olaregen to market Excellagen in multiple vertical markets. in bone and joint regeneration comprise the current pipeline. The company's mission is to become a significant force in regenerative medicine and advance the science of healing.

Story continues

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This release and oral statements made from time to time by Generex representatives in respect of the same subject matter may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements can be identified by introductory words such as "expects," "plan," "believes," "will," "achieve," "anticipate," "would," "should," "subject to" or words of similar meaning, and by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements frequently are used in discussing potential product applications, potential collaborations, product development activities, clinical studies, regulatory submissions and approvals, and similar operating matters. Many factors may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements, including inaccurate assumptions and a broad variety of risks and uncertainties, some of which are known and others of which are not. Known risks and uncertainties include those identified from time to time in the reports filed by Generex with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which should be considered together with any forward-looking statement. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future results or events, and one should avoid placing undue reliance on such statements. Generex undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Generex claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements that is contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Generex Contact:

Generex Biotechnology Corporation

Joseph Moscato 646-599-6222

Todd Falls 1-800-391-6755 Extension 222 investor@generex.com

Original post:
Generex Biotechnology Subsidiary Olaregen Therapeutix Announces the Introduction of Excellagen Aesthetics - Yahoo Finance

Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) is near the top in its industry group according to InvestorsObserver. MNLO gets an overall rating of 58. That means it scores higher than 58 percent of stocks. Menlo Therapeutics Inc gets a 72 rank in the Biotechnology industry. Biotechnology is number 60 out of 148 industries.

Click Here to get the full Stock Score Report on Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) Stock.

Finding the best stocks can be tricky. It isnt easy to compare companies across industries. Even companies that have relatively similar businesses can be tricky to compare sometimes. InvestorsObservers tools allow a top-down approach that lets you pick a metric, find the top sector and industry and then find the top stocks in that sector.

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

Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) stock is trading at $6.10 as of 12:18 PM on Tuesday, Jan 14, a rise of $0.50, or 8.93% from the previous closing price of $5.60. The stock has traded between $5.50 and $6.44 so far today. Volume today is light. So far 132,809 shares have traded compared to average volume of 181,677 shares.

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

Excerpt from:
Is Menlo Therapeutics Inc (MNLO) Stock a Good Buy in Biotechnology - InvestorsObserver

Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc and Japanese Astellas Pharma, Inc. have signed a discovery partnership to develop off-the-shelf allogeneic T cell-based cancer therapies from stem cells.

At J.P. Morgan conference, the British company announced that Astellas has agreed to co-develop and co-commercialize stem-cell derived allogeneic CAR-T and TCR T-cell therapies against up to three targets. In contrast to current autologous T cell therapies, allogenic T cell therapies might be manufactured in a central facility reducing production cost significantly compared to autologous cell production and logistics.

Under the agreement, Adaptimmune will identify and validate new targets for generating target-specific T-cell receptors (TCRs), chimeric antigen receptors (CARs), and HLA-independent TCRs that recognize surface epitopes independently from the HLA profile of the tumour cell. Astellas subsidiary Universal Cells, Inc will provide its Universal Donor Cell and Gene Editing Platform, which makes use of a stem cell-tropic rAAV vector for engineering humanpluripotent stem cells to contain deletions, insertions, or point mutations at any genomic position.

Adaptimmune has been collaborating with Universal Cells since 2015 on development of gene-edited induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines that generate proprietary T-cell products without the use of feeder layers.

Under the agreement, Astellas will fund research up until completion of a Phase I trial for each candidate with US$7.5m per year. Subsequently, Astellas and Adaptimmune may opt for co-development and co-commercialization of the candidate, or independent development through a milestone and royalty bearing licence. Under the agreement, Astellas will also have the right to select two targets and develop allogeneic cell therapy candidates on its own.

In case of Astellas would develop the candidates on its own, Adaptimmune may receive up to$897.5m in payments. If Adaptimmune would do so, Astellas may receive up to US$552.5m. If the companies opt for co-commercialisation any T-cell therapy, costs and profits will be shared equally.

Read the original:
Astellas and Adaptimmune team up in CAR-T development - European Biotechnology

Global Chromatography in Biotechnology market 2020 in depth research by industry competitive landscape, size, growth rate, strategy, trends and forecast 2026.

The global Chromatography in Biotechnology market has been garnering remarkable momentum in the recent years. The steadily escalating demand due to improving purchasing power is projected to bode well for the global market. QY Researchs latest publication, titled global Chromatography in Biotechnology market, offers an insightful take on the drivers and restraints present in the market. It assesses the historical data pertaining to the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market and compares it to the current market trends to give the readers a detailed analysis of the trajectory of the market. A team subject-matter experts have provided the readers a qualitative and quantitative data about the market and the various elements associated with it.

Get the Sample of this Report@https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1456217/global-chromatography-in-biotechnology-market

The research report is broken down into chapters, which are introduced by the executive summary. Its the introductory part of the chapter, which includes details about global market figures, both historical and estimates. The executive summary also provides a brief about the segments and the reasons for the progress or decline during the forecast period. The insightful research report on the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market includes Porters five forces analysis and SWOT analysis to understand the factors impacting consumer and supplier behavior.

Market Segments Covered:

The following players are covered in this report:Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.Danaher Corp.MilliporeSigmaQiagenScion InstrumentsThermo Fisher Scientific Inc.PerkinelmerGe Healthcare Life SciencesAntec ScientificAsynt Ltd.Chromatography in Biotechnology Breakdown Data by TypeGas ChromatographyThin Layer ChromatographySupercritical Fluid ChromatographyLiquid ChromatographyHPLC/UHPLCAffinity ChromatographyChromatography in Biotechnology Breakdown Data by ApplicationCancer Research CentersCancer HospitalPharmaceuticalPathological SectorsCompanies and Academic InstitutionsOthers

Regions Covered in the Global Chromatography in Biotechnology Market:

The Middle East and Africa (GCC Countries and Egypt) North America (the United States, Mexico, and Canada) South America (Brazil etc.) Europe (Turkey, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.) Asia-Pacific (Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia)

Highlights of the Report Accurate market size and CAGR forecasts for the period 2019-2025 Identification and in-depth assessment of growth opportunities in key segments and regions Detailed company profiling of top players of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market Exhaustive research on innovation and other trends of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market Reliable industry value chain and supply chain analysis Comprehensive analysis of important growth drivers, restraints, challenges, and growth prospects

The scope of the Report:

The report segments the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market on the basis of application, type, service, technology, and region. Each chapter under this segmentation allows readers to grasp the nitty-gritties of the market. A magnified look at the segment-based analysis is aimed at giving the readers a closer look at the opportunities and threats in the market. It also address political scenarios that are expected to impact the market in both small and big ways.The report on the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market examines changing regulatory scenario to make accurate projections about potential investments. It also evaluates the risk for new entrants and the intensity of the competitive rivalry.

Get Customized Report in your Inbox within 24 hours @https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1456217/global-chromatography-in-biotechnology-market

Strategic Points Covered in TOC:

Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product scope, market risk, market overview, and market opportunities of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market

Chapter 2: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the global Chromatography in Biotechnology market which consists of its revenue, sales, and price of the products

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

Chapter 4: Presenting global Chromatography in Biotechnology market by regions, market share and with revenue and sales for the projected period

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

About Us:QYResearch always pursuits high product quality with the belief that quality is the soul of business. Through years of effort and supports from huge number of customer supports, QYResearch consulting group has accumulated creative design methods on many high-quality markets investigation and research team with rich experience. Today, QYResearch has become the brand of quality assurance in consulting industry.

View original post here:
Chromatography in Biotechnology Market Growth 2020-2026 with Competitive Landscape and Top Regions - Weekly Wall

The cutting-edge method of growing clusters of cells that organize themselves into mini versions of human brains in the lab is gathering more and more attention. These brain organoids, made from stem cells, offer unparalleled insights into the human brain, which is notoriously difficult to study.

But some researchersare worriedthat a form of consciousness might arise in such mini-brains, which are sometimes transplanted into animals. They could at least be sentient to the extent of experiencing pain and suffering from being trapped. If this is true and before we consider how likely it is it is absolutely clear in my mind that we must exert a supreme level of caution when considering this issue.

Brain organoids are currently very simple compared to human brains and cant be conscious in the same way. Due to a lack of blood supply, they do not reach sizes larger than around five or six millimetres. That said, they have been found toproduce brain wavesthat are similar to those in premature babies. A study has showed they can also grow neural networksthat respond to light.

There are also signs that such organoids canlink up with other organsand receptors in animals. That means that they not only have a prospect of becoming sentient, they also have the potential to communicate with the external world, by collecting sensory information. Perhaps they can one day actually respond through sound devices or digital output.

As a cognitive neuroscientist, I am happy to conceive that an organoid maintained alive for a long time, with a constant supply of life-essential nutrients, could eventually become sentient and maybe even fully conscious.

This isnt the first time biological science has thrown up ethical questions. Gender reassignment shocked many in the past, but, whatever your beliefs and moral convictions, sex change narrowly concerns the individual undergoing the procedure, with limited or no biological impact on their entourage and descendants.

Genetic manipulation of embryos, in contrast, raised alert levels to hot red, given the very high likelihood of genetic modifications being heritable and potentially changing the genetic make up of the population down the line. This is why successful operations of this kind conducted by Chinese scientist He Jiankui raised very strong objectionsworldwide.

But creating mini brains inside animals, or even worse, within an artificial biological environment, should send us all frantically panicking. In my opinion, the ethical implications go well beyond determining whether we may be creating a suffering individual. If we are creating a brain however small we are creating a system with a capacity to process information and, down the line, given enough time and input, potentially the ability to think.

Some form of consciousness is ubiquitous in the animal world, and we, as humans, are obviously on top of the scale of complexity. While we dont know exactly what consciousness is, we still worry that human-designed AI maydevelop some form of it. But thoughtand emotions are likely to be emergent properties of our neurons organized into networks through development, and it is much more likely it could arise in an organoid than in a robot. This may be a primitive form of consciousness or even a full blown version of it, provided it receives input from the external world and finds ways to interact with it.

In theory, mini-brains could be grown forever in a laboratory whether it is legal or not increasing in complexity and power for as long as their life-support system can provide them with oxygen and vital nutrients. This is the case for thecancer cells of a woman called Henrietta Lacks, which are alive more than 60 years after her death and multiplying today in hundreds of thousands of labs throughout the world.

But if brains are cultivated in the laboratory in such conditions, without time limit, could they ever develop a form of consciousness that surpasses human capacity? As I see it, why not?

And if they did, would we be able to tell? What if such a new form of mind decided to keep us, humans, in the dark about their existence be it only to secure enough time to take control of their life-support system and ensure that they are safe?

When I was an adolescent, I often had scary dreams of the world being taken over by a giant computer network. I still have that worry today, and it has partly become true. But the scare of a biological super-brain taking over is now much greater in my mind. Keep in mind that such new organism would not have to worry about their body becoming old and dying, because they would not have a body.

This may sound like the first lines of a bad science fiction plot, but I dont see reasons to dismiss these ideas as forever unrealistic.

The point is that we have to remain vigilant, especially given that this could all happen without us noticing. You just have to consider how difficult it is to assess whether someone is lying when testifying in court to realize that we will not have an easy task trying to work out the hidden thoughts of a lab grown mini-brain.

Slowing the research down by controlling organoid size and life span, or widely agreeing a moratorium before we reach a point of no return, would make good sense. But unfortunately, the growing ubiquity of biological labs and equipment will make enforcement incredibly difficult as weve seen withgenetic embryo editing.

It would be an understatement to say that I share the worries of some of my colleagues working in the field of cellular medicine. The toughest question that we can ask regarding these mesmerizing possibilities, and which also applies to genetic manipulations of embryos, is: can we even stop this?

Guillaume Thierry is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Bangor University

A version of this article was originally published on the Conversations website as Lab-grown mini brains: we cant dismiss the possibility that they could one day outsmart us and has been republished here with permission.

Read more:
Growing tiny brains for research: Should we 'frantically panic' that something might go awry? - Genetic Literacy Project

The SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft that ferried musclebound mice to the International Space Station and back can be seen at the top of this picture taken from the station on Dec. 20, 2019. NASA hide caption

The SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft that ferried musclebound mice to the International Space Station and back can be seen at the top of this picture taken from the station on Dec. 20, 2019.

In early December at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, two anxious scientists were about to send 20 years of research into orbit.

"I feel like our heart and soul is going up in that thing," Dr. Emily Germain-Lee told her husband, Dr. Se-Jin Lee, as they waited arm-in-arm for a SpaceX rocket to launch.

A few seconds later the spacecraft took off, transporting some very unusual mice to the International Space Station, where they would spend more than a month in near zero gravity.

Ordinarily, that would cause the animals' bones to weaken and their muscles to atrophy. But Lee and Germain-Lee, a power couple in the research world, were hoping that wouldn't happen with these mice.

"It was worth waiting 20 years for," Lee said as the Falcon 9 rocket headed toward space. "And someday it may really help people," Germain-Lee added.

The couple hope that what they learn from these mice will lead to new treatments for millions of people with conditions that weaken muscles and bones. Among those who might eventually benefit: children with muscular dystrophy or brittle bone disease, cancer patients with muscle wasting, bedridden patients recovering from hip fractures, older people whose bones and muscles have become dangerously weak, and astronauts on long space voyages.

Dr. Emily Germain-Lee and Dr. Se-Jin Lee waited eagerly at Kennedy Space Center for a SpaceX rocket to launch their experimental mice into space in December. Courtesy of Jennifer Read hide caption

Dr. Emily Germain-Lee and Dr. Se-Jin Lee waited eagerly at Kennedy Space Center for a SpaceX rocket to launch their experimental mice into space in December.

For Lee and Germain-Lee, both professors at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, the launch represented a high point in a partnership that began in the late 1970s.

"We met when I was 18 and we were biochem majors in college together," Germain-Lee said.

The Harvard undergraduates clicked. And in those early years, Emily had a teenager's big dreams about what she and Se-Jin might accomplish.

"Wouldn't that be amazing if one day we worked on some project together that had incredible meaning and helped people," she recalled thinking. "All that stuff."

The couple went to medical school together at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

She went on to become a pediatric endocrinologist who treated children with rare bone disorders. He added a Ph.D. to his M.D. and started a lab that studied muscle growth.

Along the way, they got married and had a son. And in the late 1990s, Se-Jin Lee got kind of famous for helping to create some bulked-up rodents known as "mighty mice."

The mouse on the right has been engineered to have four times the muscle mass of a normal lab mouse.

Lee showed me one when I visited his lab in 2006. It had been genetically engineered to have about four times the muscle mass of a normal mouse.

Lee had altered the animal's genes so it wouldn't produce a protein called myostatin. Ordinarily, myostatin limits the growth of muscles. Without it, you get the mouse version of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"If you open up the mouse and actually look at the muscles it is really unbelievable," he told me. "These animals are almost getting to the point where they don't really look like mice." Lee thought his discovery might help people with diseases that weaken muscles. So he began looking for a drug that could block myostatin and duplicate the effects of genetic engineering.

Meanwhile, as Germain-Lee treated more and more children with bone diseases, she noticed that weak bones could lead to weak muscles.

"My bone patients don't escape muscle loss because they have long periods of time where they can't move or their whole lifetime where they're wheelchair bound," she said.

And because she also sees patients with diseases like muscular dystrophy, she realized it could work the other way. "Any muscle disease leads to weakness and any weakness leads to bone fragility eventually," Germain-Lee said.

At home, the couple spent many evenings discussing muscle, bone, her patients and his work on myostatin.

"Probably most people would think we're really odd," Germain-Lee said. "But it's given great meaning to our life."

Over the years, they realized that what many patients really needed was a way to simultaneously strengthen muscle and bone. And remarkably, they eventually identified a drug with the potential to do that.

It's a substance that affects not only myostatin, but also a protein called activin, which is involved in the growth of both muscle and bone. And it would bring together the parallel lines of research each scientist had been following for decades.

Germain-Lee wanted to test the drug on mice in her lab that developed a version of osteogenesis imperfecta, also known as brittle bone disease. "I said, oh my gosh I really have to try this, and Se-Jin said sure," she said. "And those were the first set of experiments we did together."

The experiments, published in 2015, were successful. The mice developed both stronger bones and bigger muscles. And the results helped inspire Lee to revive an idea he'd been pursuing for two decades. It involved astronauts.

"Astronauts in space have lots of health things that they need to be thinking about," he said, "but certainly at the top of that list would be muscle loss and bone loss.

Without gravity, astronauts can lose up to 20 percent of their muscle mass in less than two weeks, according to research by NASA. And as muscles atrophy, bones begin to weaken too.

So starting in the late 1990s, Lee had approached NASA about funding an experiment to see whether his mighty mice maintained their muscles in space. But his efforts to interest the agency in the project "failed miserably," he said.

That changed after the couple had moved to Hartford, where, in addition to their faculty posts at the University of Connecticut, Germain Lee holds an appointment at Connecticut Children's Medical Center and Lee works at The Jackson Laboratory.

And it was through The Jackson Laboratory that Lee got a chance to send his mighty mice to the International Space Station.

In late 2018, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, which manages the International Space Station, contacted The Jackson Laboratory about potential science projects. And Lee's new employer suggested the mighty mice.

Lee and Germain-Lee quickly assembled an experiment that included not only the bulked up rodents, but normal mice that would receive the drug that (on earth) builds both muscle and bone.

The mice, which had gone into orbit in December, were brought back to earth in early January. And since then, Lee and Germain-Lee have been hard at work analyzing what happened to the animals' muscles and bones.

It will take months to know for sure whether any of the mice were able to defy the usual effects of weightlessness. Also scientists rarely discuss experiments before they're published.

But the couple says preliminary results look promising.

Read more here:
Mighty Mice In Space May Help Disabled People On Earth : Shots - Health News - NPR

ARTS WORK IN THE AGE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: SHAPING OUR GENETIC FUTURES

Through Sunday, March 15

The Gregg Museum of Art & Design, Raleigh

Where do we draw the lines dividing art from science, natural from unnatural, and boldness from hubris?

An exhibit at N.C. States Gregg Museum of Art & Design doesnt answer these questions. Instead, it offers head-spinning new ways to ask them at the nexus of art and biotechnology, sharpening our insight into the fields future and expanding our understanding of it into the past.

These hard-to-classify collaborations between artists and scientistsseethe with hot-button issues related to ethics, privacy, human nature, and more. But if they have one message in common, its to be careful what you wish for.

Arts Work in the Age of Biotechnology: Shaping Our Genetic Futures is the result of more than two years of planning led by Molly Renda, the exhibit program librarian at N.C. State University Libraries, and the universitys Genetic Engineering and Society Center. Guest-curated by Hannah Star Rogers, who studies the intersection of art and science, the main exhibit at the Gregg has annexes in Hill and Hunt libraries.

On a recent tour of the exhibit, Renda and Fred Gould, the co-director of the GESC, said that they wanted to bring artists into the welter of science-and-design innovation taking place at the university because their differing perspectives on fundamental human issues create balance, tension, and discovery.

In the course of this, Ive found that artists tend to be more dystopian and designers are more utopian, Renda says.

There are different ways of knowing things, Gould adds. Thats why Molly came up with the name: not artwork, but arts work. What is an artist supposed to do?

Some pieces take on the dangers of day-after-tomorrow DNA testing and engineering technology. Heather Dewey-Hagborg is best known for Probably Chelsea, a piece in which she collected DNA samples from Chelsea Manning and generated thirty-two possible portraits of the soldier and activist.

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The Gregg is showing a similar piece in which Dewey-Hagborg harvested DNA from cigarette butts and gum she found on the street and created probablebut not definitereplicas of the litterers faces, which hang on the walls above the specimens. Dewey-Hagborg demonstrates not only the unnerving extent of whats currently possible with DNA testing, but also the limits, which create misidentification risks.

Other pieces probe how biotechnology might reshape life as we know it. In a film and a sculpture representing an ancient Greek rite for women, Charlotte Jarvis raises the possibility of creating female sperm, based on the idea that, because stem cells are undifferentiated, you could theoretically teach womens stem cells to develop into sperm.

Still other pieces pointedly poke holes in the boundary between science and art. Adam Zaretskys Errorarium (entitled "Bipolar Flowers")looks like a cross between an arcade cabinet and a terrarium. It houses a few genetically modified Arabidopsis specimens, which Gould calls the white mice of research plants. When you turn the knobs, it changes the sonic parameters of a synthesizer, notionally testing the effects of the sound on the mutant plants.

It doesnt really do anythingor does it? Zaretskys experiment with no hypothesis is a playful tweak on science with something a little dangerous in the background.

Joe Davis, a bio-art pioneer, touches on something similar in his piece, which consists of documentation of an experiment where mice roll dice to determine if luck can be bred. Renda says that Davis couldnt get permission to run the test (universities are wary of drawing attention for ridiculous-seeming experiments), so he did it as conceptual art at N.C. State, instead.

Its notable that two artists home in on luck, one of many human concepts that genetic engineering, which will allow us to take control of our bodies and environment in untested ways, will transform. In We Make Our Own Luck Here, Ciara Redmond has bred four-leaf clovers (without genetic modification), which ruins themtheyrelucks evidence, not its cause. This whimsical iteration of unconsidered consequences raises a serious question: What else are we not thinking of?

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous, Gould says. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The exhibit takes an expansive view of biotechnology. Maria McKinney uses semen-extraction straws to sculpt proteins from double-muscled breeding bulls, underscoring that weve been tampering with life since long before CRISPR. Biotech feels radically new, but its revealed as part of a centuries-long process.

Another part of the exhibit, which closed at the end of October but can still be experienced through virtual reality at the Gregg, was From Teosinte to Tomorrow, Rendas land-art project at the North Carolina Museum of Art. In what was essentially a walk back through agricultural history, a bed of teosinte, which is thought to be the ancestor of modern maize, waited at the center of a corn maze.

That teosinte was in some sense genetically enhanced by subsistence farmers in Mexico since the time of the Aztecs, Gould says. Now were doing it in the laboratory with the same genesso whats the difference? Arts work is to make us think and question.

Contact arts and culture editor Brian Howe at bhowe@indyweek.com

Support independent local journalism.Join the INDY Press Clubto help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.

Original post:
At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. - INDY Week

Although China Agricultural Universitys Li Ning denies embezzling millions of yuan in research funds, a Chinese court ruled last week (January 3) that he is guilty, levying a sentence of 12 years in prison and a fine of 3 million yuan, Naturereports. Lis former assistant, Zhang Lei, aided in the criminal activity, the court found. Zhang, who admitted to the charges, was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison and fined 200,000 yuan.

Between July 2008 and February 2012, Li, famous for his work in animal cloning and genetic modification, took 34.1 million yuan ($4.9 million) in grant money and invested it in companies that he and Zhang had set up to receive the funds, the court found. Li testified that he intended to use the money to support his labs research through a funding gap the resulted from the governments requirement to return unused grant money at the end of the year before applying for new grants in January.

Yuan Chenghui, Lis lawyer, tells the South China Morning Post that Li may appeal.

The conviction and sentencing come after a hearing in late December, five years after Li was arrested in the fall of 2014. In December 2018, more than a dozen members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Sciences petitioned the president of the Supreme Peoples Court of China to rule on Lis case. They praised Lis research and appealed for clemency.

Several other researchers in the country also claimed that the requirement to return unused funds at the end of the year posed a cash-flow problem as they reapplied for new grants each year, and some took a similar tack as Li and Zhang by trying to squirrel some of the money away, according to the South China Morning Post. Indeed, Li and Zhang were not the only Chinese researchers arrested in 2014 for misusing research funds. This requirement of returning unused money has since been relaxed, Naturereports.

Wei Qi, a retired researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells the South China Morning Post that the sentence was too severe for a researcher who had made major scientific contributionscontributions that Li claimed at trial had contributed tens of billions of yuan economic benefits to the nation. An anonymous scientist who also spoke with the newspaperlamented that [t]welve years is effectively a death penalty for his academic life.

Last month (December 30, the same day as Lis hearing), He Jiankui, who drew widespread criticism from the global scientific community after creating the worlds first gene-edited babies, received a three-year prison sentence and a 3 million yuan fine.

Jef Akst is managing editor ofThe Scientist. Email her atjakst@the-scientist.com.

See the original post here:
Cloning Scientist Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison - The Scientist

Despite the fact that Donald Trump's government is determined to continue sanctioning Cuba - the charter flights from the U.S. to nine Cuban airports were suspended last week because of the country's support for Maduro's regime, according to statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - the collaboration between the United States and the island continues, at least on scientific matters. And this should not surprise us, taking into account the great medical advances made by Cuban professionals in the treatment of various types of cancer.

This is what we'll be able to witness in "Cuba's Cancer Hope," a documentary by Llew Smith that will be released next April by PBS and that sheds light on CimaVax, a revolutionary treatment against lung cancer that prolongs the life of patients in very advanced stages and that the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM) in Habana has taken more than twenty years to develop.

In fact, the results are so encouraging that the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York soon joined the project and will be the first U.S. institution to conduct a clinical trial of the drug produced on the island.

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thought, because that is precisely what we are sowing most," Fidel Castro, 1960.

Llew Smith himself was one of the volunteers to test this pioneering treatment, according to Prensa Latina, and his results, which were made known two years ago, will be part of the documentary.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right," said Dr. Kevin Lee, director of the Roswell Park immunology department, in a dialogue with the press, praising the medical advances being made in Cuba and its "great potential to treat and prevent cancer of various kinds."

Cuba a pioneer in science

Biotechnology is one of the most developed branches of Cuban science, which began to be promoted in 1980, when Fidel Castro's government created a group dedicated to the production of interphenon, a possible cancer drug, in addition to promoting scientific parks.

This is a commitment to progress that the current president of Cuba, Miguel Daz-Canel Bermdez, acknowledged to Castro on the occasion of the documentary, and which the late revolutionary leader already advocated in a speech made in 1960when he said:

"The future of our country must necessarily be a future of men of science and thoughtbecause that is precisely what we are sowing most."

But the CimaVax is not the only discovery of Cuban scientists, whose achievements can be traced in the history of the island:

In 1881, the scientist Carlos Juan Finlay was the discoverer of the agent that transmits yellow fever, the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which made it possible to clean up the areas invaded by this infectious agent and which, in the end, has prevented millions of deaths.

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they truly believe, deep in their hearts, that medical care is a human right," Dr. Kevin Lee from Roswell Park.

Also at Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Heberprot-P was developed, a unique drug that prevents the amputation of diabetic feet by healing ulcers.

In addition, Cuba was recognized by WHO as the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The documentary "Cuba's Cancer Hope" also includes other therapies being experimented with on the island, specifically for the treatment of different types of cancer, which once again confirms thatscientific advances are breaking down the walls that apparently separate us.

See the original post:
Cuba's revolutionary cancer vaccine builds bridges between the island and the United States - AL DIA News

(MENAFN - Ameliorate Solutions)

The report presents an in-depth assessment of the Global Red Biotechnology including enabling technologies, key trends, market drivers, challenges, standardization, regulatory landscape, deployment models, operator case studies, opportunities, future roadmap, value chain, ecosystem player profiles and strategies. The report also presents forecasts for Global Red Biotechnology investments from 2020 till 2025.

Industry Overview-

The Red Biotechnology Market is expected to register a CAGR of 5.7% during the forecast period. Red biotechnology is a process that utilizes organisms to improve health and helps the body to fight against diseases. Red biotechnology has become a very important part of the field of diagnostics, gene therapy, and clinical research and trials. Genetic engineering and the development and production of various new medicinal products to treat life-threatening diseases are also part of the benefits of red biotechnology. Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) and Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency are genetic disorders that were successfully treated with gene therapy. Several promising gene therapies are under development for the treatment of cancer and genetic disorders. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 6,000 to 8,000 rare diseases found and out of them, nearly 80% are genetic disorders. Rising incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and increased funding in the healthcare industry are the key driving factors in the red biotechnology market.

Click the link to get a free Sample Copy of the Report:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/inquiry?Mode=21

Top Leading Manufactures-

Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca PLC, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Celgene Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Biogen Inc, Amgen Inc, Gilead Sciences Inc, Merck KGaA, CSL Limited

Biopharmaceutical Industry Segment is Expected to Hold a Major Market Share in the Red biotechnology Market

- Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs that are produced by using biotechnology. Biopharmaceuticals are proteins, antibodies, DNA, RNA or antisense oligonucleotides used for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, and these products are produced by means other than direct extraction from a native (non-engineered) biological source.- The first biopharmaceutical product approved for therapeutic use was recombinant human insulin (Humulin), which was developed by Genentech and marketed by Eli Lily in the year 1982 and in the year 2019, Novartis received FDA approval for gene therapy product in the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) condition. Using an AAV9 viral vector, called Zolgensma, which delivers SMN protein into the motor neurons of afflicted patients.- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally Cancer is the second leading cause of death and an estimated 9.6 million deaths in the year 2018.- Increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic and rare diseases and rapid expansion of the biopharmaceutical industries are the key driving factors in the biopharmaceutical industry segment.

North America is Expected to Hold a Significant Share in the Market and Expected to do Same in the Forecast Period

North America expected to hold a major market share in the global red biotechnology market due to the rising prevalence of chronic and rare diseases, increased expenditure in the healthcare industry in this region. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in the year 2019, approximately 1.8 million people will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States and estimated 268,600 women and 2,670 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, the rise in the adoption of advanced technologies in gene therapy and increasing investments in research and development is fueling the growth of the overall regional market to a large extent.

Inquire for Discount:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01091744865/red-biotechnology-market-growth-trends-and-forecast-2020-2025/discount?Mode=21

Key Strategic Developments : The study also includes the key strategic developments of the market, comprising R & D, new product launch, M & A, agreements, collaborations, partnerships, joint ventures, and regional growth of the leading competitors operating in the market on a Global and regional scale.

Key Market Features: The report evaluated key market features, including revenue, price, capacity, capacity utilization rate, gross, production, production rate, consumption, import/export, supply/demand, cost, market share, CAGR, and gross margin. In addition, the study offers a comprehensive study of the key market dynamics and their latest trends, along with pertinent market segments and sub-segments.

Analytical Tools: Global Red Biotechnology Market report includes the accurately studied and assessed data of the key industry players and their scope in the market by means of a number of analytical tools. The analytical tools such as Porter's five forces analysis, feasibility study, and investment return analysis have been used to analyzed the growth of the key players operating in the market.

The research includes historic data from 2014 to 2020 and forecasts until 2025 which makes the reports an invaluable resource for industry executives, marketing, sales and product managers, consultants, analysts, and other people looking for key industry data in readily accessible documents with clearly presented tables and graphs.

Media Contact Us:

Irfan Tamboli (Head of Sales) Market Insights Reports

Phone: + 1704 266 3234 | +91-750-707-8687

|

MENAFN18012020007010643ID1099570077

Excerpt from:
Red Biotechnology Market Size, Status and Recent Advancements, Forecast 2020 to 2025 - MENAFN.COM

Text Size:A- A+

Bengaluru: Scientists and biotechnology experts from around the world have written two open letters to the Stanford University and the University of California-Santa Cruz (UC-SC) protesting invitations extended to Indian anti-biotechnology activist Vandana Shiva to speak on equitable and sustainable farming methods.

The letters raise concern about Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. They also lay out some of her earlier positions on farming and comments which the experts believe are factually incorrect.

Shiva is a prominent proponent of land redistribution and farmers rights, besides Ayurveda and organic foods. She has been accused of being funded by organic food companies to speak out against conventional agriculture practices.

Known as one of the staunchest critics of genetically modified organisms (GMO), she claims them to be toxic for human consumption a stance that has attractedstrong criticism from the scientific community.

GMOs are widely considered safe and endorsed by most scientific and medical bodies across the world.

Shiva has also been profiled by The New Yorker in an article titled Seeds of Doubt by Michael Specter. The piece is an attempt too debunk her claims.

She has also spoken out against the company Monsanto, which has been accused of engaging in predatory practices while funding genetic and cancer research as well as protecting its seed patents.

ThePrint tried to get in touch with Shiva and both the universities via emails. This report will be updated if and when replies are received.

Also read: A post-chemical world is building as agribusinesses go green

Calling Shivas philosophy unscientific and anti-social, the letter addressed to Stanford cites some ironies associated with Shiva being invited by the institution.

The first concerns Shivas invitation having come from Students for a Sustainable Stanford, because her views are demonstrably, unequivocally anti-sustainable. Her ideas on farming would relegate it to a primitive, low-yielding, wasteful activity.

It goes on to read: Second, the co-discoverer in 1973 of recombinant DNA technology, the prototypic, iconic molecular technique for genetic engineering, was Stanford biochemist Dr. Stanley N. Cohen, who is still a professor of genetics and medicine at the university. Shivas appearance at Stanford is an affront to Professor Cohen and all of the universitys other scientists.

The letter also accuses Shiva of taking large honoraria for dispensing her mendacious and antisocial opinion.

The one addressed to UC-SC similarly expresses surprise that a science-based and ethically inspired institution has extended an invitation to her.

Read the full text of the letter to UC-SC below:

Dear Organizers and Professors,

We are scholars of life sciences and social sciences who have published many scholarly papers and articles about agriculture, food and related biotechnologies.

Perhaps you are unaware of Dr. Vandana Shivas constant use of anti-scientific rhetoric to support unethical positions. We are very surprised that any science-based and ethically inspired institution would invite her to speak.

Here are some (only some) examples of her prejudicial, anti-science, anti-social stances:

Her astonishing tendency to nonsense. See the absurd statement regarding the supposed functioning of the Genetic Use Restriction technology (GURT), from her book Stolen Harvest (p. 82-83):

Molecular biologists are examining the risk of the Terminator function escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated, and moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in fields nearby.Given Natures incredible adaptability and the fact that the technology has never been tested on a large scale, the possibility that the Terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment MUST be taken seriously. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.

One may need to read these statements twice, because they are too bewildering to be understood at first sight. In fact, she claims that sterile seeds which of course cannot germinate can spread sterility. A middle school student expressing such views would fail the biology exam.

Her stunning ignorance: Most #GMOs are #Bt toxin or #HT herbicide tolerant crops. Toxins are poisons. GMOs=Poison Producing Plants. Poisons have no place in food.

Somebody should explain to her that Bt proteins are toxic to some clearly identified classes of insects (plant pests), but not to fish, birds, mammals. See also the scientific papers quoted in response to her delusional post, in particular, a classic study which clarifies that plants naturally produce substances to defend themselves from pests and 99.99% of pesticidal substances in food are natural and harmless to humans.

Her proclivity to offend: Saying farmers should be free to grow GMOs which can contaminate organic farms is like saying rapists should have freedom to rape. She is comparing farmers, who grow crops which are scientifically and legally recognized as safe, to rapists! Its a grotesque insult to millions of honest workers who use modern technologies to farm sustainably and efficiently. Understandably, her outrageous abuse raised many angry reactions (see the replies to the same post).

Her rejection of technologies which help farmers (mostly women and children) to alleviate the painful, back-breaking labor of hand-weeding: Indian women selectively do weeding by hand, hereby preserving our biodiversity (Photo and caption at p. 21.) This is a preposterous statement; any act of weeding is exactly aimed at eliminating detrimental plant biodiversity which, in a field, stifles crops.

As a final treat, a ridiculous statement: Fertilizer should never have been allowed in agriculture, she said in a 2011 speech. I think its time to ban it. Its a weapon of mass destruction. Its use is like war, because it came from war. Let us ask her if she is going to ban metallurgy, since it has been used to forge cannons.

We are confident that our reasoned remarks will be seen by the addressees of this letter, by their colleagues and by students at UCSC as constructive criticism. We are afraid that none of us will be able to attend the event to challenge Dr. Shiva in person. We would appreciate if you can make our letter available to the participants.

Also read: Whats the fuss over the new variety of GM cotton that farmers are batting for

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

View post:
Scientists write to US universities for inviting anti-science activist Vandana Shiva - ThePrint

How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process | 2020-01-17 | Food Engineering This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more. This Website Uses CookiesBy closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

Excerpt from:
How food and beverage marketing claims can affect the production process - Food Engineering Magazine