Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Richard Feynman, one of the most respected physicists of the twentieth century, said "What I cannot create, I do not understand". Not surprisingly, many physicists and mathematicians have observed fundamental biological processes with the aim of precisely identifying the minimum ingredients that could generate them. One such example are the patterns of nature observed by Alan Turing. The brilliant English mathematician demonstrated in 1952 that it was possible to explain how a completely homogeneous tissue could be used to create a complex embryo, and he did so using one of the simplest, most elegant mathematical models ever written. One of the results of such models is that the symmetry shown by a cell or a tissue can "break" under a set of conditions. However, Turing was not able to test his ideas, and it took over 70 years before a breakthrough in biology technique was able to evaluate them decisively. Can Turing's dream be made a reality through Feynman's proposal? Genetic engineering has proved it can.

Now, a research team from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (IBE), a joint centre of UPF and the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), has developed a new type of model and its implementation using synthetic biology can reproduce the symmetry breakage observed in embryos with the minimum amount of ingredients possible.

The research team has managed to implement via synthetic biology (by introducing parts of genes of other species into the E. coli bacteria) a mechanism to generate spatial patterns observed in more complex animals, such as Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) or humans. In the study, the team observed that the strains of modified E. coli, which normally grow in (symmetrical) circular patterns, do as in the shape of a flower with petals at regular intervals, just as Turing had predicted.

"We wanted to build symmetry breaking that is never seen in colonies of E. coli, but is seen in patterns of animals, and then to discover which are the essential ingredients needed to generate these patterns", says Salva Duran-Nebreda, who conducted this research for his doctorate in the Complex Systems laboratory and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the IBE Evolution of Technology laboratory.

Bacteria E. coli forming patterns induced by the new synthetic system. Credit: Jordi Pla /ACS.

Using the new synthetic platform, the research team was able to identify the parameters that modulate the emergence of spatial patterns in E. coli . "We have seen that by modulating three ingredients we can induce symmetry breaking. In essence, we have altered cell division, adhesion between cells and long-distance communication capacity (quorum sensing), that is to say, perceive when there is a collective decision", Duran-Nebreda comments.

The observations made in the E. coli model could be applied to more complex animal models or to insect colony design principles. "In the same way that organoids or miniature organs can help us develop therapies without having to resort to animal models, this synthetic system paves the way to understanding as universal a phenomenon as embryonic development in a far simpler in vitro system", says Ricard Sol, ICREA researcher with the Complex Systems group at the IBE, and head of the research.

The model developed in this study, the first of its kind, could be key to understanding some embryonic development events. "We must think of this synthetic system as a platform for learning to design different fundamental biological mechanisms that generate structures, such as the step from a zygote to the formation of a complete organism. Moreover, such knowledge on the frontier between mechanical and biological processes, could be very useful for understanding developmental disorders", Duran-Nebreda concludes.

Reference: Duran-Nebreda S, Pla J, Vidiella B, Piero J, Conde-Pueyo N, Sol R. Synthetic Lateral Inhibition in Periodic Pattern Forming Microbial Colonies. ACS Synth Biol. 2021. doi:10.1021/acssynbio.0c00318.

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

View post:
Synthetic Biology Used To Develop a New Type of Genetic Design - Technology Networks

At the outset of the Biden Administration it is clear that there will be a sharp pivot in the Federal Governments approach to many environmental regulatory policies. One area that will be interesting to keep track of regulation of agricultural biotechnology (ag biotech). As previously discussed, efforts to modernize the U.S. regulatory system applicable to ag biotech was one of the few areas of environmental regulation and policy that saw a consistent approach between the Obama and Trump Administrations. In fact, Executive Order 13874, Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology, could be viewed as a direct outgrowth of the Update to the Coordinated Framework that was issued by President Obamas Administration in January 2017.

USDA and EPA both took affirmative actions to implement the mandate of Executive Order 13874. USDA, which overcame a history of incomplete attempts stretching back over a decade, finally in 2020 promulgated amendments to the 7 C.F.R. Part 340 regulations that govern the movement of genetically engineered organisms that are or may be plant pests, and EPA published for comment a proposal to implement an exemption from FIFRA regulation for genetically engineered plant-incorporated protectants that are developed using genetic material from sexually compatible plants. With respect to genetically engineered animals, in 2017 FDA had released Guidance for Industry #236, which had the effect of transferring to EPA regulatory jurisdiction over mosquitoes genetically engineered to effectuate mosquito population reductions, and in 2019 FDA lifted the import alert on the genetically engineered AquaAdvantage salmon.

With these efforts to update and improve the Federal regulatory approach to ag biotech providing context, in late December 2020, USDA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought comments on the concept of transitioning regulatory authority for certain genetically engineered animals from FDA to USDA. As described in the USDA ANPRM, regulatory jurisdiction for certain agricultural animals produced using genetic engineering would be transitioned from FDA, which currently regulates intentional genomic alterations in animals as animal drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), to USDA, which would regulate these GE animals under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). USDA opened a 60-day comment period for the public to weigh in on the concepts discussed in its ANPRM.

Apparently not content to merely take comments on the concept of transitioning regulatory authority over certain GE agricultural animals from FDA to USDA, on the day before President Bidens inauguration, USDA released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which it was purported that USDA and FDA had agreed to formalize policies wherein the two agencies would take steps to effectuate the transition of regulatory authority over certain GE animals by (1) USDA developing a new regulatory apparatus and (2) FDA ceding portions of its current animal biotechnology regulatory oversight to USDA. In what was immediately noted by observers as an odd twist, the MOU was not signed by FDA, but, rather, by Brett Girior, Assistant Secretary for Health in HHS. Then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, however, immediately made clear that the MOU did not have the backing of FDA.

So, what are the implications of these actions for oversight of ag biotech going forward?

First, completed regulatory actions are final and cannot be overturned by the new Administration absent initiation of a new regulatory process. Thus, the amended Part 340 regulations will continue to be implemented by USDA.

Second, regulatory actions that were not completed at the close of the last administration may be altered or withdrawn by the new Administration. Therefore, EPAs proposed PIPS exemption may be delayed or withdrawn altogether (or, the new Administration could review the comments and decide to go forward with it).

Third, USDAs GE animal ANPRM does not have any procedural weight under the Administrative Procedure Act and may never see the light of day or be heard of again.

Finally, the purported USDA-FDA MOU also has no legal significance absent a decision by the Biden Administration to accept its terms. The USDA MOU was an agreement by political appointees in USDA and HHS. New political appointees in USDA and HHS can just as easily disavow that agreement. Moreover, given the strong objections to the MOU that were voiced by then-Commissioner Hahn, which likely reflect the feelings of FDA staff, the MOU may very well not be supported by the Biden Administration at least not without further process and buy-in by FDA.

That being said, the issue of how GE animals that are the subject of the MOU should be regulated is a critical issue. USDA has revised and updated its regulatory approach to GE organisms under its authority; EPA has proposed to take a first step in revising and updating its regulatory approach to GE plants under its authority. It is altogether reasonable that FDA and USDA should act together to revise and update the regulatory approach to GE agricultural animals. As FDA and EPA determined in the context of GE mosquitoes intended to suppress pest mosquito populations, regulating the genetic alterations as animal drugs under the FFDCA is not an efficient or effective means of regulating these organisms. Similarly, regulating as animal drugs genetic alterations in agricultural animals that are intended to alter their production value or the composition of food tissue also is not efficient or effective. Hopefully, last weeks MOU kerfuffle will not delay or derail necessary updating of the regulatory approach to GE agricultural animals in the United States. (For a discussion of a recently initiated effort by the UK to update its regulatory approach to GE organisms see this blog post.

View original post here:
Trump USDA and FDA Spar Over Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Does This Sideshow Have Any Actual Implications for Regulatory Policy? - JD...

With an established, yet continually growing market, Philadelphia is ranked among Boston, San Francisco and others on Newmarks 2020 year-end report.

Philadelphia is a top life sciences market in the country, per a new report. Photograph byChristopher Boswell/EyeEm/Getty Images

In recent years, Philadelphia has made a name for itself as one of the leading life sciences hubs in the United States with nods from CBRE and Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, big increases in venture capital investment, and booming construction of new lab spaces around the region.

Its no surprise, then, that the city has recently been recognized as one of the nations top life sciences real estate markets. According to commercial real estate advisory firm Newmarks 2020 year-end report, Philadelphia lands sixth on a list of 14 centers for innovation and growth. The city is preceded by rival market clusters Boston/Cambridge, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Raleigh/Durham, and Seattle.

By Newmarks metrics, Philadelphia earned a market cluster score of 60.5 (the top market, Boston/Cambridge, earned an 82.5). The scoring is based on four categories: market maturity, a combination of wet lab inventory, rental rate, vacancy rate, tenant demand, and venture capital funding; market momentum, which considers the past five years rental and pricing growth, as well as 2020s capital markets activity; market innovation, or the volume and concentration of both employment and top-tier life sciences institutions; and future growth, composed of the facilities construction and conversion pipeline, plus the growth expectancy over the next five years.

Of the four components, Philadelphia saw its highest score in market momentum, followed by market innovation. As the report suggests, this is due to the regions rich concentration of colleges and universities, renowned healthcare institutions, and a strong legacy of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Though Newmarks findings show a pretty significant drop in venture capital funding in 2020 compared to 2019 (the decrease was particularly noticeable in the area of biotechnology, while things held pretty steady in pharma and drug development go figure!), last year did yield Philadelphias highest number of initial public offerings (IPO) on record in the life sciences sector. Given its ranking, Newmark is confident Philadelphia will receive more venture capital funding over the next several years.

Lisa DeNight, Newmarks Greater Philadelphia research manager, says that the COVID-19 pandemic also accelerated the citys life sciences expansion, especially as the need for lab space, testing materials, and vaccine research increased. Last year, we only saw a net gain in Philly, showing that the area continues to offer more opportunities for growth and investment in the life sciences spectrum, even and maybe especially during a health crisis, she says.

Philadelphia scored lowest in the area of future growth, which is unexpected, considering the more than a million square feet of lab space currently under construction here. But again, this score is up against areas with much larger development underway, like Bostons 3.7 million square feet space and San Franciscos 3.3 million square feet under construction. DeNight says that folks can expect to see Philadelphias future growth section expand in 2021 because its construction pipeline will open excessively. We [Newmark] have already seen rising tenant demand and in-progress lab space, which will help our region continue to grow in its legacy as a life sciences hub, she says.

View post:
Is One of the Top Life Sciences Markets in the Country - Philadelphia magazine

GAITHERSBURG, Md., Feb. 03, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), a biotechnology company developing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced that the company has executed a binding Heads of Terms agreement with the government of Switzerland to supply six million doses of its protein-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, NVX-CoV2373, to the country.

The government of Switzerland is working proactively to ensure a sufficient supply of our vaccine that could protect its citizens from COVID-19, said John J. Trizzino, Chief Commercial Officer and Chief Business Officer of Novavax. Addressing this global public health crisis requires collaboration, and we appreciate their partnership to provide an urgently needed vaccine to stem the pandemic.

Novavax and Switzerland will negotiate a final agreement, with initial delivery of vaccine doses slated to ship following successful clinical development and regulatory review.

NVX-CoV2373 is currently in Phase 3 clinical development for the prevention of COVID-19. It is the first vaccine to demonstrate clinical efficacy against the original strain of COVID-19 and both of the rapidly emerging variants in the United Kingdom and South Africa. NVX-CoV2373 can neither cause COVID-19 nor can it replicate. It is shipped in a ready-to-use liquid formulation. Because it is stable at 2C to 8C (refrigerated), existing vaccine supply chain channels can be used for its distribution.

About NVX-CoV2373NVX-CoV2373 is a protein-based vaccine candidate engineered from the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike (S) protein and is adjuvanted with Novavax patented saponin-based Matrix-M to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies. NVX-CoV2373 contains purified protein antigen and can neither replicate, nor can it cause COVID-19. In preclinical studies, NVX-CoV2373 induced antibodies that block binding of spike protein to cellular receptors and provided protection from infection and disease. It was generally well-tolerated and elicited robust antibody response numerically superior to that seen in human convalescent sera in Phase 1/2 clinical testing. NVX-CoV2373 is currently being evaluated in two pivotal Phase 3 trials: a trial in theU.Kthat demonstrated 89.3 percent overall efficacy and 95.6 percent against the original strain in a post-hoc analysis, and the PREVENT-19 trial in theU.S.andMexicothat began in December. It is also being tested in two ongoing Phase 2 studies that began in August: A Phase 2b trial inSouth Africa that demonstrated up to 60 percent efficacy against newly emerging escape variants, and a Phase 1/2 continuation in theU.S.andAustralia.

About Matrix-MNovavax patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant has demonstrated a potent and well-tolerated effect by stimulating the entry of antigen presenting cells into the injection site and enhancing antigen presentation in local lymph nodes, boosting immune response.

About NovavaxNovavax, Inc.(Nasdaq: NVAX) is a biotechnology company that promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases. The companys proprietary recombinant technology platform combines the power and speed of genetic engineering to efficiently produce highly immunogenic nanoparticles designed to address urgent global health needs. Novavaxis conducting late-stage clinical trials for NVX-CoV2373, its vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. NanoFlu, its quadrivalent influenza nanoparticle vaccine, met all primary objectives in its pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in older adults and will be advanced for regulatory submission. Both vaccine candidates incorporate Novavax proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies.

For more information, visit http://www.novavax.com and connect with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Novavax Forward-Looking Statements

Statements herein relating to the future ofNovavaxand the ongoing development of its vaccine and adjuvant products are forward-looking statements.Novavaxcautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. These risks and uncertainties include those identified under the heading Risk Factors in the Novavax Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2019, and Quarterly Report on Form10-Qfor the period endedSeptember 30, 2020, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission(SEC). We caution investors not to place considerable reliance on forward-looking statements contained in this press release. You are encouraged to read our filings with theSEC, available atsec.gov, for a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date of this document, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of the statements. Our business is subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, including those referenced above. Investors, potential investors, and others should give careful consideration to these risks and uncertainties.

Read more:
Novavax and Government of Switzerland Announce Agreement in Principle to Supply COVID-19 Vaccine - GlobeNewswire

The EU Green Deal and its Farm-to-Fork and Biodiversity Strategies stipulate ambitious policy objectives that will fundamentally impact agricultural businesses and value chains. Are these objectives realistic? And how do they fit with the EUs policies on food security, the internal market, international trade and multilateral economic agreements? As significant conflicts of goals become apparent, the discussion on expectations, preconditions and consequences is now underway.

The Farm to Fork Strategy concretely foresees a reduction of pesticide and fertilizer use of 50% and 20% by 2030, respectively. In addition, 25% of EUs agricultural land is supposed to be put under organic farming conditions, which generally means a reduction in productivity. Unfortunately, the strategy is less concrete about the important role of innovation in general and plant breeding innovation specifically to compensate for productivity losses and to contribute to a more sustainable agriculture.

On July 25, 2018 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published its ruling on mutagenesis breeding, including targeted genome editing techniques. This ruling subjected new tools like CRISPR Cas-9 to the EUs strict rules and requirements for GMOs, and with that effectively prohibited European plant breeders and farmers from utilizing these powerful technologies. These regulatory obstacles are not based on evidence showing that genome editing poses a risk to human health or the environment, but rather on political interference in the regulatory approval process. The COVID pandemic made this abundantly clear. In July 2020, for example, the EU suspended some of its excessive genetic engineering rules to facilitate the development of COVID vaccines, and has since celebrated the approval of these important drugs while trying to prevent the use of biotechnology in agriculture.

Since the discovery of the laws of genetics by Gregory Mendel in 1866, plant breeders have continuously integrated the latest plant biology innovations into their toolbox to develop enhanced crops that help farmers sustainably grow the food we all depend on.

Europes seed sector, technology developers and public researchers have always been important actors in this evolving effort and remain global leaders in developing improved plant breeding methods. They work tirelessly to provide farmers with crop varieties that fit the needs of a highly productive and sustainable agriculture system and meet the exacting demands of consumers. It is no secret that these experts understand the value of new breeding techniques (NBTs) like CRISPR and want to employ them.

Contrary to the claim of some environmental groups that genome editing provides new avenues of control through modifying specific plant traits, most notably insect and herbicide resistance, industrial applications of this sort are only one aspect of NBT research, and a minor one at that. Our recent survey of 62 private plant breeding companies, 90% of which are small and medium size firms (SMEs), confirms that EU plant breeders are able and willing to use these technologies to develop a wide range of crop species and traits for farmers. From grape vine to wheat, NBTs can generate innovation to protect Europes traditional crops from pests and diseases and other threats posed by climate change.

Independent of their size, many companies are already using NBTs in their R&D pipelines for technology development, gene discovery and to produce improved plant varieties. These activities cover a wide range of agricultural and horticultural cropsfrom the so-called cash crops like maize and soybean to minor crops like pulses, forage crops and chicoryand span a wide diversity of characteristics, including yield, plant architecture, disease and pest resistance, food-quality traits and abiotic stresses like drought and heat.

See the article here:
Uncertain future: Will Europe's Green Deal encourage or cripple crop gene-editing innovation? - Genetic Literacy Project

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 2, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- A collaboration between MIT Voigt Lab and Synlogic, Inc. (Nasdaq: SYBX), a clinical stage company bringing the transformative potential of synthetic biology to medicine, has been recognized by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) as a Biotechnology Grand Challenge Winner. One of four winning teams, the joint team comprised of MIT and Synlogic was awarded $1 million in an effort to spearhead innovation among small businesses in the field of biotechnology for the Department of Defense.

"We are honored to be recognized by the AFRL and are thrilled to collaborate with Synlogic to achieve this success," said Christopher Voigt, MIT Professor of Biological Engineering and Principal Investigator for the MIT Voigt Lab. "Our challenge was determining which organization would possess the proven expertise in both the development and manufacturing of novel biotherapeutic products, and we couldn't be happier that we have found that partner in Synlogic."

Christopher Voigt is an expert in synthetic biology and biotechnology with extensive research programs in defense, chemistry/materials, and agriculture. The focus of the Voigt Lab is to develop new experimental and theoretical methods to push the scale of genetic engineering, with the ultimate objective of genome design. This will impact the engineering of biology for a broad range of applications, including agriculture, materials, chemicals, and medicine. Professor Voigt's research spans applications for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and he works closely with scientists across the service labs as well as hosting DoD researchers at MIT.

"Our internal and fully integrated Process Development & Manufacturing Sciences organization has demonstrated leading technical expertise in the field of Synthetic Biotic medicines and we look forward to applying innovative solutions for today's real-life challenges," said Antoine Awad, Synlogic's Chief Operating Officer."As we develop our internal pipeline we are excited to leverage our core capabilities to advance innovative partner projects, such as applying our bioprocess and manufacturing to advance the goals of the AFRL."

Together, Synlogic and the Voigt Lab will collaborate to generate and manufacture engineered strains by performing an assessment of process manufacturability, with optimization performed to maximize high cell density growth and high end of fermentation (EOF) viability. The goal of this work is to produce a live bacterial therapeutic that would improve pilot performance and decision-making when battling fatigue during long missions.

Learn more about Synlogic at http://www.synlogictx.com.

About Synlogic

Synlogic is bringing the transformative potential of synthetic biology to medicine. With a premiere synthetic biology platform that leverages a reproducible, modular approach to microbial engineering, Synlogic designs Synthetic Biotic medicines that target validated underlying biology to treat disease in new ways. Synlogic's proprietary pipeline includes Synthetic Biotic medicines for the treatment of metabolic disorders including Phenylketonuria (PKU) and Enteric Hyperoxaluria (HOX). The company is also building a portfolio of partner-able assets in immunology and oncology.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" that involve substantial risks and uncertainties for purposes of the safe harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release regarding strategy, future operations, clinical development plans, future financial position, future revenue, projected expenses, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. In addition, when or if used in this press release, the words "may," "could," "should," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "plan," "predict" and similar expressions and their variants, as they relate to Synlogic may identify forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements, include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the potential of Synlogic's platform to develop therapeutics to address a wide range of diseases including: cancer, inborn errors of metabolism, and inflammatory and immune disorders; the future clinical development of Synthetic Biotic medicines; the approach Synlogic is taking to discover and develop novel therapeutics using synthetic biology; and the expected timing of Synlogic's clinical trials including the Phase 1 study for SYNB1891 and SYNB8802 and the Phase 2 study of SYNB1618, and availability of clinical trial data from that study and other studies.

Actual results could differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement as a result of various factors, including: the uncertainties inherent in the clinical and preclinical development process; the ability ofSynlogicto protect its intellectual property rights; and legislative, regulatory, political and economic developments, as well as those risks identified under the heading "Risk Factors" inSynlogic'sfilings with theSEC. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflectSynlogic'scurrent views with respect to future events.Synlogicanticipates that subsequent events and developments will cause its views to change. However, whileSynlogicmay elect to update these forward-looking statements in the future,Synlogicspecifically disclaims any obligation to do so. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Synlogic's view as of any date subsequent to the date hereof.

SOURCE Synlogic, Inc.

Home

View original post here:
Joint Team from MIT and Synlogic Named a Biotechnology Grand Challenge Winner by Air Force Research Laboratory - PRNewswire

The U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently announced the deregulation of a cotton variety, designated as MON 88702, otherwise known as ThryvOn Technology. It was developed by the Monsanto Company, which is now owned by Bayer. It uses genetic engineering for resistance to certain insects, primarily tarnished plant bugs.

APHIS considered all public comments and conducted a thorough review of the potential environmental impacts in its final EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), reaching a finding of no significant impact. They concluded the MON 88702 cotton variety is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk to agricultural crops or other plants in the U.S. and deregulated it, effective Jan. 19, 2021.

Bayers ThryvOn Technology represents the industrys first cotton biotech trait to protect against feeding damage from key tarnished plant bug and thrips species. These include tobacco thrips, Western flower thrips, tarnished plant bug and the Western Tarnished Plant bug. The technology provides cotton growers an additional tool to manage these damaging pests.

Related

Read more from the original source:
Bayer's ThryvOn Technology Moves Forward - Southeast AgNet

Precious few tears would have been shed on Hogmanay for the passing of 2020.

Celebrating New Year virtually imprisoned in our homes by Government decree was unimaginable this time last year.

2020 will be remembered as one of the most difficult and challenging years we have ever faced.

Millions have lost their lives, economies have been wrecked, businesses closed and jobs lost all because of a virus that jumped from animals to humans in a Chinese wet market.

Looking back what strikes me most is how well people have adapted to cope with the threat from the virus.

We have learned to live with social distancing and to disinfect our hands everywhere we go.

But by far the most difficult change to cope with is being unable to mix with our family and friends.

At work huge swathes of the population overnight found themselves working from their living rooms instead of going to their offices leaving city centres deserted and empty.

Teams and Zoom have become the mainstay of doing business and even farmers have adapted to this new-fangled digital world.

At AHDB we were forced to move our monitor farms online and to our surprise the number of farmers taking part or watching after far surpassed the numbers who would have attended an actual event.

The crisis has also brought home to consumers that supermarket shelves groaning with every kind of food available 24 hours a day are not a given.

In the early days of lockdown people were panic buying and there was a real danger of food shortages.

The food industry showed how strong, resilient and robust its supply chain is by quickly responding to meet the huge switch in consumer demand as people were forced to cook at home instead of eating out.

I would like to think that experience has made consumers recognise that farmers and growers who work seven days a week to put food on our tables are just as important as those who work in the health service and care sector.

The outlook for the New Year would have been pretty bleak if our scientists had not come up trump with new vaccines.

Developing a vaccine to fight this virus only 10 months after the outbreak started is nothing short of miraculous.

At the heart of that miracle is genetic engineering which allowed scientists to precisely construct an effective vaccine that works.

The precision of the technology was summed up for me when one of the virus experts was recently asked on the BBC if the vaccine would work on the new variant of the virus.

He said: The genetic code is like an email; we just go in and precisely adjust a few letters in it to reflect the change in the virus.

These genetically engineered vaccines will literally save millions of lives, allow economies and businesses to thrive again and save jobs.

Yet these precision genetic techniques, which have the potential to revolutionise crop breeding and vaccine development for animals, are being denied to the farming industry by the SNP Government.

Surely it is time our politicians used their common sense, ended the hypocrisy and recognised these tools are part of the solution in the move to a more sustainable agriculture.

Read the rest here:
George Lyon: Covid vaccine highlights need to accept genetic engineering - Press and Journal

Robert Sheasby, CEO of the AIC, the voice of the UK feed and the agri-supply sector, said:

The AIC warmly welcomes the launch of this government consultation on gene editing in crops and livestock. We have long sought to support sustainable modern commercial agriculture in the UK, and this is the opportunity for our members to put forward their views on this development in technology. We would encourage the industry at large to respond.

EU legislation controlling the use of GMOs was retained in the UK at the end of the transition period, after December 31, 2020. This retained legislation requires that all GE organisms are classified as GMOs irrespective of whether they could be produced by traditional breeding methods.

The UK's Department of Food, Rural Affairs and the Environment (Defra) said it is its view that organisms produced by GE or by other genetic technologies should not be regulated as GMOs if they could have been produced by traditional breeding methods.

Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to consult on the implications of addressing this issue. We recognize there is a spectrum of opinions on these topics, and we are consulting to provide an opportunity for all views to be shared."

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, where the consultation was launched, UK environment secretary, George Eustice, said:

Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources that mother nature has provided, in order to tackle the challenges of our age. This includes breeding crops that perform better, reducing costs to farmers and impacts on the environment, and helping us all adapt to the challenges of climate change.Its potential was blocked by a European Court of Justice ruling in 2018, which is flawed and stifling to scientific progress. Now that we have left the EU, we are free to make coherent policy decisions based on science and evidence. That begins with this consultation.

Consulting with academia, environmental groups, the food and farming sectors and the public is the beginning of this process that, depending on the outcome, will require primary legislation scrutinized and approved by the UK parliament, stressed Defra.

Professor Robin May, the chief scientific officer of the UKs Food Standards Agency (FSA), also welcomed the review, saying:

The UK prides itself in having the very highest standards of food safety, and there are strict controls on GM crops, seeds and food which the FSA will continue to apply moving forward. As with all novel foods, GE foods will only be permitted to be marketed if they are judged to not present a risk to health, not to mislead consumers, and not have lower nutritional value than existing equivalent foods. We will continue to put the consumer first and be transparent and open in our decision-making. Any possible change would be based on an appropriate risk assessment that looks at the best available science.

Sir David Baulcombe, professor of botany in the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Cambridge, said the overwhelming view of public sector scientists is that the Nobel Prize winning methods for gene editing can accelerate the availability of crops and livestock for sustainable, productive and profitable agriculture.

The UK National Pig Association (NPA) said that gene editing technology could potentially deliver long-term benefits for pig production.

In the NPA's response to the Nuffield Council of Bioethics call for evidence on genome editing in September 2019, its senior policy adviser, Rebecca Veale, identified the potential value of gene editing tools in improving the efficiency of pig production.

"The opportunities for application are long. We might be in a better place to tackle diseases such as ASF and PRRS and we might be able to reduce emissions in pig production or exploit nutritional availability in feed better.

"Afew countries have made small steps to utilizing this technology, but these have been limited. Our industry cannot be disadvantaged by a lack of access to such a tool and any future policy must be clear not to breach ethical boundaries, but to have flexibility to allow the use of the technology to be exploited to its full potential. Any future developments are reliant on support for the research required to explore the opportunities available, she added.

Responding to the consultation, the director of anti-GM campaign group, GM Freeze, Liz ONeill said:

"People have many concerns about the use of genetic engineering in food and farming so public engagement is vital but it has to be done well. Unfortunately this consultation has started very badly. Its been launched in the midst of an unprecedented health crisis; it has a clear bias in favour of removing vital safeguards; and the text of the consultation grossly misrepresents the nature of highly experimental new GM techniques.

"Instead of working with people to understand their concerns, Defra is pushing the high-tech, quick-fix agenda favoured by industrial farming corporations. GM Freeze will, of course, be submitting evidence and we encourage everyone who wants to know what they are eating to do the same, but the government should be doing much more to protect our food, our farms and the natural environment."

Aside from gene editing, the consultation will also begin a longer-term project to gather evidence on updating the UK approach to genetic modification by gathering information on what controls are needed and how best to deliver them, said Defra.

Continued here:
UK feed and pig industries welcome UK consultation on gene editing - FeedNavigator.com

DUBLIN, Jan. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change provides the strategists, marketers and senior management with the critical information they need to assess the global crispr technology market.

Major players in the CRISPR technology market are Thermo Fisher Scientific, GenScript Biotech Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Horizon Discovery Plc., Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Danaher), Origene Technologies, Inc., Transposagenbio Biopharmaceuticals (Hera Biolabs), Intellia Therapeutics Inc., and GeneCopoeia, Inc.

The global CRISPR technology market is expected to increase from $0.76 billion in 2019 to $0.92 billion in 2020 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.91%. The exponential growth is mainly due to the COVID-19 outbreak that has led to the research for drugs for COVID-19 with gene-editing using CRISPR technology. The market is expected to reach $1.55 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 19.13%.

The CRISPR technology market consists of sales of CRISPR technology products and services which is a gene-editing technology that allows researchers to alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. The revenue generated by the market includes the sales of products such as design tools, plasmid & vector, Cas9 & gRNA, libraries & delivery system products and services that include design & vector construction, screening and cell line engineering.

These products and services are used in genome editing/genetic engineering, genetically modifying organisms, agricultural biotechnology and others which include gRNA database/gene library, CRISPR plasmid, human stem cell & cell line engineering by end-users. The end-users include pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic & research institutes and contract research organizations.

North America was the largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019. Europe was the second-largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019.

In 2019, Cardea Bio Inc., a US-based biotechnology infrastructure company that manufactures biology-gated transistors (Cardean transistors) that utilizes biocompatible graphene instead of silicon and replaces optical signal observations with direct electrical molecular signal analysis, merged with Nanosens Innovations, Inc. The merger is aimed at accelerating the development of the genome sensor that combines Nanosens' CRISPR-Chip technology with Cardea's graphene biosensor infrastructure and is the first DNA search engine globally that runs on CRISPR-Chip technology. Nanosens will be operating as a subsidiary of Cardea Bio. Nanosens Innovations, Inc. is a US-based biotechnology company that develops CRISPR-Chip and FEB technology.

The CRISPR technology market covered in this report is segmented by product type into design tools; plasmid and vector; CAS9 and G-RNA; delivery system products. It is also segmented by application into genome editing/ genetic engineering; genetically modified organisms; agricultural biotechnology; others and by end-user into industrial biotech; biological research; agricultural research; therapeutics and drug discovery.

Stringent government regulations are expected to retard the growth of the CRISPR technology market during the period. There is no existence of internationally agreed regulatory framework for gene editing products and countries are in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent current regulations are adequate for research conducted with gene editing and applications and products related to gene editing. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it would treat gene-edited crops as genetically modified organisms, subject to stringent regulation.

In April 2019, the Australian government stated that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) will regulate only the gene-editing technologies that use a template, or that insert other genetic material into the cell. According to an article of 2020, in India, as per the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, genome modification including gene-editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology of stem cells, germ-line stem cells or gamete and human embryos is restricted only to in-vitro studies. Thus, strict regulations by the government present a threat to the growth of the market.

Several advancements in CRISPR technology are trending in the market during the period. Advancements in technology will help in reducing errors, limiting unintended effects, improving the accuracy of the tool, widening its applications, developing gene therapies and more. In 2019, a study published in Springer Nature stated the development of an advanced super-precise new CRISPR tool that allows researchers more control over DNA changes. This tool seems to have the capability of providing a wider variety of gene edits which might potentially open up conditions that have challenged gene-editors.

Also, in 2020, another study in Springer Nature stated that researchers have used enzyme engineering to boost the accuracy of the technique of error-prone CRISPR-Cas9 system to precisely target DNA without introducing as many unwanted mutations. The advancements in CRISPR technology will result in better tools that are capable of providing better outcomes.

The application of CRISPR technology as a diagnostic tool is expected to boost the market during the period. The Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit is the first diagnostic kit based on CRISPR technology for infectious diseases caused due to COVID-19. In May 2020, FDA announced the emergency use authorization to the Sherlock BioSciences Inc's Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit which is a CRISPR-based SHERLOCK (Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter unLOCKing) diagnostic test.

This test helps in specifically targeting RNA or DNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from specimens or samples such as nasal swabs from the upper respiratory tract and fluid in the lungs from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens. This diagnostic kit has high specificity and sensitivity and does not provide false negative or positive results. Widening the application of CRISPR technology for the diagnosis of infectious diseases will increase the demand for CRISPR technology products and services.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Executive Summary

2. CRISPR Technology Market Characteristics

3. CRISPR Technology Market Size And Growth

3.1. Global CRISPR Technology Historic Market, 2015 - 2019, $ Billion

3.1.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.1.2. Restraints On The Market

3.2. Global CRISPR Technology Forecast Market, 2019 - 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

3.2.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.2.2. Restraints On the Market

4. CRISPR Technology Market Segmentation

4.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Product Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Application, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.3. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By End-User, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5. CRISPR Technology Market Regional And Country Analysis 5.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Region, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion 5.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Country, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/vnvkue

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Read the original:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change - Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 - Forecast to...