Page 27«..1020..26272829..4050..»

Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

5 questions facing gene therapy in 2021 – BioPharma Dive

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

Three years ago, the Food and Drug Administration granted a landmark approval to the first gene therapy for an inherited disease, clearing a blindness treatment called Luxturna.

Since then, the regulator has approved one more gene therapy,the spinal muscular atrophy treatment Zolgensma, and given a green light for dozens of biotech and pharmaceutical companies to start clinical testing on others. Genetic medicines for a range of diseases, including hemophilia, sickle cell and several muscular dystrophies, appear in reach, and new science is galvanizing research.

But, entering 2021, the gene therapy field faces major questions after a series of regulatory and clinical setbacks have shaded optimism. "The ups and downs of adolescence are on full display" analysts at Piper Sandler wrote in September, summing up the state of gene therapy research.

Here are five questions facing scientists, drugmakers and investors this year. How they're answered will matter greatly to the patients and families holding out hope for one-time disease treatments.

The FDA was widely expected last year to approve a closely watched gene therapy for hemophilia A, the more common type of the blood disease. Instead, the agency in August surprisingly rejected the treatment, called Roctavian, and asked its developer, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, to gather more data.

The next day, Audentes Therapeutics reported news came a third clinical trial participant had died after receiving the biotech's experimental gene therapy for a rare neuromuscular disease. The tragedy brought flashbacks to past safety scares in gene therapy, although the current wave of treatments being tested have generally appeared safe.

A little less than five months later, the gene therapy field is grappling with two more setbacks. UniQure is exploring whether a study volunteer's liver cancer was caused by its gene therapy for hemophilia B. And Sarepta, one of the sector's top developers, faces significant doubts about its top treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy after disclosing a key study missed one of its main goals.

In each case, the drugmakers involved offered explanations and reasons for optimism. BioMarin still expects to obtain an approval; Audentes' trial is now cleared by the FDA to resume testing; UniQure thinks it's unlikely the cancer case is linked to treatment; and Sarepta argued its negative data were the product of unlucky study design.

But taken together, the developments are powerful reminders of both the stakes and uncertainty still facing gene therapy.

All four events also highlighted lingering worries about one-time genetic treatment. In rejecting Roctavian, for example, the FDA seemed to be concerned the impressive benefit hemophilia patients initially experienced may wane over time. The deaths in Audentes' study, meanwhile,renewed warnings about extremely high doses of gene therapy. Researchers have long watched for evidence that replacing or altering genes may cause cancer to develop in rare instances, particularly after four infants developed leukemia in a gene therapy study in the early 2000s.And Sarepta's negative findings were surprising because early signs of dramatic biological benefit that didn't seem to translate into clear-cut functional gains for all patients.

Experts are still confident gene therapy can deliver on its promise. Bu recent events suggest getting there may take a bit longer than some expected.

"The process is the product," is an often-used cliche about gene therapy, which are complex treatments with exacting manufacturing standards.

Most of the roughly 60,000 pages in Spark Therapeutics' application for approval of Luxturna, for instance, involved what's known in the industry as "chemistry, manufacturing and controls."

The therapeutic basis for gene therapy, by contrast, is much clearer for many of the rare, monogenic diseases that developers are targeting. If mutations in a single gene lead to disease, replacing or otherwise fixing that gene should have a large benefit.

"Genetic medicine is not industrialized serendipity," said Gbola Amusa, an analyst at Chardan, contrasting gene therapy with chemical-based drugs."It often is an engineering question."

In 2020, the FDA gave ample notice that it's watching gene (and cell) therapy manufacturing closely.Sarepta,Voyager Therapeutics,Iovance Biotherapeuticsand Bluebird biowere all forced to revise their development timelines after the agency asked for new details about production processes.

"The FDA is saying to companies that you've got to up your standards," Amusa added.

For their part, FDA officials have indicated the spate of data requests are a product of the sharply higher numbers of companies advancing through clinical testing.

While setbacks have piled up for therapies that seek to replace genes, 2020 was a "transformative year" for therapies designed to edit them, according to Geulah Livshits, an analyst at Chardan.

CRISPR gene editing, already widely recognized as a scientific breakthrough, gained further prestige with the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to two early pioneers, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier.

But the year also brought important progress from early biotech adopters.Editas Medicine and Intellia Therapeutics, for example, notched CRISPR firsts with use of the editing technology inside the human body.

And CRISPR Therapeutics and partner Vertex showed their experimental therapy, which uses CRISPR to edit stem cells, worked exceptionally well in the first 10 patients with either sickle cell disease or beta thalassemia treated in two early studies.

The data are the most concrete sign yet that CRISPR's clinical use can live up to its laboratory promise. While all three companies' therapies are still in early stages, their advances have ginned up substantial investor enthusiasm.

Together, the market value of CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas and Intellia totals nearly $25 billion. Beam Therapeutics, a startup that uses a more precise form of gene editing, is worth nearly $6 billion.

"Gene therapy will have a big role to play," said John Evans, Beam's CEO. "But I do think in the last year or so there's a growing realization that, when possible, you'd probably rather edit than add an extra gene."

Clinical tests will prove that out but, until then, the large upswing in share price for gene editing companies may not be sustainable as valuations creep higher and higher. Some of the recent run-up, for instance,appears driven by money flowing from generalist investors through exchange-trade funds, rather than from investors experienced in handicapping preclinical- or early clinical-stage companies.

"They're overdue for some type of rationalization," predicted Brad Loncar, CEO of Loncar Investments, adding that many companies are targeting similar diseases, most commonly sickle cell and beta thalassemia.

Tasked with replacing faulty genes with functional ones, scientists for the most part have turned to two types of viruses to safely shuttle genetic instructions into cells. Adeno-associated viruses, or AAVs,are typically used for infused treatments, while researchers working on cells extracted from patients generally opt for lentiviruses.

Each virus class has advantages, but also notable drawbacks. AAVs, for instance, can trigger pre-existing immune defenses in some people, making those individuals ineligible or poor candidates for gene therapy. Lentiviruses, by contrast, are known to integrate their DNA directly into the genomes of cells they infect a useful attribute in some regards but limiting in others.

Over decades of gene therapy research, scientists have found ways to tweak and modify these viral vectors to better suit their needs, but the basic tools are the same. Jim Wilson, a gene therapy pioneer who ran the study that led to the death of teenager Jesse Gelsinger in 1999, told attendees at a STAT conference last fall that he's "somewhat disappointed" by slow progress in viral vector research.

And as more and more gene therapies enter clinical testing, the limitations of current viral vectors have become more apparent.

The pace of research might be picking up, however. Recently, a number of companies aiming to build better delivery tools have launched, including Harvard University spinout Dyno Therapeutics and 4D Molecular Therapeutics, which recently raised $222 million in an initial public offering.

Larger companies are interested, too. Roche, Sarepta and Novartis have all partnered with Dyno, for example.

In gene editing, meanwhile, researchers are developing new ways to cut DNA, while Beam and others are advancing different editing approaches altogether.

Billions of dollars have flowed from pharmaceutical companies into gene therapy over the past few years, leaving few large multinational drugmakers without a research presence.

2020 was no different, with sizable acquisitions inked by Bayer and Eli Lilly, as well as an array of smaller investments from Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Biogen,and UCB. And CSL Behring, best known for its blood plasma products, spent nearly half a billion dollars to buy UniQure's most advanced gene therapy, a treatment for hemophilia B.

Over the past three years, there's been at least $30 billion spent on biotechs involved in gene or cell therapy. (Four deals account for the majority of that value.)

All of that dealmaking, while following promising and compelling science, is ultimately a bet that one-time genetic treatments can be scaled up and commercialized into a lucrative business.

Many of the acquired companies are working on therapies for very rare disorders affecting hundreds or thousands of people. A handful, however, are taking aim at more prevalent conditions, starting with still relatively uncommon diseases like hemophilia to ones affecting millions of people like Parkinson's.

"For gene therapy to meet our lofty expectations not just for investors, but for society it has to make the leap from these ultra-rare diseases," said Loncar.

Commercially, the track record for the few therapies on the market in the U.S. is mixed.Luxturna, now owned by Roche, is a niche product.Zolgensma has broader use and earned Novartis about $1 billion in the year and a half it's been commercially available.

Two cell therapies from Novartis and Gilead, meanwhile, have struggled to gain traction.

Gene therapy's biggest commercial test yet was supposed to come this year, with the expected approval of BioMarin's Roctavian in hemophilia A. The FDA's surprise rejection could mean a yearslong delay in the U.S., but the challenges of pricing, reimbursement and patient access in gene therapy remain dauntingly large.

Read the rest here:
5 questions facing gene therapy in 2021 - BioPharma Dive

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on 5 questions facing gene therapy in 2021 – BioPharma Dive

Exacis Biotherapeutics Announces Its Launch and mRNA Technology In-Licensing For Targeted CAR-NK And CAR-T Cell Cancer Therapies | DNA RNA and Cells |…

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

DetailsCategory: DNA RNA and CellsPublished on Friday, 08 January 2021 07:36Hits: 232

-- Focuses on immuno-oncology

-- Creates innovative, engineered T and NK cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC)

-- In-licenses mRNA technologies developed by Factor Bioscience

-- Uses mRNA-based approach to create cell therapies - avoids viruses and DNA

-- Names key executives including Gregory Fiore, MD, as Chief Executive Officer

CAMBRIDGE, MA, USA I January 6, 2021 I Exacis Biotherapeutics, Inc., a development-stageimmuno-oncology company working to harness the immune system to cure cancer,today announcedits formation along with completion of in-licensing of certain technologies from Factor Bioscience, a leading cell sciences company. The exclusive license allows Exacis to create allogeneic engineered T and NK cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Exacis'next generation approachavoids useof DNA andviruses by usingmRNA.The technologies will be used for generatingiPSC and for performing genetic editing to create stealthed, allogeneic cell products, termed ExaCAR-Tor ExaCAR-NKcells.

Exacis also announcedthe addition of key members to its leadership team, Scientific Advisory Board and Board of Directors. Gregory Fiore, MD,a Harvard trained physician, seasoned pharmaceutical executiveand serial entrepreneur, has been named Chief Executive Officer.Dr. Fiore is joined on the management team by co-founder and Head of Discovery and Development, James Pan, PhD,an entrepreneur andbiologics expert. DimitriosGoundis, PhD, formerly CEO of MaxiVAX, a private Swiss immuno-oncology company, joins Exacis as the Chief Business Officer.

Exacis was launched by Factor Bioscience with an exclusive license to its intellectual property for developing targeted, allogeneic cell therapies for cancer treatment. Factor CEO Matthew Angel, PhD,is the Chair of Exacis'Scientific Advisory Board and is joined on the SAB by Factor Co-Founder Christopher Rohde, PhD, Eric Westin, MD,and Gunnar Kaufmann, PhD. Exacis' Board of Directors is chaired by Mark Corrigan,MD, a highly successfuldrug developer,biotechnology CEO and Board Chairperson.

Commenting on the new endeavor, Dr. Fiore said, "This is a wonderful opportunity to create innovative, next-generation NK and T cell therapies to improve outcomes and experiences for patients with challenging liquid and solid tumors."

Exacis' Board Chairman Corrigan added, "The ground- breaking science Exacis has in-licensed, along with the team we are building, provide a strong foundation for developing successful targeted cell therapies for the treatment of cancer."

Exacis has secured initial seed funding and is seeking to raise Series A funding in early 2021. The company has initiated discussions with several potential development collaborators.

About Exacis Biotherapeutics

Exacis is a development stage biotechnology company focused on harnessing the human immune system to cure cancerby engineering off-the-shelf NK and T cell therapies aimed at liquid and solid tumors.Exacis was founded in 2020 with an exclusive license to a broad suite of patents covering the use oftechnologies developed by Factor Biosciences.

About Factor Bioscience

Founded in 2011, Factor Bioscience develops technologies for engineering cells to advance the study and treatment of disease. It actively licenses its technologies to entities wishing to conduct commercial research, sell tools, reagents and other products, perform commercial services for third parties, and develop human and veterinary therapeutics. Factor Bioscience is privately held and is headquartered in Cambridge, MA.

About T and Natural Killer (NK) Cell Therapies

T and NK cells are types of human immune cells that are ableto recognize and destroy cancer cells and can be modified through genetic engineering to target specific tumors.

SOURCE: Exacis Biotherapeutics

Read the rest here:
Exacis Biotherapeutics Announces Its Launch and mRNA Technology In-Licensing For Targeted CAR-NK And CAR-T Cell Cancer Therapies | DNA RNA and Cells |...

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Exacis Biotherapeutics Announces Its Launch and mRNA Technology In-Licensing For Targeted CAR-NK And CAR-T Cell Cancer Therapies | DNA RNA and Cells |…

Regenerative Medicine Market to Reach Valuation US$ 23.7 Bn by 2027 – GlobeNewswire

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

OTTAWA, Jan. 08, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global regenerative medicine market is representing impressive CAGR of 16.1% during the forecast period 2020 to 2027.

Regenerative medicine is the division of medicine that promotes methods to repair, regrow or replace injured or diseased tissues, organs or cells. Regenerative medicine comprises of the formation and use of remedial stem cells, manufacturing of artificial organs, and tissue engineering. The combinations of tissue engineering, cell and gene therapies can strengthen the natural healing procedure in the places it is desired most, or occupy the role of a permanently injured organ. Regenerative medicine is a rather new field that connects experts in chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, robotics, medicine, genetics and other domains to find explanations to some of the most interesting medical problems confronted by humankind.

Get the Sample Pages of Report for More Understanding@ https://www.precedenceresearch.com/sample/1176

Growth Factors:

Factors such as increasing prevalence of chronic disorders and genetic disorders, increasing popularity of stem cells, increasing number of trauma emergencies is driving the growth of regenerative medicine market. An illness or disorder that usually persists for 3 months or longer and might get worse over a period is termed as chronic disorder. Chronic diseases mostly occur in the elderly people and can typically be controlled but not repaired. The most prevalent types of chronic ailments are heart disease, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and stroke. Cardiovascular disorders are the biggest cause of deaths worldwide. As per the WHO data, deaths due to cardiovascular disorders represent almost 31% of the deaths globally. Almost 85% of these demises are due to stroke and heart attack. Diabetes is another most prevalent chronic ailment that affects millions of people globally. According to International Diabetes Federation (IDF), around 463 million adults (age group: 20-79 years) are battling with diabetes and by the year 2045 the number will rise to a staggering 700 million. Furthermore, approximately 75% of all health care expenses are owed to chronic ailments. Four out of the five most costly health conditions are chronic disorders such as cancer, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, and mental disorders. Regenerative medicine approaches such as stem cell therapy can cure the chronic ailments such as diabetes and arthritis, which otherwise require lifetime of medications.

The role of regenerative medicine in post trauma recovery is constantly evolving as more and more research is showing positive results. The use of regenerative medicine can be a landmark moment in the history of healthcare that will transform the treatment of chronic ailments and trauma related conditions. Thus, the high incidence of chronic ailments is driving the growth of regenerative medicine market.

View Full Report with Complete ToC@ https://www.precedenceresearch.com/regenerative-medicine-market

Regional Analysis:

The report covers data for North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East and Africa. In 2019, North America dominated the global market with a market share of more than 45%. U.S. represented the highest share in the North American region primarily due to constant activity in the field of drug discovery and tissue engineering. Moreover, early adoption of latest healthcare technologies also contributed to the high market share of the United States.

Europe was the second important market chiefly due to favorable reimbursement scenario and presence of latest healthcare infrastructure. The presence of skilled researchers in the European region is also expected to boost the demand for regenerative medicine market in the near future. Asia Pacific is anticipated to grow at the maximum CAGR of around18% in the forecast period due to high incidence of trauma cases and chronic disorders. Latin America and the African and Middle Eastern region will display noticeable growth.

Report Highlights:

Get Customization on this Research Report@ https://www.precedenceresearch.com/customization/1176

Key Market Players and Strategies:

The major companies operating in the worldwide regenerative medicine are Integra Life Sciences Corporation, Aspect Biosystems, Amgen, Inc., Medtronic plc, AstraZeneca, Novartis AG, Smith & Nephew plc, MiMedx Group, Shenzhen SibionoGeneTech Co., Ltd., and Baxteramong others.

High investment in the research and development along with acquisition, mergers, and collaborations are the key strategies undertaken by companies operating in the global regenerative medicine market. Recently Fuse Medical, Inc., an evolving manufacturer and supplier of innovative medical devices for the spine and orthopedic marketplace, declared the launch of FuseChoice Plus and FuseChoice Umbilical and Amniotic Membranes, and FuseChoice Plus Amniotic Joint Cushioning Fluid, the newest additions to a wide-ranging line of biologics product offerings.

Market Segmentation

By Product

By Application

By Geography

Buy this Premium Research Report@ https://www.precedenceresearch.com/checkout/1176

You can place an order or ask any questions, please feel free to contact at sales@precedenceresearch.com | +1 774 402 6168

About Us

Precedence Research is a worldwide market research and consulting organization. We give unmatched nature of offering to our customers present all around the globe across industry verticals. Precedence Research has expertise in giving deep-dive market insight along with market intelligence to our customers spread crosswise over various undertakings. We are obliged to serve our different client base present over the enterprises of medicinal services, healthcare, innovation, next-gen technologies, semi-conductors, chemicals, automotive, and aerospace & defense, among different ventures present globally.

For Latest Update Follow Us:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/precedence-research/

https://www.facebook.com/precedenceresearch/

See the original post:
Regenerative Medicine Market to Reach Valuation US$ 23.7 Bn by 2027 - GlobeNewswire

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Regenerative Medicine Market to Reach Valuation US$ 23.7 Bn by 2027 – GlobeNewswire

Myeloid Therapeutics Launches with Over $50 Million in Financing and Two Clinical Trials – BioSpace

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Jan. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Myeloid Therapeutics, Inc., a company harnessing and reprogramming myeloid cells for treating cancers, launched today with over $50 million in financing to initiate multiple clinical trials in 2021. The Company combines advanced gene and cell engineering capabilities with substantial biologics knowledge to elucidate and redirect the power of myeloid cells to treat cancers, particularly solid tumors and those that are poorly served by existing therapies. Myeloid has advanced its lead development candidates through preclinical studies, implemented its manufacturing platform and plans to dose patients in the first half of this year.

The Company's scientific founders include Ronald Vale, Ph.D., a world-renowned biochemist and cell biologist, and executive director of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Janelia Research campus; and hematologist, oncologist and Pulitzer-Prize winning author Siddhartha Mukherjee, M.D., D.Phil. Newpath Partners led the financing round with participation from 8VC, Hatteras Venture Partners and Alexandria Venture Investments.

With this funding, Myeloid will initiate clinical trials for the Company's programs, which target T cell lymphoma, glioblastoma and other solid tumors. The team will also continue to design and advance a broad pipeline of targeted myeloid cell therapies, including primed myeloid cells, myeloid multi-specific engagers and other development candidates created with Myeloid's novel mRNA delivery technologies. The Company expects to enter the clinic with its two lead programs in glioblastoma and T cell lymphoma in 2021.

"I believe Myeloid is best positioned to leverage the unique power of myeloid cells to help patients fighting cancers that until now, have been very difficult to treat," said Dr. Mukherjee. "Despite the promise of current cell therapies, many challenges remain when it comes to targeting specific types of cancers, including solid tumors, and in efficiently manufacturing treatments. I'm thrilled to help develop Myeloid's transformative treatment modality, which has the potential to overcome many of these challenges."

"Myeloid cells play a critical role in orchestrating the body's immune responses, including by directly killing cells, bacteria and viruses through a number of disease-fighting mechanisms," said Michael Dee Gunn, M.D., Professor of Medicine and Immunology at Duke University, and a pioneer in the research of molecular mechanisms of innate immunity and inflammation and a member of Myeloid's Scientific Advisory Board. "This novel class of cell therapies has strong potential to benefit patients with the highest unmet medical needs."

ATAKTM Cell Platform

The Company's ATAK platform was inspired by Drs. Vale and Mukherjee, who envisioned the disease-fighting power of myeloid cells versatile cells with effector functions capable of targeting and eliminating cancerous cells, along with other harmful cells in the body. Within the oncolytic setting, the ATAK platform is being applied to harness the innate abilities of myeloid cells, to specifically recognize and engulf cancer cells, to produce anti-tumor agents, promote anti-tumor adaptive immunity, alter the tumor microenvironment and ultimately to kill cancer. In addition to reprogramming monocytes to target difficult-to-treat cancers, the platform offers Myeloid and its partners many additional advantages, including novel mRNA-based protein and gene delivery, a library of intermixed cell receptors, and chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that may be applied to enhance treatment effects or to engineer novel tri- and bi-specific cell engagers.

Myeloid is currently focused on advancing two categories of novel ATAK therapies: ATAK CAR monocytes and ATAK primed monocytes. ATAK CAR monocytes are myeloid cells with innate immune receptor-inspired CARs to recognize and kill cancer. ATAK primed monocytes function like cell vaccines, programmed to trigger T cells to kill cancer cells.

Manufacturing candidates from the ATAK platform benefit from speed and scalability in manufacturing process development. The Myeloid team can scale manufacturing rapidly, from product concept to clinical use. In addition, current products derived from the ATAK platform have a single-day cell manufacturing process. Given the observed strengths of the manufacturing process, Myeloid reasonably envisions same-day ATAK platform treatment, especially relevant upon clinical presentation of aggressive tumors. The Company is also in the process of developing "off the shelf" approaches in order to advance the full range of clinical delivery options.

Myeloid Leadership and Scientific Advisory Board

As co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Myeloid, Daniel Getts, Ph.D., MBA, oversees the Company's portfolio and growth strategies. Dr. Getts is a repeat biotech entrepreneur, having led research at TCR2 through its IPO and the development of the first cell therapy to show clinical responses in ovarian cancer. Before that, he co-founded Cour Pharmaceuticals Development Company.

The Company's Scientific Advisory Board includes world-renowned scientists whose expertise span oncology, immunology, cell therapy, synthetic biology and genetic engineering:

"Our mission is to apply our energy and significant research capabilities to design and develop truly transformative treatments," said Dr. Getts. "We built Myeloid's ATAKTM platform to overcome many limitations of existing cell therapies, in part by embracing the natural tendencies of monocytes to penetrate solid tumors and catalyze immune reactions. By harnessing the power of monocytes, which are the cells that comprise the largest population of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, we are working to bring new therapies to patients. We have also designed and successfully implemented an efficient, flexible manufacturing process that sets a new threshold for cell therapies. We are very pleased to have the support of this strong group of investors, who enable us to further develop the ATAK platform, to advance multiple solid tumor programs into the clinic, and to bring forward new transformative programs as we broaden Myeloid's pipeline."

"Myeloid cells are the body's front-line-disease-fighting tools, and they are critical in the orchestration of adaptive immune responses. These myeloid cells are overrepresented in solid cancers and I have been fascinated with their therapeutic potential since researching them during my medical training," said Thomas Cahill, M.D., Ph.D., Myeloid co-founder and Managing Partner of Newpath Partners. "Most other cell therapies focus on reprogramming the adaptive immune system and they have truly improved patient outcomes, especially with respect to liquid tumors. To expand on this promise, the next logical step was to empower the cells at the front lines of solid tumors. By engineering myeloid cells, the Company is developing an extremely versatile and potent class of new therapeutic agents. I look forward to continuing to support this team through their first wave of clinical trials and beyond."

About Myeloid Therapeutics

Myeloid Therapeutics is an immunology company focused on combining biology insights with cutting-edge technologies to harness myeloid cells and eradicate cancer and other diseases. With broad clinical applications possible, the Company is presently advancing its cell therapy product candidates, derived from its ATAKTM platform technology, with initial applications in T cell lymphoma and a primed monocyte approach to treating glioblastoma. The ATAK platform is scalable to multiple treatment modalities and to other disease areas in collaboration. Myeloid expects to enter the clinic with its two lead programs in the first half of 2021. For more information, visit https://www.myeloidtx.com/.

Media Contact:Sarah SuttonGlover Park Groupssutton@gpg.com202-337-0808

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/myeloid-therapeutics-launches-with-over-50-million-in-financing-and-two-clinical-trials-301201589.html

SOURCE Myeloid Therapeutics, Inc.

Excerpt from:
Myeloid Therapeutics Launches with Over $50 Million in Financing and Two Clinical Trials - BioSpace

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Myeloid Therapeutics Launches with Over $50 Million in Financing and Two Clinical Trials – BioSpace

Illumination at the limits of knowledge – The Economist

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

Jan 7th 2021

ALL THE technologies discussed in this report are moving forward apace. The companies which provide machinery to solar-cell manufacturers are ceaselessly trying to make more efficient use of silicon and less costly modules. In universities and elsewhere researchers are looking at ways to add a second layer to such cells so as to capture energy at wavelengths silicon ignoresthough their best attempts so far do not last very long outdoors.

Advances in manufacturing and design are making LEDs ever better sources of illumination. In more and more screens they backlight the liquid-crystal shutters which brighten pixels by detenebration. Some screens already do without shuttering, using liquid-crystal-free arrays of micro-LEDs to produce images that offer better contrast and use less energy. In information technology the division of labour that sees data processing done by electrons and data transmission by photons is under attack; switches that could be programmed to do some information processing while keeping that information in the form of photons would allow data to flow around data centres more quickly and efficiently. Laser beams of slightly different wavelengths are being packed ever more densely into optical fibres, with more bits encoded into every symbol stamped on to their light. The current record for data transfer down a single fibre, held by researchers at UCL, a British university, is 178 terabits a second.

But if you want to see lasers which push the boundaries of the possible in the most dramatic of ways, you have to turn to those made, not for practical applications, but to further science. Wherever researchers require ludicrous amounts of power or precision, theres every chance that they are using a laser, some sort of digital photon detector, or both. To see the cutting edge of what light can do, head for a lab.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is a case in point: walking its halls evokes a sense of the technological sublime which is all but visceral. The 192 laser beams from the 100-metre-long, xenon-pumped beamlines that fill its two warehouse-sized clean rooms converge on a peculiarly perforated spherical chamber. When NIF is operational a tiny bubble at the centre of that chamber is illuminated with 500 terawatts, which is to say 500,000GW.

Given that the worlds total electricity generating capacity is less than 5TW, how is a 500TW system possible? The answer is brevity. Because power is energy divided by time, a relatively small amount of energy can provide a huge amount of power if it is delivered quickly enough. The NIF fires for only a few tens of nanoseconds (billionths of a second) at a time. Each blink-and-you-miss-it 500TW blast thus delivers only a kilowatt-hour or so of energy.

Using such a gargantuan device to provide such a modest amount of energy seems bizarre. But NIFs job requires the energy to be delivered with great spatial precision and almost instantaneously. Only then can it heat the lasers tiny targets to temperatures and pressures otherwise reached only in the centres of stars and the blasts of nuclear weaponsconditions which can fuse atomic nuclei. Congress paid billions for the NIF on the basis that it might open the way to making nuclear fusion of this sort a practical energy source. It has not delivered on those dreams. But it has provided new insights into astrophysics as well as experimental data relevant to the design and maintenance of hydrogen bombs, which is Lawrence Livermores main concern.

Physicists are not the only scientists entranced by lasers. One of the workhorses of genetic engineering is green fluorescent protein (GFP). The instructions for making GFP are easily added to genes for other proteins. When poked with finely focused lasers these modified proteins fluoresce, thus revealing their whereaboutsa handy way of learning which proteins cells put where.

A remarkable refinement of this technique, first demonstrated in 2011, is to turn the cell itself into a laser. Engineer a cell to produce GFP, put it between two mirrors and pump energy in and the proteins light will be amplified in just the same way as it would in a piece of ruby or neodymium-doped glass. Light-emission microscopy based on this possibility amplifies the light given off by fluorescent proteins and other light-emitting markers.

Photons can also be used to change how cells behave. By engineering proteins to be sensitive to light and then turning that light on and off, researchers can change what cells doincluding the ways they do, or dont, transmit nerve impulses. Laser light flashed on to the nerves of a suitably engineered flatworm, or shone down optical fibres into the brain of a mouse, allows researchers to turn different parts of the nervous system on and off and observe the changes in behaviour that follow. This optogenetic puppeteering provides all sorts of new insights into the machinery of the brain. With all due respect to those using photons to explore the strange interconnectedness of things in quantum mechanicswhich Einstein famously described as spookyphotons that can literally change a mind in mid-thought may be the spookiest of all.

The degree to which light-based techniques are changing sciences across the board can be seen in the past decades decisions by the Nobel Physics Committee. In 2014 the committee recognised a physical breakthrough in the production of lightthe development of blue LEDs, a technical tour de force which made the production of white light cheaper and easier than ever before. Since then the physics prize has been awarded to three different ways of using lasers either for experiments in the lab or observations of the world. A tour of these prize-winning accomplishments allows a last celebration of this golden age of light.

Start with pure power. A technique called chirped-pulse amplification, developed by Donna Strickland and Grard Mourou when they were both at the University of Rochester, allows lasers far more powerful than the NIFlasers which work in the petawatt range. It provides a way around the unfortunate fact that, above a certain power level, even a very short pulse will melt any laser trying to amplify it further. Chirp amplification solves the problem by stretching pulses out in both space and time. An intense packet of photons that is, say, a millimetre long, and thus passes through any machine in just three trillionths of a second, can be chirped into one that is a metre long and lasts a full three billionths of a second. This stretched pulse is low-power enough to be amplified, after which it can be compressed back into its original form as a burst just as short as ever but now containing many more photons.

Labs around the world now use this technique to produce bursts of light both far shorter and far more powerful than those at NIF using much cheaper equipment. This allows them to study nuclear processes that are even more extreme than fusion. If the pulses can be made 1,000 times shorter stillwhich Dr Mourou, at least, thinks is possible, given a decade or sothey could achieve something no other technology has yet managed: the creation of matter (and antimatter) from scratch.

Einsteins work dispensed with the need for an all-pervading luminiferous aether. But the fields evoked by quantum electrodynamics (QED), the mid-20th-century culmination of work on electromagnetism, quantum theory and relativity, populate empty space with something else instead: very faint possibilities. And QED says that, if light gets sufficiently intense, its photons will interact with these possibilities to bring forth brand new electrons from empty space. Einsteins insight that mass can be converted into energy has been proven many times, most terribly in nuclear weapons. Creating material particles from massless light alone would be a remarkable turning of the tables, and one that ought to provide new insight into the quantum fields involved.

After power, pressure. The momentum of photons is tiny; but when applied to tiny things it can do useful work. In the 1960s Arthur Ashkin of Bell Labs realised that, if a small transparent object is placed on the edge of a laser beam it will move to the beams centre (provided that the beam is brighter at the centre than the edge). This is because the photons that pass through the object have their path bent outward, away from the beam: conservation of momentum requires the object thus diverting them to move in the opposite direction. If, once caught up in the beam, the object strays from its bright centre, the light pressure will bring it back.

In the 1970s Dr Ashkin put this idea into practice, using laser beams as optical tweezers with which to manipulate microscopic beads. In the 1980s he got the technique to work on individual bacteria and virus particles, while his student Steven Chu used a variant to trap individual atomswork that won Dr Chu and colleagues a Nobel prize in 1997. The increasing use made of his tweezers in biology saw Dr Ashkin follow in his students footsteps in 2018, sharing the prize with Dr Strickland and Dr Mourou.

And then there is precision. Einsteins general theory of relativity, promulgated in 1915, explains gravity in terms of the distortions masses impose on spacetimespacetime being, to Einstein, simply the thing that clocks and rulers measure. His special theory of relativity had laid out the case for light being the ultimate ruler, a view that measurement professionals now share; the General Conference on Weights and Measures defines the metre not as the length of a specific rod in a vault in Paris, as it once did, but as the distance a photon in a vacuum travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Thus if you want to see ripples in spacetimesuch as those which relativity says must be produced when two very large masses pirouette around each otherlight is the best sort of ruler to use.

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) consists of two such rulers. Its twin detectors, one in Louisiana and one in Washington state, both feature 4km-long perpendicular arms along which laser beams of truly phenomenal stability bounce back and forth (see chart). Instruments mounted at the point where the beams cross compare their phases in order to detect transitory differences in the arms lengths. Their precision is equivalent to that which would be needed to detect a hairs-breadth change in the distance to a nearby star.

On September 14th 2015 LIGO picked up the shiver in spacetime produced by the merger of two black holes 1.3bn light-years away. In 2017 the Nobel Physics Committee, free of naysaying ophthalmologists, awarded the prize to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry C. Barish, the three scientists who had done most to make that observation happen.

Their extraordinary measurement was treated, quite rightly, as a slightly late 100th-birthday present for Einsteins truly remarkable intellectual achievement. It was also an extraordinary demonstration of what can be done with photons. A century of work by scientists and engineers has taken the energy packets that Einstein first imagined in 1905 and produced a range of technologies with capabilities little short of the miraculousa collective achievement far greater than any single act of genius. Relativity is remarkable. Putting photons to use has been revolutionary.

This article appeared in the Technology Quarterly section of the print edition under the headline "New enlightenments"

See the article here:
Illumination at the limits of knowledge - The Economist

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Illumination at the limits of knowledge – The Economist

5 trends fueling food and beverage innovation in 2021 – Food Dive

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

After an unpredictable and turbulent 2020, many are hoping 2021 will bring more stability. But the pandemic is expected to still hold sway and influence some of the biggest food and beverage trends in the coming months.

One major theme that will continue in the new year reflects what many wish 2020 had more of: health. Companies will be looking to launch foods and beverages with immunity-boosting ingredients. The plant-based and alternative space will also see continued growth, but take different shapes with new ingredients, from algae to mushrooms.

Technology will also arise as a major trend as the calendar turns over. Since food and worker safety was in the spotlight this past year, new developments will promise to give consumers confidence in their food. Tech, like CRISPR, will also help create innovations in food that meet the growing demands of consumers as hot trends, like global flavors, dominate the space.

After conversations with industry experts and analysts, here is a breakdown of the five biggest trends that Food Dive predicts will impact the food and beverage industry in 2021.

Courtesy of Chobani

Consumers spent most of last year focused on trying to stay healthy and that desire seeped into their food choices. According to research from ADM, the pandemic made more people interested in foods that benefit their immunity, and experts are predicting that will continue in 2021.

A lot of companies will be jumping on this immunity bandwagon, said Kara Nielsen, director of Food & Drink at WGSN, a trend forecasting company under Ascential.

In a report, WGSN identified immunity-supporting ingredients as a key theme for 2021. Product developers are learning from consumer demand in the past year. From elderberries and probiotics to turmeric and moringa, WGSN said the ingredients with immunity claims are among those poised for further growth.

Nielsen said that companies are also looking to add benefits and claims to their products that prioritize health, like yogurt companies launching into probiotics, and highlighting other qualities such as sugar reduction.

Immunity-boosting ingredients have seen a sales bump already, and more companies are expanding their portfolios with those features. Chobani recently announced a line of yogurt that spotlights probiotics, and Uncle Matts launched an Ultimate Immune Orange Juice Beverage.

Now once everyone has the vaccine, will people pull back from some of this? I think that remains to be seen, but I think people will stay concerned throughout next year, Nielsen said.

According to the Innova Consumer Survey 2020, six out of 10 global consumers are increasingly looking for products that support their immune health, with one in three saying that their concerns increased in 2020. Innova identified immunity as a top trend for the next year.

Lu Ann Williams, director of insights and innovation at Innova Market Insights, said immunity is an opportunity that can be broader than just taking Vitamin C or zinc. Williams pointed to botanicals as an example of an ingredient that brings an active health benefit, as well as color and flavor that tick the natural box.

"Consumers are interested in foods that are naturally high in nutrients to promote their immunity, Williams said. I think there is a big opportunity to combine hero ingredients that bring nutritional benefits whose benefits are easy to communicate."

Early in the pandemic, headlines across the country focused on outbreaks at food and meat manufacturing plants. As a result, more consumers have looked critically at where their food comes from and who makes it. Experts say that theme will continue in the next year, with technology working to make food and workers more safe.

Innova Market Insights said that transparency throughout the supply chain will dominate as the top trend of the year, with six in 10 consumers interested in knowing more about their foods origin. The firm said that can be achieved with new packaging technologies such as invisible barcodes.

Williams said trends develop over years, and since Innovas top trend last year was storytelling, the extra layer this year is transparency.

Transparency will be crucial in helping consumers understand and accept the products, she said.

Innovations are already debuting to spotlight this trend, like digital expiration date labels that offer real-time monitoring of food quality.

In addition to smart packaging, food producers are also increasingly using blockchain to track products from farm to table, including coffee and turkeys. Blockchain can help if there is a recall and can provide better traceability.

Nielsen at WGSN said consumers are looking for more promises of safety, and food suppliers need to communicate more about their efforts. But there is movement in the space with big companies like Nestl starting to adopt more blockchain.

It's still kind of high level I don't think so much down on a consumer level but I think it will get down there over the course of the year so that people understand a little bit better, Nielsen said.

Meat processors have also already started to expedite their plans to incorporate more automation and robotics to elevate food safety as the pandemic ravages their workforce. For example, inside the Tyson Manufacturing Automation Center, engineers are working to develop innovative technology like a robotic camera that could detect defects on products.

Keith Belk, head of Colorado State Universitys animal sciences department, said theres been a huge increase in the rate of development of those technologies, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Other technological innovations for food safety have arisen during the pandemic. For example, companies started to look at wastewater to catch coronavirus spikes. Belk said they learned they could use that same technology to look at foodborne pathogens such as salmonella or E. coli.

"If you're looking for something good out of the pandemic, which there's not very much, that's a good thing that came out of it,"Belk said.

Plant-based food has been a major trend in the last several years. And while sales numbers for 2020 have not yet been crunched, they are sure to be record-setting. In a study last month, Packaged Facts estimated plant-based dairy and egg sales would register at about $4.3 billion, and would continue to grow at an annual rate of 6%. And through Oct. 3, according to Nielsen, meat alternative sales were up 129% compared to the first nine months of 2019.

As the segment continues to hit its stride, both new and old players are bound to launch products and find success in 2021. But experts say they likely won't reuse the same old ingredients in different ways. Where the plant-based space is currently dominated by pea, soy and wheat protein, expect to see more products featuring ingredients made from different plants in 2021.

Phil Kafarakis, president emeritus of the Specialty Food Association and international food industry advisor, said this movement started in plant-based dairy. The soy milks and almond milks that dominated the plant-based dairy case in years past are now joined by dairy products sourced from a host of other plants, including oat, quinoa, hemp and macadamia nut. In other sections of the store, cauliflower has become a common substitute for many grains, including wheat and rice. And pulses ranging from chickpeas to fava beans are starting to appear as snacks and components of plant-based butters and creamers.

It's been accelerating, Kafarakis said. ...During this period of COVID, once they got past all the hoarding, people were into understanding that they can experiment with brands that traditionally they might not have tried before. So some of these products are out there and they're creating a lot of excitement, so I think you're gonna see that become more mainstream.

Sabina Vyas, senior director of strategic initiatives and communications at the Plant Based Foods Association, sees three main categories of new plant-based and alternative ingredients coming into the fore in 2021: algae, fungi and mushrooms, and legumes and pulses. These ingredients have several advantages: They are sustainable, have vital nutrients, and have good taste and textures. They also are relatively inexpensive and easy to source.

Consumers "want these foods to taste good," Vyas said. "They want to see that these foods are also sustainable and better for them. ... So manufacturers are ... working accordingly. I think they're unleashing the possibilities of what's available in plants and the fungi kingdom.

Michael Robbins, a spokesperson for the Plant Based Foods Association, added that alternative plant-based ingredients are getting to be more popular because stores have limited amounts of shelf space. New products need to offer something unique to get on the shelf, and new base ingredients can help differentiate products.

While demand for global flavors has been on the upswing in recent years, the pace is expected to intensify in 2021 as the effects of the pandemic linger and consumer interest in new and novel tastes continues to grow.

Going into 2021, there seems to be heightened interest compared to the start of 2020 as consumers havent traveled as much as normal or dined out as much as normal so they are looking for food at home to generate some of the novelty and interest theyd usually get from other sources, said Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData's retail division.

Analysts who follow the food space said a growing interest in wellness fueled by the pandemic has elevated flavors that consumers view as healthy. This could bode well for ingredients such as traditional berries and fruits, butterfly-pea flower and moringa, Saunders said.

At the same time, civil unrest across the country has focused attention on cultures and ethnic groups whose offerings may not have been as explored before. Consumers not only want to try something new but also support products that are authentic and come with a story.

Global flavors most likely to attract added consumer attention in 2021 include matcha and moringa in Asia and earthy offerings like elderberry, cinnamon and rhubarb. Those ingredients could eventually become more prominent in U.S. foods. In America, spicy offerings like hot sauces and peppers, as well as African fare, are expected to be more prominent.

Companies that offer ready-to-eat meals, sauces, soups and meal kits with these flavors are poised to succeed, said Elly Truesdell, a partner at Almanac Insights who formerly oversaw local brands and product innovations for Whole Foods Market.

As insatiable as Americans are for global flavors, there is also still a real insecurity around getting it right and cooking for ourselves, she said.

Few technologies have transformed development of food production during the last few decades as much as genetic modification. Now, efforts to improve the taste, texture and production of fruits and vegetables are being spurred on by CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques that promise to do all these things faster and for a fraction of the cost.

Consumers will see food with a lot of different traits, such as fresher and tastier, "although they will not necessarily know they are gene edited, said Jennifer Kuzma, a professor at North Carolina State University and co-director of its Genetic Engineering and Society Center. I do think now were going to see gene editing and CRISPR-based crops enter the market in 2021.

Early genetic engineering focused predominantly on crops such as soybeans and corn grown by farmers to boost yields and make them resistant to pests or able to withstand chemical treatments. But more work today is being done on consumer-centric foods like mushrooms, apples, potatoes and lettuce that can be tweaked to include attributes important to consumers.

Pairwise, for example, is tapping into CRISPR gene-editing technology to remove the bitterness from a nutrient-dense green, the seeds from the outside of a blackberry and the pit in a cherry.

Sure there is risk there, but what were saying is that we believe the technology is good enough and it can deliver things that are good enough for people, said Ryan Rapp, who focuses on fruit as the head of product discovery at Pairwise. As long as we stick to our values and transparency and being open with them, I think consumers are going to love this.

Still, some people are concerned that companies using CRISPR and other technologies arent being transparent enough, and repeating the same mistakes as early pioneers of genetic engineered crops. They also worry USDAs regulatory process isnt robust enough.

Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said people want to know first if the technology used in their food is safe and then how it benefits them. Transparency is going to be important, he said. Consumers want to know more and more about the food and where their food comes from, and so it will be critical to acceptance.

Original post:
5 trends fueling food and beverage innovation in 2021 - Food Dive

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on 5 trends fueling food and beverage innovation in 2021 – Food Dive

Juggernaut Is Forming His Own Team of Reformed Supervillain – Screen Rant

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

Juggernaut has put together a group of reformed villains that are way down on the C-list but they could end up being a strong team

Juggernaut is rarely a team player, but the copper-colored killing machine is trying to rebuild his image, and do some good in the process, by building a new super team. Sure its made of former villains (and potentially one Nazi) but friends are hard to come by for Cain Marko.

Fabian Nicieza and Ron Garney set the stage at the end of Juggernaut #5 for Cain Marko to build a new life. This whole run of comics has been about shedding Cains former flaws and helping out the little guys. Marko is usually cast as the villain (to his benefit in many cases) but this story is about redemption and Marko recognizes he will fail if he sets out on his own.

Related: Juggernaut is Officially A Hero, But He's Still Just As Deadly

A lot of super teams end up at each others throats before long, but the group of reformed villains Juggernaut put together is small enough to stay tight-knit. Its composed of Primus, an android made by Captain America villain Arnim Zola (more on him later), and Quicksand. The teaser sting at the end of the comic claims Zola is not affiliated with this new supergroup. But seeing how he made the Primus, who is a prime example of the Nazi geneticist's prowess, its likely Zola will be roped in.

Primus is a shapeshifting android created to ally the Nazis but revolted against his creator (why dont mad scientists ever read Frankenstein) only to make amends and start working for him again decades later. The two, the self-deprecating Primus and self-aggrandizing Zola, set up shop in North Dakota which is where Juggernaut meets up with them to reformulate Quicksand. Quicksand (a shapeshifting sand lady) is a forgettable Thor villain but has cropped up here and there over the decades, usually as a part of villainous teams - when she wasnt imprisoned on the Raft, Marvels supermax prison for super baddies.

Juggernautspent the bulk of the comic tutoring a young mutant and eventually convincing her to ship off to Krakoa the mutant homeworld and safe haven created to protect mutantkind. This streak of do-goodery convinced Juggernaut he needs to care for other superheroes and supervillains that arent of the mutant variety. Juggernaut is often seen alongside mutants and is the step-brother to Charles Xavier, but Cain Marko gets his powers from a gem called Cyttorak, not mutant powers. Juggernaut saved the young mutant D-Cel from being experimented on, compelling her to ask for asylum on Krakoa.Juggernaut'smotivations have usually been greed or gore so this is a nice change of pace for the character.

This supergroup, however, is a bit of a gang of C-listers. And its going to be a real hard sell that they are a group of reformed altruists with a former Nazi sympathizer like Arnim Zola. After all, he transferred his consciousness into a robot and is reborn in the modern age with some old-fashioned ideas, like fascism and genetic engineering. And unlike Marko who genuinely seems like he wants to turn over a new leaf, Zola has no such fantasies. Once a Nazi always a Nazi. He condemns this supergroup and if the tease at the end of the comic is to be believed, then he wont be a part of it. But hes still tied to his creation (Primus) and could be the future demise of this group.FutureJuggernautstories are going to be fascinating to see what comes next for him, the supergroup, and Zola.

Next: Marvel Reveals Juggernaut's Weirdest Weakness

Why Marvel's Phoenix Force Hates Mutants (But Loves Redheads)

Full-time janitor, part-time writer and reading comics in any spare time.

See the rest here:
Juggernaut Is Forming His Own Team of Reformed Supervillain - Screen Rant

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Juggernaut Is Forming His Own Team of Reformed Supervillain – Screen Rant

Biotech Cotton Key to Eliminating Devastating Pest from US and Mexico – Seed World

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

For much of the past century, the invasive pink bollworm wreaked havoc in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico inflicting tens of millions of dollars in damage annually to cotton on both sides of the border.

A multifaceted strategy combining genetically engineered cotton with classical pest control tactics eradicated the pink bollworm from cotton-producing areas of the continental U.S. and Mexico, according to a new study published inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although pink bollworm remains a daunting pest in over 100 countries, our strategic coalition rid the U.S. and Mexico of this invasive insect, said lead study authorBruce Tabashnik, a Regents Professor in the University of ArizonaDepartment of Entomology.

By analyzing computer simulations and 21 years of field data from Arizona, we discovered that genetically engineered cotton and the release of billions of sterile pink bollworm moths acted synergistically to suppress this pest, said Jeffrey Fabrick, a co-author of the study and a research entomologist with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service.

According to the study, the eradication program saved U.S. cotton growers $192 million from 2014 to 2019. Through environmentally friendly approaches, it also helped to reduce insecticides sprayed against all cotton pests by 82% and prevented the application of over a million pounds of insecticides per year in Arizona.

A Long Road to Suppression

Native to Australasia a region that comprises Australia, New Zealand and some neighboring islands the pink bollworm is one of the worlds most invasive insects. After female moths lay their eggs on cotton plants, the caterpillars hatch, bore into cotton bolls and devour the seeds within. Their feasting disrupts production of cotton lint.

This voracious pest was first detected in the U.S. in 1917. Using field data from 1969, the new study estimates that over 200 billion pink bollworm caterpillars infested cotton fields in Arizona that year. In 1990, the pest cost Arizona cotton growers $32 million in damages, despite $16 million invested in insecticides to control it.

The tide began to turn in 1996, with the introduction of cotton genetically engineered to produce proteins from the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis. The proteins in Bt cotton kill pink bollworm and other caterpillar pests but are harmless to people and most beneficial insects.

Although Bt cotton kills essentially 100% of susceptible pink bollworm caterpillars, the pest rapidly evolved resistance to Bt proteins in laboratory experiments at the University of Arizona and in Bt cotton fields in India.

To delay pest resistance, UArizona scientists worked with farmers to develop and implement a strategy of planting non-Bt cotton refuges to allow survival of susceptible insects. Tabashniks team also determined the mutations that cause resistance in the lab and used DNA screening to monitor for those adaptations in the field.

Within 10 years, the use of Bt cotton reduced pink bollworm populations by 90%. For the first time since the pests arrival, eradication seemed within grasp.

Everything but the Kitchen Sink

In contrast with the rapid evolution of pest resistance to genetically engineered crops elsewhere, Bt cotton was suppressing this pest in Arizona for a decade, Tabashnik explained. We said, Lets take this a step further. Lets throw everything but the kitchen sink at it and get rid of it. If not forever, for as long as we can sustain it.'

In a concerted, binational effort, University of ArizonaCooperative Extensionand research scientists joined forces with cotton growers, the biotech industry and government partners to devise the first program of its kind to eradicate the invasive pest.

In addition to traditional pest control tactics, such as plowing cotton fields after harvest to reduce the pests overwintering survival, a novel strategy largely replacing refuges of non-Bt cotton with mass releases of sterile pink bollworm moths was initiated in Arizona in 2006.

The sterile moths were released from airplanes by the billions to overwhelm field populations of the pest. In concert, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waived the requirement for planting refuges, allowing farmers in Arizona to plant up to 100% Bt cotton.

To test the success of this multipronged attack, scientists with the University of ArizonaCollege of Agriculture and Life Sciences conducted computer simulations and analyzed field data collected in Arizona from 1998 to 2018. Their results show neither of the two tactics would have worked alone.

In this era plagued by invasive organisms, as well as doubts about the power of science and controversy about genetic engineering, the study exemplifies the tremendous benefits of collaboration and synergy between biotechnology and classical tactics, Tabashnik said. We hope the concepts illustrated here will inspire integrated approaches to combat other invasive life forms.

Source: University of Arizona

View post:
Biotech Cotton Key to Eliminating Devastating Pest from US and Mexico - Seed World

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Biotech Cotton Key to Eliminating Devastating Pest from US and Mexico – Seed World

Brief Introduction on the Latest Amendments of Guidelines for Patent Examination – Lexology

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

On December 14, 2020, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (short for the CNIPA) issued a notice that listed out the latest amendments of Guidelines for Patent Examination, and informed such amendments will be implemented on January 15, 2021. For understanding such amendments conveniently, this article intends to summarize and introduce the contents concerning the aspects, for example, supplementing experimental dada, novelty of compounds, inventive step of compounds, depositary institution of biological material, definition of monoclonal antibody, inventive step of inventions relating to the field of biology, and the like.

In this amendment, all of the amended contents focus on examination of invention applications in the field of chemistry. For clarification, the contents underlined in black are the expressions after amended, and the contents with strikeout in red are the expressions before amended hereinafter.

I. Amendments concerning supplementing experimental dada

In this amendment, the contents concerning supplemented experimental date in Section 3.5, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended, further clarifying that the purpose of supplementing experimental date is to meet the requirements of Article 26.3 and/or Article 22.3 of the Chinese Patent Law. The amendments are listed as follows.

1. Adding an item of 3.5.1 Principles of Examination, and amending the expression to read as As to the supplemented experimental date provided by the applicant after the filing date for meeting the requirements of Article 26.3 or Article 22.3 of the Patent Law, the examiner shall make examination on them. The technical effects proved by the supplemented experimental date shall be those which can be obtained from the contents disclosed in the patent application by a person skilled in the art.

2. For the fourth amendment to the Chinese Patent Law, Item 3.5.2 Supplemented Experimental Date of Patent Applications of Pharmaceutical Products is added, and the expression of The examination examples for patent applications relating to pharmaceutical products are provided according to the principles of examination of Section 3.5.1 in this chapter. is added.

Accordingly, two examples are added for illustration, and which circumstances may be supplemented experimental data to prove that the description has sufficiently disclosed the invention (Example 1) or prove that the technical solution of claim involves an inventive step (Example 2) are illustrated respectively.

In addition, the following contents are added: when the experimental data are supplemented to prove that the description has sufficiently disclosed of the invention, It is shall be noticed that such supplemented experimental data also shall be made examination when making examination on inventive step. (Example 1), or when the experimental data are supplemented to prove that the technical solution of claim involves an inventive step, It is shall be noticed that here the examiner also needs to make further analysis whether the technical solution claimed in the claims meets the requirements of inventive step combining the supplemented experimental data. (Example 2).

II. Amendments concerning novelty of compound

The contents concerning novelty of compound in Section 5.1, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended, and the specific circumstances that a compound is disclosed and which conditions will be presumed as lack of novelty are defined clearly.

The expression of Item (1) is amended to read as:

(1) For a compound claimed in an application, if it has been referred to the structural information of the compound, i.e. the chemical name, the molecular formula (or structural formula) etc., is disclosed in a reference document so as to enable a person skilled in the art to deem that the compound claimed has been disclosed, it is deduced that the compound does not possess novelty, unless the applicant can provide evidence to verify that the compound is not available before the date of filing. The word "refer to" mentioned above means to define clearly or explain the compound by the chemical name, the molecular formula (or structural formula), the physical/chemical parameter(s) or the manufacturing process (including the raw materials to be used).

If it is insufficient to identify the similarity and difference in structure between the compound claimed and the compound in the reference document, but combining the other information disclosed in this reference document, comprising physical/chemical parameter(s), preparation method, and effect experimental data, etc., and taking consideration comprehensively, a person skilled in the art may deduced, with justified reasons, that the two compounds are identical substantively, the compound claimed does not possess novelty, unless the applicant can provide evidence to verify there are differences in structures.

For example, if the name and the molecular formula (or structure formula) of a compound disclosed in a reference document are difficult to be identified or unclear, but the document discloses the same physical/chemical parameter(s) or any other parameters used to identify the compound as those of the claimed compound of an application, it is deduced that the claimed compound does not possess novelty, unless the applicant can provide evidence to verify that the compound is not available before the date of filing.

If the name, molecular formula (or structure formula) and physical/chemical parameter(s) of a compound disclosed in a reference document are unclear, but the document discloses the same method of preparation as that of the claimed compound of an application, it is deduced that the claimed compound does not possess novelty.

III. Amendments concerning inventive step of compound

The contents concerning inventive step of compound in Section 6.1, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended, the expressions of original Items (1) to (3) are deleted and amended to read as new Item (1) to (3). The aspects that need to be considered when assessing the inventive step of an invention are further figured out, an Item (4) of Examples of Assessment of Inventive Step is newly added and the original examples are incorporated into this item, the expressions of original examples 1-3 are amended, and Examples 4 and 5 are newly added.

The expressions of Items (1)-(4) are amended to read as follows.

(1) When assessing the inventive step of an invention of compound, the differences in structure between the claimed compound and the compound in the latest prior art need to be determined, and the technical problem that is actually solved by the invention on the basis of the obtained use and/or effect of the improvement in structure is determined, on this basis, whether or not there exists such a technical motivation in the prior art by applying such improvement in structure to solve the technical problem.

It is shall be noticed that if the person skilled in the art can carry out such improvement in structure to solve the technical problem just by logical analysis, inference, or limited experimentation on the basis of the prior art, to obtain the claimed compound, there exists such a technical motivation in the prior art.

(1) When a compound is novel, not similar in structure to a known compound, and has a certain use or effect, the examiner may deem it to involve an inventive step without requiring that it shall have an unexpected use or effect.

(2) The use and/or effect brought by the improvement in structure of the invention to the compound of the prior art may be the different use obtained from the known compound, may also be the improvement to the effect in certain aspect of the known compound. When assessing the inventive step of a compound, if the modification of use and/or the improvement to the effect is/are unexpected, then it reflects that the claimed compound is non-obvious, and the inventive step thereof shall be identified.

(2) For a compound that is similar in structure to a known compound, it must have unexpected use or effect. The said unexpected use or effect may be a use different from that of the known compound, the substantive progress or improvement of a known effect of a known compound, or a use or effect which is not clear in the common general knowledge or cannot be deduced from the common general knowledge.

(3) It shall be noted that when assessing inventive step of an invention of compound, if the effect of the claimed technical solution is caused by something known and inevitable, the technical solution does not involve an inventive step. For example, an insecticide A-R is in the prior art, wherein, R is C1-3 alkyl. It has been pointed out in the prior art that the effectiveness of insecticide is improved with the increase of the number of atom in the alkyl. If the insecticide in an application is A-C4H9, the effectiveness has been obviously improved compared with the prior art. The application does not involve an inventive step because it has been pointed out in the prior art that the improved effectiveness of the insecticide is inevitable.

(3) Whether two compounds are similar in structure has relation to the technical field of the compounds, the examiner shall apply different criteria to different technical fields. The following are some examples:

(4) Examples of Assessment of Inventive Step

[Example 1]

(Omitting).

IV. Amendments concerning depositary institutions of the biological material

The contents concerning depositary institutions of the biological material in Section 9.2.1, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended, a depositary institution of Guangdong Microbial Culture Collection Center (GDMCC) based in Guangzhou is newly added, except the two depositary institutions of the Center for General Microorganism of the Administration Committee of the China Microbiological Culture Collection (CGMCC) based in Beijing and the China Center for Type Culture Collection (CCTCC) based in Wuhan.

V. Amendments concerning the definitions of Monoclonal Antibody

For the fast development of the sequencing technique, the contents concerning monoclonal antibody in Section 9.3.1.7, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended. The contents of monoclonal antibody defined by structural feature are newly added, on the basis of maintaining the contents of monoclonal antibody defined by specifying hybridoma which produces it. The original example is amended, the example of monoclonal antibody that is defined by structural features, such as amino acid sequences of CDRs of heavy chain variable region and light chain variable region, etc. is newly added, and then the definition methods of monoclonal antibody are enriched.

The amended expression is read as A claim directed to a monoclonal antibody may be defined by structural features, also by specifying hybridoma which produces it.

[For Example]

(1) A monoclonal antibody against antigen A, which contains amino acid sequences of VHCDR1, VHCDR2 and VHCDR3 shown as SEQ ID NOs:1-3, and amino acid sequences of VLCDR1, VLCDR2 and VLCDR3 shown as SEQ ID NOs:4-6.

(2) A monoclonal antibody against antigen A, produced by a hybridoma having CGMCC Deposit No. xxx.

VI. Amendments concerning inventive step of field of biology

For keeping consistency of criterion for assessment concerning inventive step of compound in Section 6.1, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination, the contents of inventive step concerning field of biology in Section 9.4.2, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended, the expressions concerning three-step assessment on inventive step concerning field of biology are added under the title of inventive step in Section 9.4.2.

The contents are newly added to read as When assessing on inventive step of an invention in field of biology, it also needs to assess whether the invention has prominent substantive features and represents a notable progress or not. During the assessment, the distinguishing features of the invention from those of the latest prior art need to be determined, on the basis of the specific limitations on the different subject matter, the technical problem actually solved by the invention are determined, on the basis of the technical effect of the distinguishing features, and then whether or not there exists such a technical motivation in the prior art as a whole is determined, and thus whether or not the claimed invention is non-obvious in respect of the prior art is determined on the basis above-mentioned.

The inventions-creations in field of biology relate to the subject matter of biomacromolecule, cell, or microorganism, etc., with different level. In the methods for characterizing such subject matter, except the common method of structures and components, etc., some specific methods like the accession number of the deposit of a biological material are also included. In determining the inventive step of an invention, the following factors need to be taken into account: the differences in structure, the proximity of the genetic relationship, and the predictability of the technical effect between the invention and the prior art.

Hereinafter, some specific situations in determining the inventive step for different subject matter in the present field are listed.

Furthermore, the contents in Section 9.4.2.1, Chapter 10, Part II of Guidelines for Patent Examination are amended.

The expressions in determining the inventive step of an invention in original Items (1) to (4) in Section 9.4.2.1 Inventions Relating to Genetic Engineering are amended into the determination method of three-step assessment on inventive step, it means that having unexpected effect is an assistant condition not a necessary condition. Item (2) Polypeptide and protein is newly added, and some of the expressions and serial numbers of original Item (1) Gene, (2) Recombinant vector, (3) Transformant, (4) Fused cell, and (5) Monoclonal antibody are amended.

The amendments are as follows.

9.4.2.1 Inventions Relating to Genetic Engineering

(1) Gene

Where a protein encoded by structural gene has different amino acid sequence and has different type of or improved function, comparing with the known protein, and the prior art fails to give a technical motivation that the difference of sequence brings out the modification of the function, the invention of said gene encoding said protein involves an inventive step.

If the amino acid sequence of a protein is known, the invention of said gene encoding said protein does not involve an inventive step. If a protein is known, but its amino acid sequence is not, an invention of a gene encoding the protein does not involve an inventive step if a person skilled in the art can readily determine the amino acid sequence at the time of filing. However, under the two situations above, when the gene has a specific base sequence and has technical effects compared with other genes having a different base sequence encoding said protein, which a person skilled in the art cannot expect, the invention of said gene involves an inventive step.

If the amino acid sequence of a protein is known, an invention of a gene encoding the protein does not involve an inventive step. However, if the gene has a particular base sequence and has technical effects compared with other genes having a different base sequence encoding said protein, which a person skilled in the art cannot expect, the invention of said gene involves an inventive step.

If the claimed structural gene of an invention is the naturally obtainable mutant of a known structural gene and that the claimed gene is derived from the same species as that of the known structural gene and has the same properties and functions as those of the known structural gene, then the invention does not involve an inventive step.

(2) Polypeptide or protein

If the claimed polypeptide or protein of an invention has difference in amino acid sequences from the known polypeptide or protein and has different type of or improved function, and the prior art fails to give a technical motivation that the difference of sequence brings out the modification of the function, the invention of said polypeptide or protein involves an inventive step.

(23) Recombinant vector

If an invention achieves an improvement on the property of a recombinant vector by modification in structure to the known vector and/or inserted gene, and the prior art fails to give a technical motivation that the property is improved by applying such modification in structure, the invention of the recombinant vector involves an inventive step.

If both a vector and an inserted gene are known, an invention of a recombinant vector obtained by a combination of the two usually does not involve an inventive step. However, if an invention of a recombinant vector with a specific combination of them can produce unexpected technical effects compared with the prior art, the invention involves an inventive step.

(34) Transformant

If an invention achieves an improvement on the property of a transformant by modification in structure to the known host and/or inserted gene, and the prior art fails to give a technical motivation that the property is improved by applying such modification in structure, the invention of the transformant involves an inventive step.

If both a host and an inserted gene are known, an invention of a transformant obtained by a combination of them generally does not involve an inventive step. However, if an invention of a transformant obtained from a specific combination of them can produce unexpected technical effects compared with the prior art, it involves an inventive step.

(45) Fused cell

If parent cells are known, an invention of a fused cell produced by fusing the parent cells does not involve an inventive step. However, if the fused cell has an unexpected technical effects compared with the prior at, the invention of the fused cell involves an inventive step.

(56) Monoclonal antibody

If an antigen is known, a monoclonal antibody of the antigen characterized by features in structure is remarkably different from those of the known monoclonal antibody on the key sequence listing that determines its function and use, the prior art fails to give a technical motivation of obtaining the monoclonal antibody with the sequence listing, and the monoclonal antibody can produce advantageous technical effect, the invention of the monoclonal antibody involves an inventive step.

If an antigen is known and it is clearly known that the antigen has immunogenicity (for example, said antigen clearly has immunogenicity because a polyclonal antibody of the antigen is known or the antigen is a polypeptide with a large molecular weight), the invention of a monoclonal antibody of only defined by the antigen does not involve an inventive step. However, if the invention is further defined by other features the hybridoma which produces the monoclonal antibody, and hence has unexpected technical effects, the invention of that monoclonal antibody involves an inventive step.

The above contents focus on introduction of the amendments of Guidelines for Patent Examination. In particular, the follows are further figured out that: (1) the purpose for supplemented experimental date lies in meeting the requirements of Article 26.3 and/or Article 22.3 of the Chinese Patent Law, (2) the specific circumstances that a compound is disclosed and which conditions will be presumed as lack of novelty, and (3) the aspects that need to be considered when assessing the inventive step of an invention. The following contents are newly added: (1) the definition on a monoclonal antibody by structural features and the example, and (2) the expressions concerning three-step assessment on inventive step concerning field of biology. The author wishes it would be helpful to the applicants by such brief instruction as mentioned above.

Continue reading here:
Brief Introduction on the Latest Amendments of Guidelines for Patent Examination - Lexology

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Brief Introduction on the Latest Amendments of Guidelines for Patent Examination – Lexology

Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? – Gizmodo

Posted: January 8, 2021 at 3:48 pm

Illustration: Benjamin Currie/Gizmodo

Earlier this year, a research team made waves by suggesting that we should disseminate Earths microbes on Mars in a preemptive effort to foster a climate hospitable to human life. To the anti-contamination school of celestial thought, this was heresy; to the most others, this was an obscure theoretical squabble over an issue theyd never heard about. Still, given that our descendants may well spend their most productive years on Mars, its worth trying to grasp these early, pre-colonial debates before they assume life-or-death urgency. To that end, for this weeks Giz Asks weve posed a two-parter to a number of relevant experts. First: Could we populate another planet with genetically modified organisms? Second: Should we?

Associate Professor, Anthropology, York University, whose research focuses on the social and ethical aspects of space exploration, among other things

We probably could; we probably shouldnt. But first, its worth asking: whos we?

Discussion of space and the future often involves a rhetorical we that encompasses all humanity or our species. But its time to think differently about space. There is no big we here. For the foreseeable future, only a very few human beings will have the capability to launch or act in spaceand only a very few human beings have the ability to genetically modify other organisms. And obviously, that tiny contingent of humans invents and develops these technologies with the general intention of using them.

That tiny contingent of humans does not include me. I have opinions. But I dont have a vote. And thats true for the vast majority of people reading this. That matters, because when a space agency, space advocacy group, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, etc., says We should do X or Y in space theyre using traditional rhetoric that encourages audiences to think that we (the rest of humanity) are a part of what theyre doing. Clarity on this matters a lot now, as multilateralism is either faltering or collapsing, the capabilities of private actors are accelerating, and the likelihood of unilateral actions increases. There are a multitude of different interests in space, and a multitude of ideologies and capabilitiesnot one we.

Anyway, in theory, yes, some humans could introduce some genetically modified organisms onto another planet. (Full-on terraforming is much less feasible.) Not all planets would be suitable, but some might be. Human technology cannot yet physically reach the myriad planets outside our solar system, but miniscule interstellar probes carrying dormant microbial payloads and pointed at exoplanets are theoretically possible. But for the moment, the most likely targets would be the planets (and moons) in our own solar system. So:

Should some humans populate a world in our solar system with GM organisms? Nooooooooo. At the very least, not yet. Reason #1: many would regard this as a breach of the Outer Space Treaty. Reason #2: some of those worlds might have life already, and its much better to find it and study it thoroughly first. Reason #3: Perhaps other worlds have their own intrinsic value regardless of their liveliness. Worth considering, at least.

Further away: should some humans populate an exoplanet with GM organisms? A louder Noooooooooooooo. Louder because theres an unnerving asymmetry: it could be faster/easier to send a payload-laden micro-probe to an exoplanet than to study the exoplanet thoroughly first. Also, human beings are not going to exoplanets anytime soonif everwhich negates a main justification for doing this kind of bioengineering.

G/O Media may get a commission

Senior Scientist, SETI Institute

Take Mars, Europa, and Enceladuseach of which appear to have water tucked out of the way, below thick ice layers (although not always hiddenthere are plumes). We probably could modify an Earth organism, or suite of organisms, to live in such places for some limited period of time, but I couldnt guarantee you could populate one of those places with GMOs. Unless you were tremendously lucky, the Earth organisms might eat all of the minerals in reach, and then stage a massive die-off that would be tremendously yucky and pointless. And if you were that lucky, there might be native organisms that would just eat your GMO additions and yield a polite burp of methane and leave it at that. Right now we dont know enough to do something useful with GMOs at any alien place (and only a few on Earth).

There are lots of ways in which we are too ignorant to do anything useful with this scheme, and of course not knowing how ignorant we are is one of them. We do not need to give up on a search for life elsewhere in this solar system just because some microbiologists have a tool and no patience. And we dont need to take shortcuts in pursuing such a search so that we lose that scientific pursuit just because it is hard to do without inadvertent (let alone purposeful) contamination of the best sites.

Professor of Planetary Habitability and Astrobiology at Technical University Berlin, President of the German Astrobiology Society, and Co-author of The Cosmic Zoo: Complex Life on Many Worlds

I dont think were there yet, in two senses. We dont know the environmental conditions of other planets well enough, and we dont know how to optimally tune the genetic code of an organism to thrive in that extraterrestrial environment. The only planet where I see this as a possibility in the near future is Mars, which we know best of all the planets and moons in our Solar System.

But even if we can do it, I dont think we should. It would be a very human-centric approach. Instead, we should try to explore the diversity of life that may exist on other planetary targets. In regard to Mars, that would mean exploring whether indigenous (microbial) life exists, and if so, studying how it is different from life on Earth. (Even if there is a common origin, evolution in the different planetary environments would still have resulted in significant organismic changes.)

Mars (and any other planet or moon potentially harboring life) has many microenvironments that may contain life; to conclusively prove that there is no indigenous life at all, anywhere on the planet, may be close to impossible, at least for the foreseeable future (and especially given our current ignoranceafter all, we only know about one type of life). As long as the possibility of indigenous life cannot be excluded, populating Mars or any other planet with genetically modified organisms is out of the question.

If we encounter a habitable planetand one which we know for sure is uninhabitedthe question becomes harder to answer. We can come to that when the situation ariseswhich it wont for a very long time.

Professor and Principle Investigator of the Ohio Musculoskeletal & Neurological Institute and Emeritus Professor of Space Biology at Nottingham University

Indeed we could. We have the capability to land robots on other planets. Currently we sterilize these to prevent accidentally contaminating other planets with microscopic life forms. If we wanted to not sterilize or deliberately send microscopic life to other planets, this is fairly easy to do. Similarly, labs on Earth routinely make and use genetically modified microscopic life forms. Thus, it is also fairly easy to send GMO microscopic life forms to other planets.

Whether we should is the more difficult question. Who benefits from doing this, and who loses out? Do the benefits outweigh the losses? If this is done to allow human habitation of another planet, then potentially all of humanity gainswhereas those aspects of planetary science that want/need to study a natural planet lose out. If this is done to allow for the commercial/financial gain of a few, does that outweigh the loss to science?

Assistant Professor of Astronomy and Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona

It depends on the planet. An exoplanet around a star system is probably out of reach with current technology.

If the candidate planet is in our solar system, such as Marsperhaps. It becomes a question of: For how much, or how long, are you willing to provide technological assistance to create a habitable volume elsewhere? The engineered organisms will most likely be severely restricted in the range of places they can inhabit. So far as we know, no amount of genetic engineering will enable terrestrial organisms to survive under freezing temperature and extreme soil oxidation conditions, such as those found in the Martian environment.

Subsurface ocean worlds such as Enceladus or Europa might work, but we havent precisely characterized their habitability, and it is difficult to foresee how the organisms would be delivered there if the shell of ice is kilometers thick.

That being said, genetically engineering organisms and evolving them under various conditions may allow us to understand the limits of life here on Earth.

Do you have a burning question for Giz Asks? Email us at tipbox@gizmodo.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? - Gizmodo

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? – Gizmodo

Page 27«..1020..26272829..4050..»