Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

With its origins in the late 1990s, lab-grown or cultured meat, is produced by providing stem cells extracted from the muscle of an animal with a suitable growth medium and nutrients, enabling them to proliferate and then differentiate to form muscle tissue. Creating meat in this way could help to address some of the environmental and ethical issues associated with livestock farming, as well as offer health benefits to consumers.Pairing cellular agriculture with genetic engineering could also enable the development of novel foods, with non-native features, that may be nutritionally enhanced. In a study recently published in Metabolic Engineering, researchers from Tufts University engineered bovine cells to endogenously produce phytoene, lycopene and -carotene, and found a reduction in lipid oxidation levels when this cultured meat was cooked.

Technology Networks had the pleasure of speaking to Andrew Stout, lead author of the study, to learn how these cells were created and explore the benefits of engineering in the abilities to produce additional nutrients. Andrew also discussed some of the challenges that are so far limiting the wider commercialization of cultured meat and how this may change in the future.

Anna MacDonald (AM): Can you give us an overview of the process by which the cow cells were engineered to produce the carotenoids?Andrew Stout (AS): To do this, we inserted three genes into the cells which encode enzymes that convert native compounds into carotenoids. Specifically, the first gene in this pathway (phytoene synthase) takes a native chemical and turns it into the carotenoid phytoene. The second gene (phytoene desaturase) turns some of that phytoene into a second carotenoid called lycopene. And the third gene (lycopene cyclase) turns some of that lycopene into a third carotenoid called beta-carotene. In that way, we're able to get cow cells to produce three different carotenoids that aren't naturally produced in bovine tissue. To engineer the cells, we used a system called the Sleeping beauty transposon system. This system is essentially a "cut and paste" tool which randomly cuts open the cells' genomes and inserts new DNA which we provide (in this case, the genes for carotenoid-producing enzymes).

AM: Why were beta-carotene, phytoene and lycopene chosen in particular?AS: There were several reasons for this. The first and most important was their role as dietary antioxidants. A key mechanistic link between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer is through lipid oxidation. This oxidation leads to the production of free radicals that can interact with tissue in the colon, damage cellular DNA, and ultimately contribute to cancer formation. Antioxidants can act to "quench" those free radicals, thus potentially inhibiting their cancer-causing potential. As carotenoids are powerful antioxidants, they offer a promising target for improving the nutritional features of cell-cultured meat.

Other reasons include the importance of beta-carotene as a vitamin A precursor, previous demonstrations of phytoene synthase efficacy in mammalian cells, and also as a sort of homage to golden rice, the first major demonstration of using genetic engineering to nutritionally enhance a food product.

AM: Were there any side-effects as a result of the nutritional engineering?AS: There were a few. The most obvious was a reduction in growth rate in bovine satellite cells that were engineered with carotenoid-producing enzymes. This would have negative implications for production processes if it proves to be unavoidable. Interestingly, though, in immortalized mouse muscle cells, this reduction in growth rate wasn't seen. Instead, cells producing carotenoids actually grew faster than non-engineered cells. One explanation for this could be that immortalized cells are more "robust" and are more amenable to engineering than the primary (non-immortalized) cow muscle cells we used. It's possible that immortalized cow cells would show growth-effects more like those seen in the mouse cells, which would turn this production down-side into a production up-side. Another side effect we saw was a change in color of the cells -- they took on a reddish tinge with the production of the carotenoids. I don't think this is really a "positive" or "negative" effect, but it is pretty interesting. Other potential side-effects that would need to be looked into would be the effects of carotenoids on cell differentiation, on the prevalence of other nutrients (e.g., cholesterol, etc.), and on flavor, texture, aroma, etc.

Karen Steward (KS): Why do you think you saw lower levels of lipid oxidation when the cell cultured meat was cooked compared to conventional meat?AS: Since carotenoids are antioxidants, they act to quench oxidation in cells during storage, cooking, etc., so we would expect lower lipid oxidation if the cells are producing carotenoids and therefore increasing the total cellular level of antioxidants.

KS: What do you see are the benefits of engineering in the abilities to produce additional phytonutrients to beef cells, as opposed say to having a traditional steak with some vegetables? Is there a risk that in providing these nutrients through meat intake a diet would consequently lack fibre which could impact gut health?AS: This is a fun question! I think we're an extremely long way from actually being able to use this technology to replace vegetables on our plates (and anyways, what a culinarily boring world that would be!) I like to think of this technology not as a replacement of vegetables, but an enhancement of meat. For instance, not all vegetables are high in carotenoids, so if you can get those nutrients from another source in your meal, then your overall consumption of them can increase. Also, the roll of carotenoids in specifically inhibiting oxidation in meat can act to mitigate some of the negative health implications of meat consumption without aiming to reduce vegetable consumption. As a final note, I'd like to think of this work as really just the tip of the iceberg of what's possible. There are so many options for enhancing meat with this or similar technologies--enhanced flavor, therapeutic activity, enhanced smell, etc. I think there's a world of totally novel foods that are possible and that would expand our culinary palette, not reduce it.

KS: Is there any need to start with cow cells? Could you essentially start with any cell type or are there limitations?AS: No need at all! I think this would likely work for all mammalian cells, and there's a strong chance it would work for avian and fish cells as well. We wanted to work with bovine cells because beef is such a major contributor to meat-associated greenhouse gas production and is one of the main red meats consumed around the world. As such, I think it's a really important target for all cultured meat work, including nutritional engineering.

AM: What challenges are so far limiting the wider commercialization of cultured meat?AS: The key hurdles are cost and scale. The field needs to reduce the cost of growth media (likely by reducing the cost of growth factors, reducing cellular reliance on growth factors, finding growth-factor alternatives, or other creative solutions), and to increase the scalability of cell culture (increased growth rate, increased maximum cell density, etc.). There are certainly plenty of other challenges, such as regulatory and consumer reception, demonstration of nutritional and food-quality value, and demonstration of food-safety, but I think that right now cost and scale still reign supreme.

AM: Where do you see the future of cellular agriculture headed?AS: A good question! I'll answer for two slightly different technologies.

First, for cultured meat specifically:

I think in the near future, the field is heading towards a bit of a "realignment" or specification in terms of goals, expectations, hype, etc. I think that this can be seen in some of the ways that companies are starting to look at their products with a bit more nuance, such as looking at the possibility of hybrid cell-based/plant-based products, which could overcome some of the cost/scale barriers of a fully cell-cultured product. Beyond that, I like to think that there will be an expansion of creative solutions to problems, or creative new ways of thinking about cell cultured meat. This could come in the form of looking at agricultural waste products for cell culture components, exploring novel genetic strategies to improve growth / reduce cost, or looking into alternate culture strategies / bioreactors.

Then for cellular agriculture more generally:

I think cellular agriculture in general, while certainly offering its own challenges and hurdles, is a lot further along the developmental pathway than cultured meat. I'm thinking here of products that are already on the market and demonstrably feasible such as recombinant milk proteins (Perfect Day Foods), recombinant collagen proteins (Geltor, Inc.), or recombinant proteins to improve plant-based products (Impossible Foods). I think these technologies are going to continue coming out and coming down in cost, allowing a bunch of new awesome products to come out and accelerate the development of plant-based or fermentation-derived products.

Andrew Stout was speaking to Anna MacDonald and Dr Karen Steward, Science Writers for Technology Networks.

Link:
Taking Cultured Meat to the Next Level - Technology Networks

In breeding genetically sterile males, researchers aim to develop a new genetic pesticide.

In the Gortner Laboratory on the St. Paul campus, University of Minnesota graduate student Nate Feltman examines a fruit fly under a microscope. About three millimeters in diameter, the spotted wing drosophila has been wreaking havoc on many soft-skinned berries in almost all of the states in the U.S., including Minnesota.

With a taste for fruits like raspberries, strawberries, blueberries and cherries, the invasive species has hit Minnesota berry growers by storm in the peak of their harvest season since it was first observed in the U.S. in 2008. Laying eggs in ripening fruit, the flies make fruit spoil quicker and make it unmarketable for farmers.

A team of researchers at the University are looking for a way to introduce sterile male spotted wing drosophila flies into the population as a form of genetic pest control, helping farmers in a way that other pesticides and proactive measures have not.

In early November, assistant professor Mike Smanski published an article about a new breakthrough in this research, demonstrating for the first time this kind of genetic engineering was possible in the common fruit fly. This shows that researchers could engineer this work into spotted wing drosophila in the future.

The Universitys Smanski Lab has also studied this technique in mosquitoes, zebra fish and carp, but never with this type of fruit fly, he said.

These are all a new class of genetic pesticide, basically, that allow you to engineer the pest organism itself and convert that pest organism into the pesticide, Smanski said.

Through this work the researchers can create a pest that is biologically the same, but when the females mate with these genetically modified males, they will not produce viable offspring, he said.

This sterile insect technique can be helpful not only in reducing the population of insects, but in reducing the impacts of insecticides on surrounding species and nearby ecosystems, said Feltman, a second-year biochemistry, molecular biology and biophysics graduate student.

As part of the second phase of the research, they will be doing lab tests on the genetically modified spotted wing drosophila, he said. The hope is that the genetic work will prevent the flies from producing offspring.

Over the past decade, researchers have placed traps to study the flies in various farms around the state, including The Berry Patch in Forest Lake, Minnesota.

Kevin Edberg, an owner of the farm, said he first saw the spotted wing drosophila about five or six years ago. His farm is primarily composed of raspberries, strawberries and blueberries that customers pick themselves. Since the flies have come in and made the fruit rot prematurely, he has lost the last week of his harvest season, which is generally one of the most profitable weeks of the year.

Edberg started putting up traps filled with apple cider vinegar to capture the flies and monitor when they come out. In early July, he would catch up to four flies per trap. As the season goes on however, he will catch almost 600 per trap.

Of all the changes that Ive seen, and all of the challenges that have evolved over the last 40 years, [the spotted wing drosophila is] the one that has been the biggest game changer in how we manage and grow, he said.

Traditional avenues of pest management do not work either, he said, which makes it even harder to navigate how to stop them. And if they do not control it one year, they will come back worse the next.

Jerry Untiedt, owner of Untiedts Vegetable Farm Inc. in Waverly, Minnesota, is another berry farmer University researchers have been working with.

Because he uses a high tunnel an unheated greenhouse and sweeps, blows and vacuums the rows between his crops to get rid of rotting fruit that attracts the bugs, Untiedt said he has fared better than other farms in the industry. Anecdotally, Untiedt said that 40% to 50% of raspberry growers no longer grow raspberries because the pest management is too complicated and costly.

He said he is grateful for the Universitys work because without their research, there would not be much known about the spotted wing drosophila.

This is of utmost importance because most people dont understand the biology of this fruit fly and what it could do to this industry, Untiedt said. If youre not vigilant in your management, it can actually destroy your entire crop. Literally, a plague to be reckoned with.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the Smanski Labs progress with genetic engineering in some organisms.

See the original post here:
'A plague to be reckoned with': UMN research creates a buzz with invasive fruit fly research - Minnesota Daily

Laith N AL-Eitan,1 Barakat Z Elsaqa,2 Ayah Y Almasri,1 Hatem A Aman,1 Rame H Khasawneh,3 Mansour A Alghamdi4,5

1Department of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Science and Arts, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan; 2Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan; 3Department of Hematopathology, King Hussein Medical Center (KHMC), Royal Medical Services (RMS), Amman 11118, Jordan; 4Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabi; 5Genomics and Personalized Medicine Unit, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: Laith N AL-EitanDepartment of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Science and Arts, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030, Irbid 22110, JordanTel +962-2-7201000 ext 23464Email lneitan@just.edu.jo

Background: Cardiovascular disease is one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several cardiovascular diseases require therapy with warfarin, an anticoagulant with large interindividual variability resulting in dosing difficulties. The selected genes and their polymorphisms have been implicated in several Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) to be associated with cardiovascular disease.Objective: The goal of this study is to discover if there are any associations between rs646776 of PSRC1, rs660240 and rs12740374 of CELSR2, and rs602633 of SORT1 to coronary heart disease (CHD) and warfarin dose variability in patients diagnosed with cardiovascular disease undergoing warfarin therapy.Methods: The study was directed at the Queen Alia Hospital Anticoagulation Clinic in Amman, Jordan. DNA was extracted and genotyped using the Mass ARRAY system, statistical analysis was done using SPSS.Results: The study found several associations between the selected SNPs with warfarin, but none with cardiovascular disease. All 4 studied SNPs were found to be correlated to warfarin sensitivity during the stabilization phase except rs602633 and with warfarin dose variability at the initiation phase. CELSR2 SNPs also showed association with dose variability during the stabilization phase. Also, rs646776 and rs12740374 were linked to warfarin sensitivity over the initiation phase. Only rs602633 was associated with INR treatment outcomes.Conclusion: The findings presented in this study found new pharmacogenomic associations for warfarin, that warrant further research in the field of genotype-guided warfarin dosing.

Keywords: warfarin, SNPs, pharmacogenetics, Jordan

This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

See more here:
Influence of PSRC1, CELSR2, and SORT1 Gene Polymorphisms on the Variab | PGPM - Dove Medical Press

The global gene therapy market was valued at $584 million in 2016, and is estimated to reach $4,402 million by 2023, registering a CAGR of 33.3% from 2017 to 2023. Gene therapy is a technique that involves the delivery of nucleic acid polymers into a patients cells as a drug to treat diseases. It fixes a genetic problem at its source. The process involves modifying the protein either to change the genetic expression or to correct a mutation. The emergence of this technology meets the rise in needs for better diagnostics and targeted therapy tools. For instance, genetic engineering can be used to modify physical appearance, metabolism, physical capabilities, and mental abilities such as memory and intelligence. In addition, it is also used for infertility treatment. Gene therapy offers a ray of hope for patients, who either have no treatment options or show no benefits with drugs currently available. The ongoing success has strongly supported upcoming researches and has carved ways for enhancement of gene therapy.

Top Companies Covered in this Report: Novartis, Kite Pharma, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Spark Therapeutics Inc., Bluebird bio Inc., Genethon, Transgene SA, Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation, Oxford BioMedica, NewLink Genetics Corp.

Get sample copy of Report at: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/sample/AMR00013704

The gene therapy market is a widely expanding field in the pharmaceutical industry with new opportunities. This has piqued the interests of venture capitalists to explore this market and its commercial potential. Major factors that drive the growth of this market include high demands for DNA vaccines to treat genetic diseases, targeted drug delivery, and high incidence of genetic disorders. However, the stringent regulatory approval process for gene therapy and the high costs of gene therapy drugs are expected to hinder the growth of the market.

The global gene therapy market is segmented based on vector type, gene type, application, and geography. Based on vector type, it is categorized into viral vector and non-viral vector. Viral vector is further segmented into retroviruses, lentiviruses, adenoviruses, adeno associated virus, herpes simplex virus, poxvirus, vaccinia virus, and others. Non-viral vector is further categorized into naked/plasmid vectors, gene gun, electroporation, lipofection, and others. Based on gene type, the market is classified into antigen, cytokine, tumor suppressor, suicide, deficiency, growth factors, receptors, and others. Based on application, the market is divided into oncological disorders, rare diseases, cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, infectious disease, and other diseases. Based on region, it is analyzed across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and LAMEA.

Get Discount for This Report https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/discount/AMR00013704

Table Of Content

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 3: MARKET OVERVIEW

CHAPTER 4: GENE THERAPY MARKET, BY VECTOR TYPE

CHAPTER 5: GENE THERAPY MARKET, BY GENE TYPE

CHAPTER 6: GENE THERAPY MARKET, BY APPLICATION

CHAPTER 7: GENE THERAPY MARKET, BY REGION

CHAPTER 8: COMPANY PROFILE

Enquire about report at: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/buy/AMR00013704

About Premium Market Insights:

Premiummarketinsights.com is a one stop shop of market research reports and solutions to various companies across the globe. We help our clients in their decision support system by helping them choose most relevant and cost effective research reports and solutions from various publishers. We provide best in class customer service and our customer support team is always available to help you on your research queries.

Contact Us

Sameer Joshi

Call: +912067274191

Email:[emailprotected]

Pune

Go here to see the original:
Gene Therapy Market is Projected to Reach $4,402 million by 2023 | Leading key players are Novartis, Kite Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline , Spark Therapeutics...

At a time when humans are threatening the extinction of so many other species, it might not seem so surprising that some people think that the extinction of our own species would be a good thing. Take, for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose founder believes that our extinction would put an end to the damage we inflict on each other and ecosystems more generally.

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

But humans arent the only beings to feel pain. Non-human animals would continue suffering without us. So, driven by a desire to eliminate suffering entirely, some people have shockingly advocated taking the rest of nature with us. They recommend that we actively abolish the world, rather than simply desert it.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Around 1600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

If you dont believe in an afterlife, this becomes a less attractive option. Youd have to be motivated exclusively by removing suffering from nature, without any promise of gaining supernatural rewards. Probably the first person to advocate human extinction in this way was Arthur Schopenhauer. He did so 200 years ago, in 1819, urging that we spare the coming generations of the burden of existence.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

But what about the pain of non-human animals? Schopenhauer had an answer, but it wasnt a convincing one. He was a philosophical idealist, believing that the existence of external nature depends on our self-consciousness of it. So, with the abolition of human brains, the sufferings of less self-aware animals would also vanish as they ceased to exist without us around to perceive them.

Even on Schopenhauers own terms, theres a problem. What if other intelligent and self-conscious beings exist? Perhaps on other planets? Surely, then, our sacrifice would mean nothing; existence and painful perception of it would continue. It fell to Schopenhauers disciple, Eduard von Hartmann, to propose a more complete solution.

Hartmann, born in Berlin in 1842, wrote a system of pessimistic philosophy that was almost as lengthy as his impressive beard. Infamous in his own time, but completely forgotten in ours, Hartmann proposed a shockingly radical vision.

Writing in 1869, Hartmann rebuked Schopenhauer for thinking of the problem of suffering in only a local and temporary sense. His predecessors vision of human extinction by sexual continence would not suffice. Hartmann was convinced that, after a few aeons, another self-conscious species would re-evolve on Earth. This would merely perpetuate the misery of existence.

Hartmann also believed that life exists on other planets. Given his belief that most of it was probably unintelligent, the suffering of such beings would be helpless. They wouldnt be able to do anything about it.

So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to annihilate the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to cause the whole kosmos to disappear.

Hartmann hoped that if humanity did not prove up to this task then some planets might evolve beings that would be, long after our own sun is frozen. But he didnt think this meant we could be complacent. He noted the stringency of conditions required for a planet to be habitable (let alone evolve creatures with complex brains), and concluded that the duty might fall exclusively on humans, here and now.

Hartmann was convinced this was the purpose of creation: that our universe exists in order to evolve beings compassionate and clever enough to decide to abolish existence itself. He imagined this final moment as a shockwave of deadly euthanasia rippling outwards from Earth, blotting out the existence of this cosmos until all its world-lenses and nebulae have been abolished.

He remained unclear as to exactly how this goal would be achieved. Speaking vaguely of humanitys increasing global unification and spiritual disillusion, he hinted to future scientific and technological discoveries. He was, thankfully, a metaphysician not a physicist.

Hartmanns philosophy is fascinating. It is also unimaginably wrong. This is because he confuses the eradication of suffering with the eradication of sufferers. Conflating this distinction leads to crazy visions of omnicide. To get rid of suffering you dont need to get rid of sufferers: you could instead try removing the causes of pain. We should eliminate suffering, not the sufferer.

Indeed, so long as there are intelligent beings around, theres at least the opportunity for a radical removal of suffering. Philosophers such as David Pearce even argue that, in the future, technologies like genetic engineering will be able to entirely phase it out, abolishing pain from the Earth. With the right interventions, Pearce contends, humans and non-humans could plausibly be driven by gradients of bliss, not privation and pain.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendents might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

See original here:
Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction - The Conversation UK

Too dry, too hot, too cold, too salty the devasting results of extreme weather and overuse of natural resources threaten crop production worldwide.

The problems are vast, so Israeli ag-tech company SaliCrop zeroed in on the salinity issue. Its non-genetically modified seed treatment allows crops such as wheat, corn and rice to grow well in high-salinity soil or soil irrigated with brackish water.

From North Carolinas coastal plain to the isles of West Bengal, India, salt from flooding or rising seawater plagues approximately 20 percent of the worlds irrigated agricultural fields at a loss of $12 billion annually.

One of our cofounders, Rca Godbol, is an Indian plant biologist who returned home from her postdoc in Munich and wanted to assist smallholder farmers in coastal Mumbai, where theres a lot of salinity, explains CEO Dotan Bronshtein.

While in Israel on an exchange program, Godbol met Omar Massarwa founder of TopSeed, which was acquired by seed and breeding technology company Kaiima and agricultural engineer Sharon Devir.

They formed SaliCrop [in 2013] and worked for three years under the radar till they had a proof of concept. And then they hired me to scale it up, Bronshtein tells ISRAEL21c.

SaliCrop now has facilities in Israel and India serving eight pilot projects in those markets.

As business is expanding to Mexico and Australia, treatment facilities would normally have been set up in those countries too, but due to the pandemic the seeds will instead be treated and exported.

Chemical process

SaliCrops treatment is a wet chemistry process that stimulates an epigenetic reaction to salinity conditions meaning the DNA of the plant is altered without genetic engineering.

Unlike other treatments, this is cost effective and fast and has increased yield by 12 to 30%, says Bronshtein.

Our solution is applicable to a wide range of crops and varieties and is an economically viable solution for both smallholder farmers and big players.

Harishchandra Patil, a farmer in the Indian village of Masadbedi in the Raigad district, wrote to the company in April 2019 to explain why he is ordering more seeds.

I cultivate rice in my farm, which is in a high salinity area, he wrote. I tried out seeds with SaliCrop technology in 2018 on a trial plot and observed very good plant growth with 25% yield increase.

Following good results in wheat, corn and rice, SaliCrop tried the treatment on millet and cotton seeds, and is developing a treatment for tomatoes, bell peppers, carrots and leafy greens such as coriander and spinach, Bronshtein says.

The business model will be to license the technology to seed producers and NGOs.

A trial of SaliCrop treated seeds in an Israeli wheat field, February 2020. Photo: courtesy

Easy scaleup

Dealing with salinity at the seed level the smallest volume weight in its lifecycle lets us scale up pretty easily, Bronshtein explains. Treating and sending back millions of metric tons of seeds would cost much more than treating them close to the field.

Furthermore, the calibration of our treatment is based on one season, whereas classic seed breeding takes about seven years. So we have a fairly fast time to market.

A pilot project growing corn with SaliCrop treated seeds in Israel, May 2019. Photo: courtesy

With a problem of this magnitude, SaliCrop isnt the only company developing solutions for soil salinity.

Some of its competitors hybridize seeds to tolerate salinity, while others sell products to remove the salinity from the soil, which can be effective but costly, according to Bronshtein.

Its clear that a variety of solutions are needed as the situation worsens. Bronshtein reports that some farmers in Vietnam are switching from rice paddies to aquaculture due to the rising sea level making the groundwater salty.

SaliCrop raised about $1.5 million from Rimonim VC and angel investors, plus grants from the European Commissions Horizon 2020 program, the Israel Innovation Authority and the eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The seven-employee company won first prize in Rimonims 2019 India-Israeli agro competition.

SaliCrop now has early revenue from its pilot projects and will launch a Series A financing round in 2021.

Follow this link:
Helping grains thrive in increasingly salty soil - ISRAEL21c

If I had to place money on a neurotech that will win the Nobel Prize, its optogenetics.

The technology uses light of different frequencies to control the brain. Its a brilliant mind-meld of basic neurobiology and engineering that hijacks the mechanism behind how neurons naturally activateor are silencedin the brain.

Thanks to optogenetics, in just ten years weve been able to artificially incept memories in mice, decipher brain signals that lead to pain, untangle the neural code for addiction, reverse depression, restore rudimentary sight in blinded mice, and overwrite terrible memories with happy ones. Optogenetics is akin to a universal programming language for the brain.

But its got two serious downfalls: it requires gene therapy, and it needs brain surgery to implant optical fibers into the brain.

This week, the original mind behind optogenetics is back with an update that cuts the cord. Dr. Karl Deisseroths team at Stanford University, in collaboration with the University of Minnesota, unveiled an upgraded version of optogenetics that controls behavior without the need for surgery. Rather, the system shines light through the skulls of mice, and it penetrates deep into the brain. With light pulses, the team was able to change how likely a mouse was to have seizures, or reprogram its brain so it preferred social company.

To be clear: were far off from scientists controlling your brain with flashlights. The key to optogenetics is genetic engineeringwithout it, neurons (including yours) dont naturally respond to light.

However, looking ahead, the study is a sure-footed step towards transforming a powerful research technology into a clinical therapy that could potentially help people with neurological problems, such as depression or epilepsy. We are still far from that visionbut the study suggests its science fiction potentially within reach.

To understand optogenetics, we need to dig a little deeper into how brains work.

Essentially, neurons operate on electricity with an additional dash of chemistry. A brain cell is like a living storage container with doorscalled ion channelsthat separate its internal environment from the outside. When a neuron receives input and that input is sufficiently strong, the cells open their doors. This process generates an electrical current, which then gallops down a neurons output brancha biological highway of sorts. At the terminal, the electrical data transforms into dozens of chemical ships, which float across a gap between neurons to deliver the message to its neighbors. This is how neurons in a network communicate, and how that network in turn produces memories, emotions, and behaviors.

Optogenetics hijacks this process.

Using viruses, scientists can add a gene for opsins, a special family of proteins from algae, into living neurons. Opsins are specialized doors that open under certain frequencies of light pulses, something mammalian brain cells cant do. Adding opsins into mouse neurons (or ours) essentially gives them the superpower to respond to light. In classic optogenetics, scientists implant optical fibers near opsin-dotted neurons to deliver the light stimulation. Computer-programmed light pulses can then target these newly light-sensitive neurons in a particular region of the brain and control their activity like puppets on a string.

It gets cooler. Using genetic engineering, scientists can also fine-tune which populations of neurons get that extra powerfor example, only those that encode a recent memory, or those involved in depression or epilepsy. This makes it possible to play with those neural circuits using light, while the rest of the brain hums along.

This selectivity is partially why optogenetics is so powerful. But its not all ponies and rainbows. As you can imagine, mice dont particularly enjoy being tethered by optical fibers sprouting from their brains. Humans dont either, hence the hiccup in adopting the tool for clinical use. Since its introduction, a main goal for next-generation optogenetics has been to cut the cord.

In the new study, the Deisseroth team started with a main goal: lets ditch the need for surgical implants altogether. Immediately, this presents a tough problem. It means that bioengineered neurons, inside a brain, need to have a sensitive and powerful enough opsin door that responds to lighteven when light pulses are diffused by the skull and brain tissue. Its like a game of telephone where one person yells a message from ten blocks away, through multiple walls and city noise, yet you still have to be able to decipher it and pass it on.

Luckily, the team already had a candidate, one so good its a ChRmine (bad joke cringe). Developed last year, ChRmine stands out in its shockingly fast reaction times to light and its ability to generate a large electrical current in neuronsabout a 100-fold improvement over any of its predecessors. Because its so sensitive, it means that even a spark of light, at its preferred wavelength, can cause it to open its doors and in turn control neural activity. Whats more, ChRmine rapidly shuts down after it opens, meaning that it doesnt overstimulate neurons but rather follows their natural activation trajectory.

As a first test, the team used viruses to add ChRmine to an area deep inside the brainthe ventral tegmental area (VTA), which is critical to how we process reward and addiction, and is also implicated in depression. As of now, the only way to reach the area in a clinical setting is with an implanted electrode. With ChRmine, however, the team found that a light source, placed right outside the mices scalp, was able to reliably spark neural activity in the region.

Randomly activating neurons with light, while impressive, may not be all that useful. The next test is whether its possible to control a mouses behavior using light from outside the brain. Here, the team added ChRmine to dopamine neurons in a mouse, which in this case provides a feeling of pleasure. Compared to their peers, the light-enhanced mice were far more eager to press a lever to deliver light to their scalpsmeaning that the light is stimulating the neurons enough for the mice to feel pleasure and work for it.

As a more complicated test, the team then used light to control a population of brain cells, called serotonergic cells, in the base of the brain, called the brainstem. These cells are known to influence social behaviorthat is, how much an individual enjoys social interaction. It gets slightly disturbing: mice with ChRmine-enhanced cells, specifically in the brainstem, preferred spending time in their test chambers social zone versus their siblings who didnt have ChRmine. In other words, without any open-brain surgery and just a few light beams, the team was able to change a socially ambivalent mouse into a friendship-craving social butterfly.

If youre thinking creepy, youre not alone. The study suggests that with an injection of a virus carrying the ChRmine geneeither through the eye socket or through veinsits potentially possible to control something as integral to a personality as sociability with nothing but light.

To stress my point: this is only possible in mice for now. Our brains are far larger, which means light scattering through the skull and penetrating sufficiently deep becomes far more complicated. And again, our brain cells dont normally respond to light. Youd have to volunteer for what amounts to gene therapywhich comes with its own slew of problemsbefore this could potentially work. So keep those tin-foil hats off; scientists cant yet change an introvert (like me) into an extrovert with lasers.

But for unraveling the inner workings of the brain, its an amazing leap into the future. So far, efforts at cutting the optical cord for optogenetics have come with the knee-capped ability to go deep into the brain, limiting control to only surface brain regions such as the cortex. Other methods overheat sensitive brain tissue and culminate in damage. Yet others act as 1990s DOS systems, with significant delay between a command (activate!) and the neurons response.

This brain-control OS, though not yet perfect, resolves those problems. Unlike Neuralink and other neural implants, the study suggests its possible to control the brain without surgery or implants. All you need is light.

Image Credit: othebo from Pixabay

More here:
Scientists Found a New Way to Control the Brain With LightNo Surgery Required - Singularity Hub

The anti-GMO movement dominated the public discourse about crop biotechnology for decades. Led by committed activists who knew how to manipulate the media, they effectively steamrolled a scientific community that wasnt ready for the PR war that Greenpeace and other NGOs launched against frankenfoods in the mid-1990s. Thirty years later, were beginning to see that dynamic shift as plant breeding technology improves and experts successfully defend it against activist attacks.

In August, John Fagan, organic food champion, biologist and Raja of World Peace in the Maharishi organization, led a Greenpeace-funded study claiming that gene-edited crops developed with new breeding techniques (NBTs) like CRISPR can be detected.

This may seem unimpressive to most people, but the result is a big deal to anti-GMO activists like Fagan. Gene-edited crops may be essentially identical to conventionally bred plants; the only difference is that gene editing dramatically speeds up the breeding process, saving time, money and getting enhanced seeds into farmers fields much more quickly than was previously possibleall without inserting foreign DNA into the crops genome. This is the primary distinction between gene editing and transgenesis (GMO in the vernacular).

These facts aside, European law treats gene-edited and GMO crops the same. Commercial cultivation of both is effectively banned in the EU (farmers have access to only one transgenic corn variety), though political pressure is building to reform Europes strict regulations. Anti-biotech groups have been on a campaign to block these reforms since July 2018, just after the European Court of Justice first ruled on crop gene editing. Fagans paper was the latest contribution to this effort. If gene-edited and conventional crops can be distinguished, the argument goes, then the former should be regulated as GMOs.

But theres a problema big one in fact: Fagans study actually demonstrated that its not possible to detect most gene-edited plants, therefore destroying the EUs justification for regulating them as GMOs. Its the perfect example of what we fondly call an own goal. And it illustrates how anti-science groups flog disinformation with the help of gullible journalists who stenograph their questionable claims for wide distribution.

Given the onslaught of disinformation we face in a post-COVID world, Fagans paper offers us the perfect opportunity to review the activist playbook and immunize ourselves against bad science and its harmful consequences.

As gene editing becomes an increasingly effective tool for improving agricultural production and reducing its environmental impacts, many countries (the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina among dozens more) have split from the European Union (EU) on NBTs, exempting them from the expensive and exhausting regulations that govern GMO crops.

This is not only scientifically sound, its pragmatic. There is no way to detect gene edits in most cases. These changes look just like natural mutations found in wild plants, or the genetic changes induced by old-fashioned and EU-approved practices like bathing seeds in mutagens or irradiating them, or changes that occur in plants produced via tissue culture. The tests at our disposal cannotI repeat, cannotdistinguish mutations caused by any of these techniques.

This creates a problem for Food Purity Rajas and other opponents of biotechnology. If these gene-edited crops gain public acceptance and dont count as GMO, the organic industry will be at a competitive disadvantage. How could they justify a premium price for Non-GMO Project-certified corn flakes in those circumstances? Naturally, they have to challenge the efficacy and safety of gene editing to prevent such an outcome. Fear is their go-to currency in this effort, as John Fagan explained almost six years ago in a mailing list for anti-GMO campaigners, run by Claire Robinson of the activist website GM Watch. Its part of a long-term plan to make people fear all engineered food.

Fagan recently gave credit for Americas rejection of GMOs to transcendental meditation (TM), which caused a sharp increase in coherence in U.S. collective consciousness, when a large permanent group of TM practitioners was assembled in Iowa, USA. I havent seen the evidence for that, though Id be happy to take a look at the research if anyone can locate it. What is more likely, and supported by data, is that a long-term misinformation campaign made up of bad science and shock marketing scared parents everywhere into buying organic fruit snacks to avoid scary GMOs.

Down to the last detail, this tried and true activism strategy was deployed to influence the current discourse around gene editing. Besides his enthusiasm for TM, John Fagan also has training in molecular biology and operates a non-profit lab with the necessary testing capacity (incidentally, he also started a company that certifies products for the Non-GMO Project). Greenpeace, meanwhile, has an effective, stunt-based PR machine that can churn out multimedia presentations and widely read press releases, which sympathetic NGOs can dutifully amplify. But things didnt turn out as intended this time.

Its impossible to know which came first: the idea for a campaign to attack gene-edited crops, which needed supporting science, or a study in need of the PR muscle Greenpeace could leverage. Someday an intrepid investigative journalist might be able to work this out. But in any case, the outcome on September 7, 2020 was the release of a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Foods, which claimed to reveal a test that could uniquely and specifically detect the first commercial gene-edited crop, a variety of herbicide-resistant canola developed by the seed company Cibus. With a press release, media blitz, and slickly produced website, Greenpeace and other funders launched the #NowhereToHide campaign to promote Fagans paper and encourage EU regulators to treat this herbicide-tolerant canola as a GMO.

Similar to the guy who claimed he invented email, Fagans team implied they developed a new test to identify this crop. Thats not the case; the qPCR (polymerase chain reaction) method used in the study is well established for canola. Fagans novelty claim is therefore quite erroneous, as one scientist noted on Twitter. Nobody disputes that you can find point mutations, changes to a single DNA base pair, with qPCR. The key is that its impossible to determine if a variation is naturally occurring or purposefully induced. Many experts have pointed this out in response to the paper. The test would likewise detect herbicide-resistant plants that have been known to scientists and regulators since in 2002, from wild populations with that same mutation. Etienne Bucher, a plant geneticist based in Switzerland, tried to help Greenpeace grasp this:

But heres the kicker: this canola is not gene edited. It is a somaclonal mutation that was found in the screenings for an herbicide-tolerant variety, one of those changes that occurs in tissue culture. So what Fagans team has, in fact, definitively proved: they cannot detect edited canola this way. Additionally, it appears this rapeseed could be classified as non-GMO in Europe, since it was developed with one of the grandfathered techniques not subject to the onerous EU GMO approval process.

Own. Goal. Reminds me of the time anti-vaxxers commissioned research that confirmed vaccines do not cause autism.

Let the goal-post moving commence!

After the scientific community made quick work of Fagans study, Greenpeace and activists like Claire Robinson at GMWatch began furiously backpedaling. Maharishi TM trainer and geneticist Michael Antoniou told the anti-GMO website that the method they have developed reliably detects a single DNA base unit change, regardless of how it came about. But he went on to assert that EU regulators should still rely on this test to detect the canola variety. This makes absolutely no sense, as the German Central Committee for Biosafety experts observed [automated Google translation]:

The publication by Chhalliyil et al does not add any new knowledge to the current state of science and technology. Rather, it proves that it is not possible to distinguish genome-edited plants from plants with spontaneously occurring mutations. Without prior knowledge of the manufacturing process [my emphasis], no statement can be made as to whether or not it is a GMO within the meaning of the ECJ [European Court of Justice] ruling.

GM Watch agreed, though it fell back on a legal argument to excuse the studys weakness:

What the test cannot do is detect the technique by which a mutation was brought about but under EU law it doesnt need to. The way that the law deals with proof of origin for all GMOs products of gene editing included is to require the developer to declare that their product is a GMO and provide a test method and reference material.

In other words, if Cibus tells regulators its canola is gene edited, then regulators can determine if the canola is gene edited.

The media blitz around Fagans study was designed to promote organic food, but ironically enough, all this talk about identifying the source of mutations dredged up a potentially serious problem for the organic industry. In 2014, the USDAs National Organic Standards Board investigated what kinds of genetic modifications led to many of the key organic crops, only to realize how difficult it would be to classify breeding and laboratory mutations:

Exploring this issue has brought to the attention of the subcommittee that engineered genetic manipulation of plant breeding materials has already occurred in many of the crop varieties that are currently being used in organic farming. A partial list:

Many of these techniques that were used in initial crosses that have now passed down through many generations may not be traceable any longer

The board realized that many of the crops in organic production right now were the result of laboratory processes (genetic engineering, one could say) that are undetectable with molecular testing. Why is this significant? Well, a cynical scientist could use Fagans test to detect mutations in organic tangerines just as well as Cibus canola, demonstrating the inanity of labeling the tangerine non-GMO and the canola genetically engineered.

Bungled though it was, this parallel science PR stunt helpfully illustrated how disinformation can sow confusion and lead to nonsensical policy. For example, Greenpeace celebrated when an Austrian health minister declared that Fagans test should be used to enforce the EUs GMO rules. Well-known anti-crop biotech German politicians also eagerly embraced the results of the study. If people with so much influence over food safety rules in their countries can be fooled, you can see why junk science poses the risk it does.

Still, Greenpeace clearly lost this round. The activist-media juggernaut went down in flames before it could do too much damageand GM Watch spent most of September explaining away Fagans study in the face of intense expert scrutiny. Expect the anti-science crusaders to fall back on these same tactics in the future, because its all they know how to do. But look forward to the fact that there are now scientists, battle hardened by years in the social media trenches, ready to blow air horns the next time an NGO launches a scheme like this.

Mary Mangan holds a PhD in cell, molecular, and developmental biology from the University of Rochester. She co-founded OpenHelix, a company that provides awareness and training on open source genomics software tools. Follow her on Twitter @mem_somerville

Read more:
Viewpoint: Greenpeace-funded study backfires, undermining case to treat gene-edited crops as GMOs - Genetic Literacy Project

SEATTLE, Oct. 12, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --AGC Biologics, a leading global biopharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO), has announced a new appointment to initiate integration efforts resulting from the July 31, 2020 acquisition of MolMed, a biotechnology company focused on research, development, production and clinical validation of cell and gene therapies for the treatment of cancer and rare diseases. Effective immediately, Luca Alberici will transition from Chief Business Officer of MolMed to take on the role of General Manager/Site Head at the Milan, Italy site.

Mr. Alberici will provide leadership and site management to ensure the continued execution of world-class cell and gene therapy contract development and manufacturing services from the Milan, Italy Site. He will support the continuous growth of the Site while working closely with colleagues in Seattle, Heidelberg and Chiba to ensure the business leverages and integrates AGC Biologics combined global capabilities.

"We are very happy to be able to appoint Mr. Alberici to General Manager/Site Head at the Milan, Italy site. He will ensure continuity in leadership at the Milan Site and he will be instrumental in further developing the capacity and capabilities of the site," said Kasper Moller, AGC Biologics Chief Technology Officer. "Mr. Alberici's track record within the Cell and Gene therapy field and his demonstrated leadership are great assets to our team and he will assure continued high performance of the Milan Site and development of the Cell and Gene Therapy area."

Mr. Alberici holds a PhD and Masters in cellular and molecular biology from Libera Universit Vita-Salute San Raffaele, in addition to a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from SDA Bocconi. His rich educational background is complemented by more than 14 years of industry expertise with strategic business development, licensing, project management and intellectual property for large molecule and specialty drug development and commercialization.

To learn more about the AGC Biologics global network of facilities, please visit: http://www.agcbio.com/.

About AGC Biologics

AGC Biologics is a leading global biopharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) committed to delivering a high standard of service to solve complex customer challenges. The company is driven by innovation and continuously invests in technologies to complement decades of proven expertise in drug development and manufacturing, including working through FDA, PDMA and EMA approvals. A range of customizable bioprocessing services includes development and manufacturing of mammalian and microbial-based therapeutic proteins, protein expression, plasmid DNA (pDNA) support, antibody drug development and conjugation, viral vector production, genetic engineering of cells, cell line development with a proprietary CHEF1 Expression System, cell banking and storage.

AGC Biologics employs more than 1,400 professionals worldwide who are dedicated to supporting customers at all phases of development through to commercialization, with critical expertise in process development, formulation, and analytical testing. The global service network boasts locations in the United States at Seattle, Washington and Boulder, Colorado; across Europe in Copenhagen, Denmark; Heidelberg, Germany; Milan and Bresso, Italy; and in Asia at Chiba, Japan.

Learn more at http://www.agcbiologics.com, or find us on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/company/agcbiologics/ and Twitter @agcbiologics.

See original here:
AGC Biologics Appoints Luca Alberici as the New General Manager/Site Head of the Milan, Italy Site - goskagit.com

A UVU genetics lab has expanded research on pigeon feathers that may contribute to knowledge about human skin cancer, thanks to a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

The three-year grant of about $300,000 was awarded in August 2019 by the NIH, a government agency that funds biomedical research. The money pays for supplies and tests in a lab run by Eric Domyan, professor of biology and biotechnology.

[The grant] broadens what we are able to look at in our research a lot more, said Shannon Baker, a junior studying biotechnology who works in the lab.

The grant also pays for five student researcher positions. Alanys Benitez, a senior studying biotechnology, said her position on the research team is experience she can take with her after graduation.

The fact that Im able to work on research this early in my career is going to be really beneficial for opening doors later on, Benitez said.

Domyan and his students study feather color, which comes from two pigments red and black. Different amounts of each pigment lead to different colors.

The two pigments are also present in human skin. Everyone has both pigments, but the amounts vary from person to person. The pigments protect from sun damage, but black pigment does a better job. People who have more black pigment are less likely to get skin cancer after exposure to the sun.

Pigeons and humans have the same pigment-making genes, although they have different versions of them. Research on a pigeon gene could lead to a better understanding of the same gene in humans, including how it might increase susceptibility to cancer.

About fifteen students work on the project, which is one of two NIH-funded activities at UVU. Students in research labs, unlike lab classes, have no answer key or instruction manual.

Its helpful for me to figure out how experimental processes work more, because you need to come up with what youre doing, Baker said. Its not always just handed to you.

Benitez said, Theres a lot of disappointment sometimes. But when you get something right, you get the right answer for your question, its just the most amazing part of the job.

Most pigeons have black feathers, but some birds have difficulty making black pigment because they have a gene mutation. Those pigeons have red feathers instead. But feather color isnt determined by only one gene coloration is more complicated. Other genes must be involved, and Domyans team is trying to find those genes.

One year into the grant, the team has found genes that are more active in one color of feather than the other. But just because a gene is more active in a black feather than a red feather doesnt mean it contributes to color. The difference could be a coincidence. The next step is to sort out the coincidences from the genes that actually control pigment.

If you want to know what a gene does, you look at what goes wrong when you interfere with the function of that gene, Domyan said.

The researchers will use genetic engineering to mutate each gene in cells in petri dishes. The mutation will break the gene, so it cant do its job. If that job affects colors, the pigments in the cells will change.

At the end of the three years, Domyan hopes to use the teams findings to develop further questions about pigmentation and apply for another grant.

Scientific research on campus is especially important for international students like Benitez, who find it more difficult to get research internships outside of school because companies need to do extra paperwork. She appreciates all of these opportunities that UVU gives, not only to international students but also to students that come to UVU of different ages, she said. It really doesnt matter your background, I feel like all the scientific field is open to us.

View post:
UVU researchers using $300k grant to find clues about cancer - THE REVIEW - UVU Review