Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing – WION

Posted: August 19, 2020 at 8:58 am

To date, no one has stated the urgent universal need to aggressively investigate the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, better than Karl and Dan Sirotkin in their August 12, 2020 article Might SARSCoV2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?

Despite claims from prominent scientists that SARSCoV2 indubitably emerged naturally, the etiology of this novel coronavirus remains a pressing and open question: Without knowing the true nature of a disease, it is impossible for clinicians to appropriately shape their care, for policymakers to correctly gauge the nature and extent of the threat, and for the public to appropriately modify their behaviour.

As the authors correctly note, serial passage, that is, the repeated re-infection within an animal or human population allows a virus to specifically adapt to the infected species.

That process occurs naturally in the wild, but it can be greatly accelerated in the laboratory by deliberate serial passaging of viruses in cell culture systems or animals, potentially leaving few or no traces as to whether the adapted viruses are naturally-occurring or laboratory-manipulated.

That type of "gain of function" experimentation can become particularly dangerous if viruses are adapted for human infection by serial passaging them through cell cultures and animal models that have been genetically-modified to express human receptors.

There are numerous scientific publications describing serial passaging of coronaviruses through humanised cell cultures and animal models, thus potentially creating a new coronavirus pre-adapted for human infection.

At present, the scientific consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 came from bats, but how it evolved to infect humans remains unknown.

China has claimed that a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2, but RaTG13 is not actually a virus because no biological samples exist. It is only a genomic sequence of a virus for which there are now serious questions about its accuracy.

In contrast, Dr Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist and whistleblower, has implied that RaTG13 may have been used to divert the worlds attention away from the true source of the COVID-19 pandemic, a novel coronavirus that originated in military laboratories overseen by China's Peoples Liberation Army and created by the manipulation of Zhoushan coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21.

SARS-CoV-2 has signs of serial passaging and the direct genetic insertion of novel amino acids sequences for which no natural evolutionary pathway has been identified.

Although SARS-CoV-2 appears to have the backbone of bat coronaviruses, its spike protein, which is responsible for binding to the human cell and its membrane fusion-driven entry, has sections that do not appear in any closely-related bat coronaviruses.

SARS-CoV-2s receptor binding domain, the specific element that binds to the human cell, has a ten times greater binding affinity than the first SARS virus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic.

Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be pre-adapted for human infection and has not undergone a similar natural mutation process within the human population that was observed during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak.

Those observations plus the inexplicable genetic distance between SARS-CoV-2 and any of its potential bat predecessors suggest an accelerated evolutionary process obtained by laboratory-based serial passaging through genetically-engineered mouse models containing humanised receptors previously developed by China.

The other unique feature of SARS-CoV-2 is a furin polybasic cleavage site that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility, but also is not present in any closely related bat coronaviruses.

There are no readily-available animal models to produce a unique furin polybasic cleavage site by serial passaging, but techniques for the artificial insertion of such furin polybasic cleavage sites by genetic engineering have been used for over ten years.

To paraphrase Karl and Dan Sirotkin, unless the zoonotic hosts necessary for completing a natural jump from animals to humans are identified, the dualuse gainoffunction research practice of viral serial passage and the artificial insertion of unique viral features should be considered viable routes by which SARS-CoV-2 arose and the COVID-19 pandemic was initiated.

Lawrence Sellin, PhD is a retired US Army Reserve colonel. He has previously worked at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. His email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

More:
Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing - WION

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Engineered COVID-19-Infected Mouse Bites Researcher Amid ‘Explosion’ of Risky Coronavirus Research – CounterPunch

Posted: August 19, 2020 at 8:58 am

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

University researchers genetically engineer a human pandemic virus. They inject the new virus into a laboratory mouse. The infected mouse then bites a researcher..It is a plot worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster about risky coronavirus research.

But according to newly obtained minutes of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) of the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill, these exact events need not be imagined. They occurred for real between April 1st and May 6th this year.

The identity of the bitten coronavirus researcher has not been revealed except that they were working in a high security BSL-3 virus lab when the accident happened.

According to Richard Ebright, an epidemiologist from Rutgers University, the UNC incident underscores an important development in virus research since the pandemic began:

There has been an explosion of research involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2 over the last six months.Research with infectious SARS-CoV-2 now is occurring in every, or almost every, BSL-3 facility in the US and overseas.

This strong upsurge is affirmed by Edward Hammond of Prickly Research, Austin, TX, former Director of the Sunshine Project, an NGO that tracked the post 9/11 expansion of the US Biodefense program.

It is evident that swarms of academic researchers with little prior experience with coronaviruses have leapt into the field in recent months.

For Hammond, this explosion represents a hazard:

We need to be clear headed about the risk. The first SARS virus was a notorious source of laboratory-acquired infections and there is a very real risk that modified forms of SARS-CoV-2 could infect researchers, especially inexperienced researchers, with unpredictable and potentially quite dangerous results. The biggest risk is the creation and accidental release of a novel form of SARS-CoV-2 a variant whose altered characteristics might undermine global efforts to stop the pandemic by evading the approaches being taken to find COVID vaccines and treatments.

And, continues Hammond: Each additional lab that experiments with CoV-2 amplifies the risk.

Richard Ebright concurs, telling Independent Science News in an email that this research is:

in many cases being performedbyresearchers who have no prior experience in BSL-3 operations and pathogens research, and who therefore pose elevated risk of laboratory accidents withBSL-3 pathogens.

Ebright is also concerned that some influential experimenters are now calling for reduced oversight:

The UNC incident also underscores that calls by some, notably Columbia University virologist Vincent Racaniello (Podcast at 01:35mins onwards), to allow virus-culture and virus-production research with fully infectious SARS-CoV-2 at BSL-2 are egregiously irresponsible and absolutely unacceptable.

Other researchers are also calling for restraint. In a paper titled Prudently conduct the engineering and synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, researchers from China and the US critiqued the synthesis in February of a full length infectious clone (Gao et al., 2020; Thao et al., 2020). And, in concluding, these researchers asked a question that is even more pertinent now than then Once the risks [of a lab escape] become a reality, who or which organization should take responsibility for them?

The accident at the University of North Carolina (UNC) is now in the public domain but only thanks to a FOIA request submitted by Hammond (in line with NIH guidelines) and shared with Independent Science News.

Despite the FOIA request, apart from the fact that UNC classified it as an official Reportable Incident, i.e. that must be reported to National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Washington DC, scarcely any information about the accident is available.

In part this is because the minutes of the relevant IBC meeting (May 6th, 2020, p109) are extremely brief. They do not provide any details of the fate of the bitten researcher. Nor do they state, for example, whether the researcher developed an active infection, nor whether they developed symptoms, nor if they transmitted the recombinant virus to anyone else. Neither do they reveal what kind of recombinant virus was being used or the purpose of the experiment.

To try to learn more, Independent Science News emailed the lab of Ralph Baric at UNC, which, based on their research history is the most likely coronavirus research group involved (Roberts et al., 2007; Menachery et al., 2015), the University Biosafety Officer, and UNC Media relations.

Only the latter replied:

The April 2020 incident referred to in the University Institutional Biosafety Committee meeting minutes involved a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 strain used in the development of a mouse model system.

Ralph Baric UNC Gillings School of Public Health-web.

The researcher did not develop any symptoms and noinfection occurredas a result of the incident.

Our questions in full and the full UNC reply are available here.

The second reason for this lack of information is that the UNC redacted the names of Principal Investigators (PIs) whose research required biosafety scrutiny, along with many of the experimental specifics.

Nevertheless, unredacted parts of minutes from IBC meetings held in 2020 contain descriptions of experiments that potentially encompass the accident. They include:

Application 75223:

(a full-length infectious clone refers to a viable DNA copy of the coronavirus, which is ordinarily an RNA virus)

and

Application 73790:

and

Application 74962:

In all, any one of eight sets of different experiments approved by the UNC Chapel Hill IBC in 2020 proposed infecting mice with live infectious and mutant SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses under BSL-3 conditions and therefore could have led to the accident.

According to Hammond the lack of transparency represented by the sparse minutes and especially the redactions represent a violation of sciences social contract:

At the dawn of recombinant DNA, at the request of the scientific community itself, following the fabled Asilomar conference, the United States government took the position of not regulating genetic engineering in the lab. The deal that big science struck with the government was that, in return for not being directly regulated, principal investigators would take personal responsibility for lab biosafety, involve the public in decision-making, and accept public accountability for their actions.

The NIH Guidelines and Institutional Biosafety Committee system of self-regulation by researchers is founded upon the principal of personal responsibility of PIs and the promise of transparency. The redaction of the researchers identities from IBC meeting minutes, in order to hide the activities of researchers and avoid accountability for accidents, fundamentally contradicts the core principles of the US oversight system and violates the commitments that science made.

Richard Ebright goes further:

There is no justification for UNCs redactionof the names of the laboratory heads andthe identities of pathogens. UNCs redactions violate conditions UNC agreed to in exchange for NIH funding of UNCs research and, if not corrected, should result in the termination of current NIH funding, and the loss of eligibility for future NIH funding, of UNCs research.

Are universities doing too many risky experiments on coronaviruses?

The second concern of researchers contacted by Independent Science News is that unnecessary and dangerous experiments will be conducted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Richard Ebright:

The UNC incident shows that serious laboratory accidents with SARS-CoV-2can occur even in a lab having extremely extensive experience in BSL-3 operations and unmatched expertise in coronavirus research, and underscores the risks associated with uncontrolled proliferation of research on SARS-CoV-2, especially for labs lacking prior experience in BSL-3 operations and coronavirus research.

For this reason Ebright argues that:

It is essential that a national needs-assessment and biosafety assessment be performed for research involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2. It also is essential that a risk-benefit review be performed before approving research projects involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2something that currently does not occurto ensure that potential benefits to the public outweigh the real risks to laboratory workers and the public.

This concern over risks and benefits is shared by Edward Hammond. Using FOIA again he has further discovered that researchers at the University of Pittsburgh (whose identity is redacted) plan to make what Hammond calls Corona-thrax.

In short, according to its Institutional Biosafety Committee, Pittsburgh researchers intend put the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (which allows the virus to gain entry into human cells) into Bacillus anthracis which is the causative agent of anthrax.

The anthrax strain proposed to be used for this experiment is disarmed but, Hammond agrees with Gao et al., (2020) that the balance of risks and benefits appears not to be receiving adequate consideration.

This experiment was nevertheless approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the University of Pittsburgh. But by redacting the name of the laboratory from the minutes and also every name of the members of the committee which approved it, the University has supplied a de facto response to the final question posed by Gao et al.: who will take responsibility for risky coronavirus research?

References

Gao, P., Ma, S., Lu, D., Mitcham, C., Jing, Y., & Wang, G. (2020). Prudently conduct the engineering and synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Synthetic and systems biotechnology,5(2), 59-61.Menachery, V. D., Yount, B. L., Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L. E., Plante, J. A., & Randell, S. H. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.Nature medicine,21(12), 1508-1513.Roberts, A., Deming, D., Paddock, C. D., Cheng, A., Yount, B., Vogel, L., & Zaki, S. R. (2007). A mouse-adapted SARS-coronavirus causes disease and mortality in BALB/c mice.PLoS Pathog,3(1), e5.Thao, T. T. N., Labroussaa, F., Ebert, N., Vkovski, P., Stalder, H., Portmann, J., & Gultom, M. (2020). Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform.BioRxiv.

This article first appeared in Independent Science News.

Link:
Engineered COVID-19-Infected Mouse Bites Researcher Amid 'Explosion' of Risky Coronavirus Research - CounterPunch

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Genetic Engineering – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:52 am

2.08.1 Introduction to Genetic Engineering

With the discovery of DNA as the universal genetic material in 1944 [1] and the elucidation of its molecular structure approximately a decade later [2], the era of DNA science and technology had officially begun. However, it wasnt until the 1970s that researchers began manipulating DNA with the use of highly specific enzymes, such as restriction endonucleases and DNA ligases. The experiments in molecular biology conducted within Stanford University and the surrounding Bay Area in 1972 represent the earliest examples of recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering [3, 4]. Specifically, a team of molecular biologists were able to artificially construct a bacterial plasmid DNA molecule by splicing and combining fragments from two naturally occurring plasmids of distinct origin. The resulting recombinant DNA was then introduced into a bacterial Escherichia coli host strain for replication and expression of the resident genes. This famous example represents the first use of recombinant DNA technology to generate a genetically modified organism.

In general, genetic engineering (Figure 1) refers to all the techniques used to artificially modify an organism in order to produce a desired substance (such as an enzyme or a metabolite) that is not naturally produced by the organism, or to enhance a preexisting cellular process. As a first step, the desired DNA segment or gene is isolated from a source organism by extracting and purifying the total cellular DNA. The DNA is then manipulated using numerous laboratory techniques and inserted into a genetic carrier molecule in order to be delivered to the host strain. The means of gene delivery is dependent upon the type of organism involved and can be classified into viral and nonviral methods. Transformation (nonviral, for bacteria and lower eukaryotes), transfection (viral and nonviral, for eukaryotes), transduction (viral, for bacteria), and conjugation (cell-to-cell, for bacteria) are all commonly used methods for gene delivery and DNA transfer. Because no method of gene delivery is capable of transforming every cell within a population, the ability to distinguish recombinant cells from nonrecombinants constitutes a crucial aspect of genetic engineering. This step frequently involves the use of observable phenotypic differences between recombinant and nonrecombinant cells. In rare instances where no selection of recombinants is available, laborious screening techniques are required to locate an extremely small subpopulation of recombinant cells within a substantially larger population of wild-type cells.

Figure 1. Basic genetic engineering process scheme including replication and expression of recombinant DNA according to the central dogma of molecular biology.

Although cells are composed of various biomolecules including carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins, DNA is the primary manipulation target for genetic engineering. According to the central dogma of molecular biology, DNA serves as a template for replication and gene expression, and therefore harnesses the genetic instructions required for the functioning of all living organisms. Through gene expression, coding segments of DNA are transcribed to form messenger RNAs, which are subsequently translated to form polypeptides or protein chains. Therefore, by manipulating DNA, we can potentially modify the structure, function, or activity of proteins and enzymes, which are the final products of gene expression. This concept forms the basis of many genetic engineering techniques such as recombinant protein production and protein engineering. Furthermore, virtually every cellular process is carried out and regulated by enzymes, including the reactions, pathways, and networks that constitute an organisms metabolism. Therefore, a cells metabolism can be deliberately altered modifying or even restructuring native metabolic pathways to lead to novel metabolic activities and capabilities, an application known as metabolic engineering. Such metabolic engineering approaches are often realized through DNA manipulation.

The first genetically engineered product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for commercial manufacturing appeared in 1982 when a strain of E. coli was engineered to produce recombinant human insulin [5]. Prior to this milestone, insulin was obtained predominantly from slaughterhouse animals, typically porcine and bovine, or by extraction from human cadavers. Insulin has a relatively simple structure composed of two small polypeptide chains joined through two intermolecular disulfide bonds. Unfortunately, wild-type E. coli is incapable of performing many posttranslational protein modifications, including the disulfide linkages required to form active insulin. In order to overcome this limitation, early forms of synthetic insulin were manufactured by first producing the recombinant polypeptide chains in different strains of bacteria and linking them through a chemical oxidation reaction [5]. However, nearly all current forms of insulin are produced using yeast rather than bacteria due to the yeasts ability to secrete a nearly perfect replica of human insulin without requiring any chemical modifications. Following the success of recombinant human insulin, recombinant forms of other biopharmaceuticals began appearing on the market, such as human growth hormone in 1985 [6] and tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 [7], all of which are produced using the same genetic engineering concepts as applied to the production of recombinant insulin.

As a result of the sheer number of applications and immense potential associated with genetic engineering, exercising bioethics becomes necessary. Concerns pertaining to the unethical and unsafe use of genetic engineering quickly arose with the advent of gene cloning and recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, predominantly owing to a general lack of understanding and experience regarding the new technology. The ability of scientists to interfere with nature and alter the genetic makeup of living organisms was the focal point of many concerns surrounding genetic engineering. Although it is widely assumed that the potential agricultural, medical, and industrial benefits afforded by genetic engineering greatly outweigh the inherent risks surrounding such a powerful technology, most of the moral and ethical concerns raised during the inception of genetic engineering are still actively expressed today. For this reason, all genetically modified products produced worldwide are subject to government inspection and approval prior to their commercialization. Regardless of the application in question, a great deal of responsibility and care must be exercised when working with genetically engineered organisms to ensure the safe handling, treatment, and disposal of all genetically modified products and organisms.

As the field of biotechnology relies heavily upon the application of genetic engineering, this article introduces both the fundamental and applied concepts with regard to current genetic engineering methods and techniques. Particular emphasis shall be placed upon the genetic modification of bacterial systems, especially those involving the most famous workhorse E. coli on account of its well-known genetics, rapid growth, and ease of manipulation.

See original here:
Genetic Engineering - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Genetic Engineering: Pros & Cons – E&C

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:51 am

I think the ethics and morals of genetic engineering are very complicated. It intrigues me.

Roger Spottiswoode

Genetic engineering can be defined as manipulation of an organisms genes with the help of biotechnology.

The first official genetic manipulation happened in 1972 by Paul Berg when he combined the DNA from a monkey virus with the lambda virus.

Genetic engineering is a very controversial topic in our society. There are many pros and cons regarding this topic.

In the following, the advantages as wells as the downsides of genetic manipulation are examined.

In order to create a genetically modified organism, scientists first have to choose what gene they want to insert into the organism. With the help of genetic screens, potential genes can be tested with the goal of finding the best candidates.

When a suitable gene has been determined, the next step is to isolate it. The cell which contains the gene has to be opened and the DNA has to be purified.

After isolating the gene, it is ligated into a plasmid which is inserted into a bacterium. Thus, whenever the bacterium divides, the plasmid is also replicated. This leads to a vast number of copies of this gene.

Before inserting the gene into the target organism, it has to be combined with other genetic elements including a terminator and promoter region which end and initiate the transcription.

In the final step, the genetic material is inserted into a host genome. After that, the genetic engineering process is finished.

Genetic engineering is often used by scientists to improve their understanding on how genetics actually work and how they affect our talents and our decisions.

From these findings, scientists can provide insights for medical purposes and thus increase the probability for curing serious diseases in the future.

There are many important areas in the field of medicine in which genetic manipulation could contribute to a better treatment of diseases. This also includes the invention of more effective drugs with less side effects.

Moreover, model animals can be genetically modified in hope to get new insights on how these modifications would work on humans.

For this purpose, using mice in order to examine the effects of genetic manipulation on obesity, cancer, heart diseases and other serious conditions is common practice in nowadays scientific work.

Genetic engineering is also used in the field of agriculture in order to increase yields and also make plants more resistant to pests. Moreover, even genetic experiments on livestock have been performed in the past.

Apart from the use for consumption, plants have also been genetically modified for medical purposes. By changing the gene structure of plants, scientists want to examine if they could produce new drugs which can cure diseases more effectively.

Genetic manipulation is also a field of interest for industrial purposes. Since through genetic engineering processes, all kinds of properties of animals and plants can be modified, this also comes down to a potential increase in revenue for firms if they are able to optimize the gene structure for their purposes. An example for this is the use of genetically modified bacteria for making biofuels.

The rules for genetic engineering vary significantly across different countries. However, there is some consensus on the level of danger genetic modification poses to humanity.

For example, the majority of scientists claim that there is no greater risk to human health from genetically modified crops compared to conventional food.

However, before making this genetically modified food available for public consumption, it has to be tested extensively in order to exclude any possibility of danger.

Moreover, some groups like Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund claim that genetically modified food should be tested more rigorously before releasing it for public consumption.

There are some severe diseases which we will likely never be able to fight if we do not use genetic engineering. From only small manipulations of genes, it is expected that we can fight a significant number of deadly diseases. Moreover, even for unborn babies, there could be genetic diseases detected.

The most prominent example for this kind of genetic disease is the Down syndrome. If our scientists get quite advanced, it is likely that we would be able to cure all genetic diseases, even that of unborn children.

Abortions because of the diagnosis of genetic diseases would no longer be necessary since we could ensure the babies health through genetic manipulation.

Since we can fight many diseases with genetic engineering, the overall life expectancy of people is likely to increase since the dangers of death due to these diseases decreases. Moreover, if we are able to further improve our knowledge regarding genetic modification, diseases could be treated more effectively.

Especially in poor countries where some diseases can cause the death of many people, also the development of genetically modified plants for medical use could be a great measure in order to mitigate the issue. We could also fight diseases which usually cause death for old people and thus prolong their lifes.

Moreover, we can increase their life quality since old people do not have to suffer from these diseases anymore. Thus, genetic engineering may lead to an increase in average life expectancy.

With the help of genetic manipulation, we could increase the variety of foods and drinks for our daily consumption. Moreover, we could further improve the crop yields since we could create sorts of plants that are resistant to all kinds of pests. Thus, we could supply enough food to all people worldwide and fight famine in an effective way.

Additionally, with the help of genetic engineering, it may be possible to create more nutritious food. This would be especially beneficial in countries where people suffer from vitamin deficiencies. If we are able to increase the level of this vitamins in crops or other foods, we could help people to overcome their vitamin deficiency.

If we are able to modify the genetics in a way that they naturally become resistant against pests, we will no longer have to use harmful chemical pesticides. Thus, genetic engineering may also lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides.

With the help of genetic engineering, we may also be able to create certain medical foods which may also replace some of the common injections. Medical foods may also help to prevent certain diseases. Therefore, genetic engineering could also lead to an improvement of medical standards.

Through genetic engineering, it would be possible to create plant species which need less water than the plant species currently used in agriculture.

By replacing the natural species with genetically modified ones, farmers could save plenty of water. This would be especially useful in regions where water shortage is a serious problem.

Water shortage will be a quite big issue in the future due to global warming. If the average temperature increases, water scarcity is likely to also increase.

Thus, with the help of genetic modification, water can be saved and the problem of water shortages may be mitigated to a certain extent.

We may also be able to increase the speed of growth of plants and animals. By doing so, we could produce more food in a given period of time. This may quite important since our world population is growing and therefore the demand for food is increasing.

Through genetic modification, we may also be able to strengthen specific characteristics of plants. This may include that plants are better able to adapt to the global warming problem or that they may become more resistant to changes in their natural conditions.

Many followers of religions are strictly against genetic engineering since they think playing god should not be a task performed by humans. There are also ethic concerns if genetic manipulation should become a valid instrument for changing the course of our lifes.

There is also the argument that diseases are a natural phenomenon and that they have a role in nature since they persisted over a quite long time horizon of evolution. Moreover, there are many scientists who believe that the creation of designer babies could not be in the interest of humanity.

If perfected, parents could choose the eye color, hair color or even the sex of the baby. This could lead to an optimization contest in our society which could also have vast negative effects if pushed too far.

Genetic manipulation can also cause genetic problems if we do not handle it in a proper way. Since science is still on an early stage on the understanding of genetics, manipulations of genes may even do more harm than good at our current state of genetic understanding. Errors could even lead to the development of new diseases or to miscarriages.

Genetic engineering also poses a risk to human health. For example, genetically modified food may lead to long-term health issues. There is just not enough reliable data yet on how harmful genetic engineering really is in the long term. Thus, it may pose serious health effects, some of them currently even unknown by scientists.

Genetic engineering may also lead to the development of allergies against certain food items. Since the DNA-structure is altered in the genetic modification process, food that has former been uncritical for people could now cause allergic reactions.

Genetic engineering is also used to modify plants. Specifically, some plant species have been developed which include their own pesticide which can protect them from animals and insects.

In this way, scientists hope to be able to increase crop yields. However, this altering of genetic code in plants can lead to a resistance of certain insects to the pesticide.

This may pose big problems to the agricultural system since if insects or other pests become resistant against toxins, they are harder to fight.

Thus, in the short run, altering genetic material in plants may have its advantages. However, in the long run, there may be severe issues when it comes to resistance of pest strains.

Some researchers are afraid that genetic engineering may also lead to a resistance against antibiotics for humans. This may lead to serious problems since the treatment of diseases with antibiotics will not be effective anymore.

Genetic engineering would also lead to a reduction in genetic diversity. Since the process of gene manipulation would be quite expensive, only rich people would be able to afford it.

Thus, this would likely lead to human behavior which favors being rich over all other things in order to be able to afford genetic manipulation. As a consequence, the variety of human behavior would be reduced.

Since genetically modified plants often contain own pesticides, they can be quite harmful to animals which are consuming these kinds of plants. Animals can suffer severe diseases from these pesticides and even die.

This problem is especially severe for butterflies and other insects which usually rely on certain plants in their near surroundings. If the natural versions of plants are replaced by genetically modified plants containing pesticides, these insects are likely to suffer from severe health conditions.

Researchers found that residues of genetically modified plants persist on the soil of fields for many months. Thus, the activity of microbes is adversely affected which can lead to a loss in fertility of the soil.

If genetically modified plants are more resistant against pests, chances are that they will displace local natural plant species in the long run. This also contributes to a reduction in genetic variety and can cause the issues related to this phenomenon.

Genetic engineering is an area which can be quite profitable for some firms. However, it is also quite expensive field of study. There are some big companies which have huge control over the seed market and thus also have a big influence on political decisions regarding the admission of genetically engineered plants for agricultural purposes.

Thus, even if there may be dangers from these admissions, companies may still get permission to sell the genetically modified seeds since they may have high influence on political decision makers.

Golden rice, unlike any other sort of rice, also contains provitamin A. It is estimated that a lack of this vitamin causes up to 500.000 cases of blindness across children each year.

Moreover, around one million people even die from a lack of this vitamin. Thus, the introduction of this gene manipulated golden rice could mitigate this problem.

Genes from the mouse-ear cress are studied extensively since they help scientists to understand the nature of a variety of plant characteristics concerning photosynthetic activity, droughts, growth speed and many more.

After finding the genes related to different characteristics of the mouse-ear cress, they can be used to modify the genes of cultivated species in order to improve their yields and resistance.

Even just a small modification in the genes of onions have led to significant effects. On the one hand, the modified onion doesnt make people cry anymore when they cut it. On the other hand, the concentration of healthy compounds like sulphur-containing substances has been increased.

There has been attempts to lower the concentration of saturated fatty acids in soy oil. Moreover, there are also companies trying to increase the level of omega-3 fatty acids of their oils.

In order to fight the osteoporosis problem, genetically modified carrots with a higher concentration of organically bound calcium have been produced. Studies have shown that humans were able to absorb 42% more calcium from the modified carrots than from normal carrots.

There have been several experiments of genetic modification in order to fight abiotic stress with the purpose of increasing frost resistance, drought resistance or the resistance against flooded fields.

Bananas are an important source of calories for many people. However, they are vulnerable to new kinds of diseases. Thus, a pepper gene has been inserted in bananas in order to make them more resistant.

Transferring a gene from a decorative plant into a tomato not only changed the color of the tomato from red to purple, it also enabled the tomato to produce anthocyanin, which prevented mice from getting cancer.

When cutting an apple and leaving it untouched for a while, it usually turns brown. There have been attempts from industries to create a sort of apples called Artic apple, which will no longer turn brown after cutting.

Genetic engineering is a quite controversial topic in our society. It has many advantages and fields of application, but can also have detrimental effects on humans as well as on the whole ecological system.

There are also many religious and ethic concerns against the use of gene manipulation. Thus, as humans, we have to make difficult decisions in the future on whether we want to play god in order to be able to fight deadly diseases or if we do not want to take the risk.

Sources

http://www.fao.org/3/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The

http://www.fao.org/3/y4955e/y4955e06.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

About the author

My name is Andreas and my mission is to educate people of all ages about our environmental problems and how everyone can make a contribution to mitigate these issues.

As I went to university and got my Masters degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

After finishing university, I traveled around the world. From this time on, I wanted to make a contribution to ensure a livable future for the next generations in every part of our beautiful planet.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

Follow this link:
Genetic Engineering: Pros & Cons - E&C

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Joy Adzovie: Genetically Modified Crops is the solution to global food insecurity – Myjoyonline.com

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:51 am

Genetically Modified Crops (GM crops) have generated a lot of controversies over the years. They have sparked debates among farmers and consumers alike with people always particularly paying attention to labeled GM and non-GM commodities on the market.

Some describe is as genetic modification. Some call it genetic engineering. Some call them genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Others describe them as biotechnology products, although biotechnology is a broader term. But all of them refer to the same thing.

A lot of ethical concerns have arisen about GM technology over the years. A very common claim made by some anti-GM activists is that you cannot play God which implies that scientists are defying the natural order of creation. Others are concerned about possible health risks associated with the consumption of GM foods although they have been proven scientifically to be safe, 20 years after their introduction.

In fact, in countries like USA, Brazil and South Africa, more than 80% of all soya beans, maize and cotton are GM crops. But there has been no single evidence of any of these crops negatively impacting the health of consumers in those countries. Before GM food is released for consumption, it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny which has zero tolerance for errors.

So, what exactly are GM crops?

In a bid to optimize yield, farmers have been breeding suitable varieties of crops through conventional selection for several centuries. This has made most wild ancestors of crops such as teosinte of maize go into extinction leaving the elite cultivars which look bigger and develop more desirable traits over the generations. This method of breeding is known as selective breeding or artificial selection which is globally accepted but currently inefficient to feed a fast-growing population anticipated to reach 9.6 billion in the next couple of decades. The exponential rise in population is inversely related to available land area hence the need for a more strategic approach to efficiently utilize the limited land resource to feed the growing global population. Also, pests and diseases, climate change, amidst other abiotic factors severely constrain crop production.

Biotechnology (which includes genetic modification) is an applied science that harnesses the natural biological capabilities of microbial, plants and animal cells for the benefit of mankind. It has changed the quality of life through improved medicine, diagnostics, agriculture and waste management, as well as offered opportunities for innovation and discoveries.

Genetic engineering is used to efficiently and precisely modify targeted plants using advanced biotechnological techniques. Advances in molecular biology have helped eliminate certain gaps in breeding such as reducing time to successfully introduce (introgress) a gene of interest into a commercial crop variety through a process called speed breeding and eradicating linkage drags associated with conventional breeding.

The principle is a simple one. To genetically improve or enhance a crop such as sweet potato which is susceptible to nematode attack, another crop such as tomato that is resistant to nematode attack is identified and the gene of interest is isolated. The gene isolated from the tomato is then introduced into the sweet potato. The host plant becomes a transgenic or genetically modified plant which expresses the desired trait (resistance to nematode) in subsequent generations.

Genetic engineering has had several uses such as in biofortification of crops to increase the concentration and availability of nutrients in crops hence solving hidden hunger problem faced by several African countries. The technology has also been used in the enhancement of plant architecture to optimize land usage and increase yield per area of land cultivated; and improved crops with heightened tolerance or resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses including diseases and weather.

Benefits of GM crops

Some analysis shows that between 1996 and 2015,GM technology increased global production of corn by 357.7 million tons, soybean by 180.3 million tons, cotton fiber by 25.2 million, and canola by 10.6 million tons. GM crops also significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due to this higher productivity. In 2015 alone, they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact of cultivating forests or wild lands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from higher agricultural yield.

Unfortunately, in Africa, only a few countries including South Africa and South Sudan have allowed for the growing of GM crops and are enjoying from these benefits. Ghana has not allowed for the local production of GM crops although parliament passed a law in 2011 to allow for their introduction.

Genetic engineering is a viable way to eradicate hunger and ensure food security in the coming decades hence is pivotal to achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 on eliminating hunger. Yield losses due to changing or fluctuating climate, pests, and diseases, drought, acidic or saline soils and, heat stress can all be remedied by growing genetically modified crops. GM technology is a blessing to mankind and promises a hunger-free future especially in such unsettling times with the COVID-19 pandemic. Lets embrace it.

The author is a Teaching Assistant at the University of Ghana, Graduate, Faculty of Agriculture.

View original post here:
Joy Adzovie: Genetically Modified Crops is the solution to global food insecurity - Myjoyonline.com

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Genetically Modified Crops: The Solution To Global Food Insecurity – Modern Ghana

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:51 am

Some describe it as genetic modification. Some call it genetic engineering. Some call them genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Others describe them as biotechnology products, although biotechnology is a broader term. But all of them refer to the same thing.

In fact, in countries like the USA, Brazil, and South Africa, more than 80% of all soya beans, maize and cotton are GM crops. But there has been no single evidence of any of these crops negatively impacting the health of consumers in those countries. Before GM food is released for consumption, it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny which has zero tolerance for errors.

So, what exactly are GM crops?

Benefits of GM crops

In 2015 alone, they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact of cultivating forests or wildlands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from higher agricultural yield.

Unfortunately, in Africa, only a few countries including South Africa and South Sudan have allowed for the growth of GM crops and are enjoying these benefits. Ghana has not allowed for the local production of GM crops although parliament passed a law in 2011 to allow for their introduction.

View post:
Genetically Modified Crops: The Solution To Global Food Insecurity - Modern Ghana

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Joint Study by Sunway University and Harvard Medical School Shows Gene Therapy Can Advance Cancer Treatment – QS WOW News

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:51 am

Sunway Universitys Professor Jeff Tan Kuan Onn of the Department of Biological Sciences and Professor Poh Chit Laa from the Centre for Virus and Vaccine Research, along with their research collaborators from Harvard Medical Schools Center for Stem Cell Therapeutics and Imaging (USA) as well as University of Tennessee Health Science Centre (USA) have completed a study that has demonstrated the efficacy of molecular gene therapy as a new strategy for cancer treatment.

The research could potentially contribute to shorter treatment time for cancers, reduce treatment costs and minimize the adverse effects of current chemo-drugs in cancer patients such as susceptibilities toward microbial infections, hair loss, and other side effects of chemo-drugs that drastically affect the quality of life of cancer patients undergoing therapy.

Principal Investigator Professor Jeff Tan explained, Currently, chemo-drugs are relatively ineffective against cancer cells that have developed drug-resistance resulting in the need for high doses of chemo-drugs or a combination of chemo-drugs to be administered to patients with cancer cells. Chemo-drug resistant cancer cells also can spread quickly and that drastically reduce the survival rate of cancer patients.

Our research utilizes molecular gene therapy which is the introduction of genetic materials into cancer cells to promote the sensitivity of cancer cells to chemo-drugs. By genetically engineering the cancer cells, we find that we can induce the cancer cells to produce activated pro-death and tumor suppressor proteins that cause cell death and growth arrests in cancer cells. The weakened cancer cells can then be killed relatively easily by the administration of chemo-drugs in smaller doses. Ultimately, the research could contribute to increasing the survival rates of cancer patients undergoing cancer treatments he added.

Co-Investigator Professor Poh Chit Laa said that the effectiveness of the strategy has been demonstrated in mice implanted with human breast cancer cells. In the mice that were treated with the gene therapy, the tumors obtained from the treated mice showed significant tumor cell death and the tumors were 20 times smaller and 32 times lighter in volume and weight, respectively, when compared to the tumors obtained from the untreated mice. The results indicated that gene therapy was able to shrink the tumors significantly, even without treatment with chemo-drugs. Small doses of market-available anti-cancer drugs could then be used to kill the cancer cells effectively. We hope to see our research contribute to better survival rates of cancer patients, and minimize the side-effects associated with anti-cancer drugs, said Professor Poh.

We are currently working on investigations to optimize the delivery of the gene therapy and anti-cancer drugs to human tumors with hopes that this will result in tangible clinical outcomes, said Professor Jeff Tan.

The research project was recently published in the peer-review Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. Collaborators for the research include Lee Yong Hoi, Pang Siew Wai and Samson Eugin Simon from the Department of Biological Sciences, Sunway University; Esther Revai Lechtich and Khalid Shah, of the Center for Stem Cell Therapeutics and Imaging, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Harvard Medical School (USA); Suriyan Ponnusamy and Ramesh Narayanan from the Department of Medicine, Centre of Cancer Drug Discovery, College of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Centre (USA).

The research is a result of a collaboration agreement between Harvard Medical School and Sunway University aimed at developing new cancer therapies targeting drug-resistant cancer cells. In 2016, Professor Jeff Tan visited Harvard University on the Jeffrey Cheah Travel Grant which enabled him to better understand how cancer research projects are conducted as well as examining experimental models used to study cancer biology at Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), a hospital affiliated with Harvard Medical School, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

To read the jointly published article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00432-020-03231-9

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Status, Players, Types, Applications, and Forecast 2020-2026|Addgene, CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, Merck KGaA…

Posted: July 9, 2020 at 2:51 am

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Research Report

Los Angeles, United States, July 8th, 2020, The report on the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market is comprehensively prepared with main focus on the competitive landscape, geographical growth, segmentation, and market dynamics, including drivers, restraints, and opportunities. It sheds light on key production, revenue, and consumption trends so that players could improve their sales and growth in the Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market. It offers a detailed analysis of the competition and leading companies of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market. Here, it concentrates on the recent developments, sales, market value, production, gross margin, and other important factors of the business of top players operating in the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market.

With deep quantitative and qualitative analysis, the report provides encyclopedic and accurate research study on important aspects of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market. It brings to light key factors affecting the growth of different segments and regions in the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market. It also offers SWOT, Porters Five Forces, and PESTLE analysis to thoroughly examine the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market. It gives a detailed study on manufacturing cost, upstream and downstream buyers, distributors, marketing strategy, and marketing channel development trends of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market. Furthermore, it provides strategic bits of advice and recommendations for players to ensure success in the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market.

Get PDF Sample Copy of the Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) :

https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1704011/covid-19-impact-on-global-crispr-and-crispr-associated-cas-genes-market

Some of the Important Key player operating in this Report are: , Caribou Biosciences, Addgene, CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, Merck KGaA, Mirus Bio LLC, Editas Medicine, Takara Bio USA, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Horizon Discovery Group, Intellia Therapeutics, GE Healthcare Dharmacon CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes

Segmental Analysis

The report has classified the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes industry into segments including product type and application. Every segment is evaluated based on growth rate and share. Besides, the analysts have studied the potential regions that may prove rewarding for the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes manufacturers in the coming years. The regional analysis includes reliable predictions on value and volume, thereby helping market players to gain deep insights into the overall Railway Signaling System industry.

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Segmentation by Product

, Genome Editing, Genetic engineering, gRNA Database/Gene Librar, CRISPR Plasmid, Human Stem Cells, Genetically Modified Organisms/Crops, Cell Line Engineering CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Segmentation by Application

Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Academic Institutes, Research and Development Institutes

Regions and Countries

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

Key Questions Answered

What is the size and CAGR of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market?

Which are the leading segments of the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market?

What are the key driving factors of the most profitable regional market?

What is the nature of competition in the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market?

How will the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market advance in the coming years?

What are the main strategies adopted in the global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes market?

Enquiry for Customization in the Report @https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1704011/covid-19-impact-on-global-crispr-and-crispr-associated-cas-genes-market

Table of Contents

1 Study Coverage1.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Product Introduction1.2 Market Segments1.3 Key CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Manufacturers Covered: Ranking by Revenue1.4 Market by Type1.4.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Growth Rate by Type1.4.2 Genome Editing1.4.3 Genetic engineering1.4.4 gRNA Database/Gene Librar1.4.5 CRISPR Plasmid1.4.6 Human Stem Cells1.4.7 Genetically Modified Organisms/Crops1.4.8 Cell Line Engineering1.5 Market by Application1.5.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Growth Rate by Application1.5.2 Biotechnology Companies1.5.3 Pharmaceutical Companies1.5.4 Academic Institutes1.5.5 Research and Development Institutes1.6 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Industry Impact1.6.1 How the Covid-19 is Affecting the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Industry

1.6.1.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Business Impact Assessment Covid-19

1.6.1.2 Supply Chain Challenges

1.6.1.3 COVID-19s Impact On Crude Oil and Refined Products1.6.2 Market Trends and CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Potential Opportunities in the COVID-19 Landscape1.6.3 Measures / Proposal against Covid-19

1.6.3.1 Government Measures to Combat Covid-19 Impact

1.6.3.2 Proposal for CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Players to Combat Covid-19 Impact1.7 Study Objectives1.8 Years Considered 2 Executive Summary2.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Estimates and Forecasts2.1.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue 2015-20262.1.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales 2015-20262.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size by Region: 2020 Versus 20262.2.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Retrospective Market Scenario in Sales by Region: 2015-20202.2.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Retrospective Market Scenario in Revenue by Region: 2015-2020 3 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Competitor Landscape by Players3.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Manufacturers3.1.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Manufacturers (2015-2020)3.1.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Market Share by Manufacturers (2015-2020)3.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Manufacturers3.2.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Manufacturers (2015-2020)3.2.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Share by Manufacturers (2015-2020)3.2.3 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Concentration Ratio (CR5 and HHI) (2015-2020)3.2.4 Global Top 10 and Top 5 Companies by CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue in 20193.2.5 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3)3.3 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Price by Manufacturers3.4 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Manufacturing Base Distribution, Product Types3.4.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Manufacturers Manufacturing Base Distribution, Headquarters3.4.2 Manufacturers CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Product Type3.4.3 Date of International Manufacturers Enter into CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market3.5 Manufacturers Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans 4 Breakdown Data by Type (2015-2026)4.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size by Type (2015-2020)4.1.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Type (2015-2020)4.1.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Type (2015-2020)4.1.3 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Average Selling Price (ASP) by Type (2015-2026)4.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Type (2021-2026)4.2.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast by Type (2021-2026)4.2.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast by Type (2021-2026)4.2.3 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Average Selling Price (ASP) Forecast by Type (2021-2026)4.3 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Share by Price Tier (2015-2020): Low-End, Mid-Range and High-End 5 Breakdown Data by Application (2015-2026)5.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size by Application (2015-2020)5.1.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Application (2015-2020)5.1.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Application (2015-2020)5.1.3 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Price by Application (2015-2020)5.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Application (2021-2026)5.2.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast by Application (2021-2026)5.2.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast by Application (2021-2026)5.2.3 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Price Forecast by Application (2021-2026) 6 North America6.1 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes by Country6.1.1 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Country6.1.2 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Country6.1.3 U.S.6.1.4 Canada6.2 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Type6.3 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Application 7 Europe7.1 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes by Country7.1.1 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Country7.1.2 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Country7.1.3 Germany7.1.4 France7.1.5 U.K.7.1.6 Italy7.1.7 Russia7.2 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Type7.3 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Application 8 Asia Pacific8.1 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes by Region8.1.1 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Region8.1.2 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Region8.1.3 China8.1.4 Japan8.1.5 South Korea8.1.6 India8.1.7 Australia8.1.8 Taiwan8.1.9 Indonesia8.1.10 Thailand8.1.11 Malaysia8.1.12 Philippines8.1.13 Vietnam8.2 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Type8.3 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Application 9 Latin America9.1 Latin America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes by Country9.1.1 Latin America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Country9.1.2 Latin America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Country9.1.3 Mexico9.1.4 Brazil9.1.5 Argentina9.2 Central & South America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Type9.3 Central & South America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Application 10 Middle East and Africa10.1 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes by Country10.1.1 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales by Country10.1.2 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue by Country10.1.3 Turkey10.1.4 Saudi Arabia10.1.5 UAE10.2 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Type10.3 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Facts & Figures by Application 11 Company Profiles11.1 Caribou Biosciences11.1.1 Caribou Biosciences Corporation Information11.1.2 Caribou Biosciences Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.1.3 Caribou Biosciences Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.1.4 Caribou Biosciences CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.1.5 Caribou Biosciences Recent Development11.2 Addgene11.2.1 Addgene Corporation Information11.2.2 Addgene Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.2.3 Addgene Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.2.4 Addgene CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.2.5 Addgene Recent Development11.3 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS11.3.1 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS Corporation Information11.3.2 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.3.3 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.3.4 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.3.5 CRISPR THERAPEUTICS Recent Development11.4 Merck KGaA11.4.1 Merck KGaA Corporation Information11.4.2 Merck KGaA Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.4.3 Merck KGaA Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.4.4 Merck KGaA CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.4.5 Merck KGaA Recent Development11.5 Mirus Bio LLC11.5.1 Mirus Bio LLC Corporation Information11.5.2 Mirus Bio LLC Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.5.3 Mirus Bio LLC Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.5.4 Mirus Bio LLC CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.5.5 Mirus Bio LLC Recent Development11.6 Editas Medicine11.6.1 Editas Medicine Corporation Information11.6.2 Editas Medicine Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.6.3 Editas Medicine Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.6.4 Editas Medicine CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.6.5 Editas Medicine Recent Development11.7 Takara Bio USA11.7.1 Takara Bio USA Corporation Information11.7.2 Takara Bio USA Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.7.3 Takara Bio USA Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.7.4 Takara Bio USA CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.7.5 Takara Bio USA Recent Development11.8 Thermo Fisher Scientific11.8.1 Thermo Fisher Scientific Corporation Information11.8.2 Thermo Fisher Scientific Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.8.3 Thermo Fisher Scientific Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.8.4 Thermo Fisher Scientific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.8.5 Thermo Fisher Scientific Recent Development11.9 Horizon Discovery Group11.9.1 Horizon Discovery Group Corporation Information11.9.2 Horizon Discovery Group Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.9.3 Horizon Discovery Group Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.9.4 Horizon Discovery Group CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.9.5 Horizon Discovery Group Recent Development11.10 Intellia Therapeutics11.10.1 Intellia Therapeutics Corporation Information11.10.2 Intellia Therapeutics Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.10.3 Intellia Therapeutics Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.10.4 Intellia Therapeutics CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.10.5 Intellia Therapeutics Recent Development11.1 Caribou Biosciences11.1.1 Caribou Biosciences Corporation Information11.1.2 Caribou Biosciences Description, Business Overview and Total Revenue11.1.3 Caribou Biosciences Sales, Revenue and Gross Margin (2015-2020)11.1.4 Caribou Biosciences CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Products Offered11.1.5 Caribou Biosciences Recent Development 12 Future Forecast by Regions (Countries) (2021-2026)12.1 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Estimates and Projections by Region12.1.1 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast by Regions 2021-202612.1.2 Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast by Regions 2021-202612.2 North America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast (2021-2026)12.2.1 North America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast (2021-2026)12.2.2 North America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast (2021-2026)12.2.3 North America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Country (2021-2026)12.3 Europe CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast (2021-2026)12.3.1 Europe: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast (2021-2026)12.3.2 Europe: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast (2021-2026)12.3.3 Europe: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Country (2021-2026)12.4 Asia Pacific CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast (2021-2026)12.4.1 Asia Pacific: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast (2021-2026)12.4.2 Asia Pacific: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast (2021-2026)12.4.3 Asia Pacific: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Region (2021-2026)12.5 Latin America CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast (2021-2026)12.5.1 Latin America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast (2021-2026)12.5.2 Latin America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast (2021-2026)12.5.3 Latin America: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Country (2021-2026)12.6 Middle East and Africa CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast (2021-2026)12.6.1 Middle East and Africa: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Sales Forecast (2021-2026)12.6.2 Middle East and Africa: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Revenue Forecast (2021-2026)12.6.3 Middle East and Africa: CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Size Forecast by Country (2021-2026) 13 Market Opportunities, Challenges, Risks and Influences Factors Analysis13.1 Market Opportunities and Drivers13.2 Market Challenges13.3 Market Risks/Restraints13.4 Porters Five Forces Analysis13.5 Primary Interviews with Key CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Players (Opinion Leaders) 14 Value Chain and Sales Channels Analysis14.1 Value Chain Analysis14.2 CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Customers14.3 Sales Channels Analysis14.3.1 Sales Channels14.3.2 Distributors 15 Research Findings and Conclusion 16 Appendix16.1 Research Methodology16.1.1 Methodology/Research Approach16.1.2 Data Source16.2 Author Details

About Us:

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

Continued here:
CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Status, Players, Types, Applications, and Forecast 2020-2026|Addgene, CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, Merck KGaA...

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Perspective on Pharma: Moving from academia to industry – EPM Magazine

Posted: July 8, 2020 at 3:58 am

In this Perspective on Pharma feature, Jung Doh, market development scientist at Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, explains how they entered the pharmaceutical industry after an unexpected opportunity arose.

As an early career scientist with a good number of years of graduate and post-doctoral training (two post-docs, actually), I made an unexpected leap: from academiawhere I thought I would spend my entire professional lifeto industry. And though it wasnt a move Id initially planned, Im the first to say that Im incredibly happy to have ended up here, since its afforded me research and personal growth opportunities I didnt even know I wanted.

After I received my doctorate in biology, I completed a post-doc in HIV research and a second, NASA-funded post-doc in the effects of microgravity on genomes. My dreamand a very concrete goal for many yearswas to become a professor at a research university, running my own lab in an area I was passionate about.

But then life intervened: my wife was offered a teaching position in Indianapolis that she couldnt pass up, so we relocated. After a few months of fruitless application to teaching and research positions at local universities, I started looking elsewhere. There are a lot of pharma and biotech companies in Indianapolis, so I started exploring some of them. In the interview process, (and much to my surprise), I discovered that they shared many of the same passions and goals I did: to benefit human health and life in fundamental and lasting ways.

The company where I ended up and still work, Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, was particularly interesting to me, since one of their key focuses was on next generation sequencing (NGS). Toward the end of my Ph.D. and in my post-doc training, NGS was becoming more routine, and I was fortunate to be able to learn and apply the techniques in my own research.

So I joined Beckman Coulter Life Sciences, which offers a range of scientific research instruments used to study complex biological problems and to advance scientific breakthroughs, first as a marketing application scientist, and then expanding into a dual role as application scientist and proof of principle scientist. In the latter, I worked with customers to develop modified protocols and tools to help research be done more efficiently. I then became product manager for our genomics product line, and as of this year, I have yet another new role, as market development scientist. In this role, I engage with the scientific community to learn from them, as well as support them to perform research better, faster, and with superior results and outcomes. I also bring the learnings and techniques gained from these collaborations to create collateral to offer other labs, or help our internal team develop product offerings for a specific need.

After making the leap into industry, I never looked back. There are, of course, benefits to both sectors. In academia, theres a certain degree of freedom and job securityonce youre tenured, that is. But it takes a lot to get tenured these daysthe funding and grants and a constant stream of publicationsparticularly in biology and related disciplines.

Though industry may seem more constrained at first glance, in many ways, theres as much or more opportunity, since there are a plethora of techniques to learn and apply in novel ways. And since technology evolves so rapidly, especially in genetic engineering and diagnostics, it seems like there are always new methods to master.

Related to this aspect, and alluded to earlier, is the strong sense that my and my colleagues work is genuinely translating into helping people across the globe. I got an inkling of that in the interview process, but its also been a palpable part of my work here. With the current pandemic, for instance, the company came together, and, within a matter of weeks, we were able to offer labs RNA extraction solutions for the virus, which are so critical right now. I felt honoured to be part of a company doing such great work, with flexibility and speed. It definitely speaks to the versatility of the industry.

Beyond the scientific, Ive learned about areas seemingly outside of science, but that are actually integral parts of the business. When I was product manager, for instance, I learned how to manage people, run meetings, build financial models, approach marketing and sales, and many other facets of the business. I had no formal business training going in, but you learn by doing, from your manager and peers. I ended up really loving all these other parts of the business of sciencetheyre challenging, but incredibly rewarding, because they push you beyond your comfort zone into uncharted areas. For that, industry has opened up areas that I didnt even know would be important, let alone fun and rewarding.

Finally, Ive been surprised and heartened by the strong sense of family that exists within a company. Part of this is felt through the opportunities for development, which is evident in all the stages I went through and all the roles Ive had. Theres a sense that staff are supported to grow as scientists and as people, which has made my accidental leap into industry all the more fulfilling.

For young scientists, theres a lot to think about when making decisions about what to study and what track to follow. I would encourage people to not get too hung up on tracks, but to stay open to the possibilitiesin other words, dont get too stuck on academia as the only option just because its where youve done your training. What really matters is having a passion for what you do, and following your interests. Genetic engineering is an area thats exploded in recent years, and will likely grow in the coming years. Ive been lucky that my own work has translated so tangibly into helping people, and at a large scalebut the same is true for many other areas in medical science. So carry onyou may end up in a totally different place from where you started, and thats not a bad thing at all.

Follow this link:
Perspective on Pharma: Moving from academia to industry - EPM Magazine

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

This Company Wants to Rewrite the Future of Genetic DiseaseWithout Crispr Gene Editing – WIRED

Posted: July 8, 2020 at 3:58 am

That can spell real trouble for the bacteria on the receiving end of this gene shuffle. If those MGEs insert themselves into critical gene regions, its bye-bye bacteria. You can think about MGEs the same way you can think about mutations, says Peters. We wouldnt have evolved without them, but 99.99999 percent of them are bad. Bacteria are trying at any cost to stop MGEs from destabilizing their genome.

The Nobel Prize-winning botanist Barbara McClintock discovered the first known class of MGEs, called transposons, or jumping genes, in maize in 1931. Her technique for staining the plants chromosomes allowed her to see when chunks from one would jump to another. But for many decades, the purpose of all these repeated sections of self-rearranging DNA eluded scientists. Some went so far as to dub the MGE-heavy sections of the human genome junk DNA. It was hard to get funding to study it. But little by little, researchers like Peters discovered that MGEs in bacteria were actually highly-evolved systems for recognizing DNA, writing it, and moving it around. In fact, Crispr itself appears to have evolved from a self-synthesizing transposon, as NIH researchers Eugene Koonin and Kira Makarova described in 2017. (Crispr codes for a protein that cuts specific, recognizable pieces of DNA stored in its genetic memory bank. The transposons allowed Crispr to start amassing that memory bank in the first place.)

Earlier that year, Peters and Koonin published a paper describing how this evolution can sometimes come full circle. They found one type of transposon that had stolen some Crispr genes to help it move between bacterial hosts. They realized that these molecular tools for cutting, copying, and pasting were constantly being shuttled between MGEs, phages, and bacteria to be used alternately as a means of offense or defense. At the end of that paper, Peters and Koonin wrote that these systems could potentially be harnessed for genome-engineering applications.

Not long after, Peters says, he started getting calls from commercial interests. One of them was from Jake Rubens, Tesseras Chief Innovation Officer and co-founder. In 2019, the company began a sponsored research collaboration with Peters Cornell lab around the discovery of new MGEs with genome engineering potential. (Tessera also has other research partnerships, but company officials have not yet disclosed them.)

MGEs come in a few flavors. There are transposons, which can cut themselves out of the genome and hop into a different neighborhood. Retrantransposons make a copy and shuttle that replica to its new home, expanding the size of the genome with each duplication. They both work by having special sequences on either end that define their boundaries. In between are genes for making proteins that recognize those boundaries and either excise them out in the case of transposons, leaving a gap. Or in the case of retrotransposons, copy them, via an RNA-intermediate, into new locations. There are other classes, too, but these are the two that Tessera executives are interested in. Thats because you can add a new string of code between those sequencessay a healthy, non-mutated version of a disease-causing geneand let the MGEs machinery do the work to move that therapeutic DNA into a patients chromosomes.

For the past two years, the companys team of bioinformaticians have been mining public databases that house the genome sequences of hundreds of thousands of bacterial species that scientists have collected from all over the world. In those reams of genetic data, theyve been prospecting for MGEs that might be best suited for making these kinds of therapeutic DNA changes.

So far, company scientists have identified about 6,000 retrotransposons (what Tessera calls RNA writers) and 2,000 transposons (DNA writers) that show potential. Tesseras team of 35 scientists have been conducting experiments in human cells to understand how exactly each one works. Sometimes, a promising, naturally-occurring gene writer will get tweaked further in Tesseras lab, to be more precise or go to a different location. The company hasnt yet demonstrated that any of its gene writers can eliminate an inherited disease. But in mouse models, the team has consistently been able to use them to insert lots of copies of a large green fluorescent protein gene into the animals genomes as a way of proving that they can reliably place designer DNA.

See more here:
This Company Wants to Rewrite the Future of Genetic DiseaseWithout Crispr Gene Editing - WIRED

Posted in Genetic Engineering | Comments Off

Page 32«..10 20..313233 34..40 50..»

Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing – WION

Engineered COVID-19-Infected Mouse Bites Researcher Amid ‘Explosion’ of Risky Coronavirus Research – CounterPunch

Genetic Engineering – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Genetic Engineering: Pros & Cons – E&C

Joy Adzovie: Genetically Modified Crops is the solution to global food insecurity – Myjoyonline.com

Genetically Modified Crops: The Solution To Global Food Insecurity – Modern Ghana

Joint Study by Sunway University and Harvard Medical School Shows Gene Therapy Can Advance Cancer Treatment – QS WOW News

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Status, Players, Types, Applications, and Forecast 2020-2026|Addgene, CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, Merck KGaA…

Perspective on Pharma: Moving from academia to industry – EPM Magazine

This Company Wants to Rewrite the Future of Genetic DiseaseWithout Crispr Gene Editing – WIRED

Categories

Archives

Recommended Sites

Contact Us

Recent Posts