Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

By Michileen Martin| Published 2 days ago

According to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds actress Rebecca Romijn, if her Trek hero Una Chin-Riley needs a sympathetic ear while Starfleet has her locked up in between seasons, maybe her old Marvel character can come by to listen to her woes. Romijn recently joined her castmates at the 56-Year Mission Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, where she talked about the two characters shes best known for. The actress old fans that her Strange New Worlds character and the Brotherhoods Mystiquewho she played in the X-Men filmsshare some uncanny (we apologize for nothing) similarities.

As reported by TrekMovie, Romijn commented on the similarity between her Star Trek and Marvel roles when asked a question about the upcoming Season 2 of Strange New Worlds. What also is really strange about it, and I probably shouldnt say this, but I kept going back to when I was playing Mystique as a mutant, Romijn mused. I had little bits of dialogue in season 2 that were literally word-for-word things I said in theX-Menseries before. But they are related. They are two characters, and I relate them.

If youve watched Season 1 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, then you can probably guess the nature of the similarities between Una and Romijns Marvel character. Early in the inaugural season of Strange New Worlds, we learn that Una is secretly an Illyrian; a race of genetically-engineered people, and the genetically-engineered are not allowed within a hundred light years of Starfleet service. Season 1 ends on a cliffhanger, with Unas heritage somehow being discovered and Captain Pikes (Anson Mount) First Officer being arrested by Starfleet.

The parallels between Star Treks Una and Marvels Mystiqueor any of Marvels mutantsseem pretty clear. Like Mystique, Una is being attacked for her heritage, and for being different.

Though its still a little surprising for Romijn to say Una and Mystique share word-for-word dialogue. While Jennifer Lawrences version of the character has a lot more to say, Romijns version doesnt speak often and when she does, shes usually speaking through one of her many disguises and in someone elses voice. Considering how sparse her actual dialogue was in the films, its conceivable the lines shared between the characters was no accident.

It will be interesting to see how Romijns Star Trek characters story is resolved in the seasons of Strange New Worlds to come. Throughout Treks narrative, the ban on genetic engineering is often depicted as the last remaining prejudice of the otherwise utopian Federation. But we know Unas story wont end with the Federation doing away with that prejudice, because a century laterin Star Trek: Deep Space Ninewhen the genetic alterations Julian Bashir (Alexander Siddig) was forced to endure as a child are uncovered, that engineering is still illegal in the Federation and Bashir almost loses everything because of it.

We also know that Una Chin-Riley cant remain on Strange New Worlds forever since the showrunner hopes to take the story into the timeline of Star Trek: The Original Series, and Unas character was off the ship by then. Not to mention that when the Season 1 finale gave us a glimpse into a possible future, it showed us the Enterprise without Una. Whether or not Romijns Star Trek and Marvel characters ultimately share the same fate remains to be seen.

The rest is here:
Star Trek Actor Says Their Trek Hero Is Just Like Their Marvel Character - Giant Freakin Robot

Two new pieces of research out of the University of NSW in Sydney have shone new light on how the precursors to blood stem cells occur in animals and humans, and how they may be induced artificially.

In a study published in Cell Reports, researchers demonstrated how a simulation of an embryos beating heart, using a microfluidic device in the lab, led to the development of human haematopoietic or blood stem cells.

A second study in Nature Cell Biology, revealed the cells in mice embryos that are responsible for blood stem cell creation within the aorta.

Both studies are significant steps towards understanding how, when, where and which cells are involved in the creation of blood stem cells, which could one day eliminate the need for blood transfusions or stem cell transplantation from donors.

Haematopoietic or blood stem cells are the cells that give rise to all other blood cells from white and red blood cells to platelets and more in a process called haematopoiesis. Haematopoietic stem cell transplants are often performed for some cancer patients, after treatment (such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy) kills the patients own stem cells.

Scientists have been attempting to make blood stem cells in the lab to solve the problem of donor blood stem cell shortages for the last few decades.

Blood stem cells used in transplantation require donors with the same tissue-type as the patient, says senior author of the Cell Reports study Robert Nordon, associate professor inthe Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering.

Manufacture of blood stem cells from pluripotent stem cell lines would solve this problem without the need for tissue-matched donors, providing a plentiful supply to treat blood cancers or genetic disease.

Pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to produce many different types of cells, including blood stem cells, but can only be sourced from animal or human embryos. On the other hand, induced pluripotent stem cells are generated directly from somatic cells adult cells that have already differentiated into their cell type through genetic manipulation.

But scientists still have a lot to learn about how to do it safely in the lab.

Get an update of science stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Scientists already knew that endothelial cells lining the aorta in the heart change into blood stem cells in embryonic development.

Part of the problem is that we still dont fully understand all the processes going on in the microenvironment during embryonic development that leads to the creation of blood stem cells at about day 32 in the embryonic development, says first author of the Cell Reports study Dr Jingjing Li, apostdoctoral fellow at the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering.

So we made a device mimicking the heart beating and the blood circulation and an orbital shaking system which causes shear stress or friction of the blood cells as they move through the device or around in a dish.

Not only did the 3cm by 3cm microfluidic device create blood stem cell precursors that went on to undergo haematopoiesis and differentiate into different blood cells, but it also created the tissue cells of the embryonic heart environment that are crucial to this process.

What weve shown is that we can generate a cell that can form all the different types of blood cells. Weve also shown that it is very closely related to the cells lining the aorta so we know its origin is correct and that it proliferates, says Nordon.

We are working on up-scaling manufacture of these cells using bioreactors, says Li.

Researchers from UNSW Medicine and Health were also doing their own research in mice to identify the cells that regulate this process.

They found that cells known as Mesp1-derived PDGFRA+ stromal cells can convert both embryonic and adult endothelial cells into blood cells.

While more research is needed before this can be translated into clinical practice including confirming the results in human cells the discovery could provide a potential new tool to generate functioning haematopoietic cells.

Using your own cells to generate blood stem cells could eliminate the need for donor blood transfusions or stem cell transplantation. Unlocking mechanisms used by nature brings us a step closer to achieving this goal, says co-senior author of the Nature Cell Biology paper Professor John Pimanda, from the Prince of Wales Clinical School at UNSW Sydney.

View post:
Scientists closer to making blood stem cells in the lab - Cosmos

Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market

The Oncolytic Virus Therapies market is expected to show positive growth in the forecast period (20222032) due to the increased prevalence, randomized, controlled non-crossover trials with potential benefits. Some of the main reasons for this novel therapys insignificant revenues are its limitations, no statistically significant benefit in overall survival, and intense competition from immune checkpoint inhibitors due to their efficacy and manageable side effects.

DelveInsightsOncolytic Virus Therapies Market Insightsreport includes a comprehensive understanding of current treatment practices, Oncolytic Virus Therapies emerging drugs, market share of individual therapies, and current and forecasted market size from 2019 to 2032, segmented into 7MM [the United States, the EU5 (theUnited Kingdom,Italy,Spain,France, andGermany),Japan].

Some facts of the Oncolytic Virus Therapies market report are:

Download the report to understand which factors are driving Oncolytic Virus Therapies market trends @Oncolytic Virus Therapies market forecast.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Overview

Oncolytic viruses (OVs), considered an effective anticancer strategy in recent years, are a special type of virus that are naturally or genetically engineered and can replicate preferentially in tumor cells and inhibit tumor growth. Oncolytic Virus Therapies is a treatment using a virus that can replicate itself to kill cancer cells. Many species of viruses exist, but not all can be designed to be oncolytic viruses (OV). The typical features of these OVs must include being non-pathogenic, the ability to target and kill the cancer cells, and the capacity to be transformed to express tumor-killing factors through genetic engineering methods.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Epidemiology Segmentation

According to DelveInsight estimates, there were approximately 632K Oncolytic Virus Therapies targeted patient pool in the 7MM in 2021.

Among the 7MM countries, the US had the highest incidence of Oncolytic Virus Therapies in 2021.

The Oncolytic Virus Therapies market report proffers epidemiological analysis for the study period 20192032 in the 7MM segmented into:

Download the report to understand which factors are driving Oncolytic Virus Therapies epidemiology trends @Oncolytic Virus Therapies Epidemiological Insights.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Pipeline Therapies and Key Companies

Learn more about the Oncolytic Virus Therapiestherapies in clinical trials @Drugs forOncolytic Virus Therapies Treatment

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Market Dynamics

Oncolytic viruses have many advantages over other tumor immunotherapies, including high killing efficiency, precise targeting, fewer side effects or drug resistance, and low cost, fueling the oncolytic virus therapies market growth. Furthermore, as certain oncolytic viruses, such as Adeno oncolytic viruses, have demonstrated antitumor memory, they could be used as a cancer vaccine.

Scope of the Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market Report

Discover more about emerging oncolytic cancer therapies in development @Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Clinical Trials

Table of Contents

1.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketKey Insights

2.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketReport Introduction

3.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Market Overview at a Glance

4.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketExecutive Summary

5.

Disease Background and Overview

6.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesTreatment and Management

7.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesEpidemiology and Patient Population

8.

Patient Journey

9.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesEmerging Drugs

10.

7MMOncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Analysis

11.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Outlook

12.

Potential of Current and Emerging Therapies

13.

KOL Views

14.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Drivers

15.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Barriers

16.

Unmet Needs

17.

SWOT Analysis

18.

Appendix

19.

DelveInsight Capabilities

20.

Disclaimer

21.

About DelveInsight

AboutDelveInsight

DelveInsight is a leading Business Consultant, and Market Research firm focused exclusively on life sciences. It supports pharma companies by providing comprehensive end-to-end solutions to improve their performance.Get hassle-free access to all the healthcare and pharma market research reports through our subscription-based platformPharmDelve.

Media ContactCompany Name: DelveInsight Business Research LLPContact Person: Ankit NigamEmail: Send EmailPhone: +19193216187Address:304 S. Jones Blvd #2432 City: AlbanyState: New YorkCountry: United StatesWebsite: https://www.delveinsight.com/report-store/oncolytic-virus-cancer-therapy-market

Read the rest here:
Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 33% by 2032 | DelveInsight - Digital Journal

Circularity is one way to help make the green transition happen. Now, everything can get a second life, and even what we used to consider trash can be a valuable resource. The same goes for industrial byproducts. If producing biogas and methane from organic trash is nothing new, that does not hold true for green hydrogen, which researchers are trying to produce from this kind of waste.

At the German Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) research is now focusing on producing carbon-negative hydrogen using biomass and plant residues. Scientists are exploring several HyBECCS (Hydrogen Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) approaches to get H2 from waste materials that would otherwise remain trash. From bacteria-based bioreactor treatments to thermochemical gasification approaches, the options are numerous.

The German Environment Agency reports that 15 million tonnes of organic waste is produced in the country including from household waste, agricultural waste and waste from food production. This portion either goes to composting plants or incinerators. The European Environment Agency also stressed the relevance of treating this waste properly in order to generate heat or produce sustainable fuels. So, getting hydrogen from waste would create added value.

In previous projects where waste from the food industry was converted to hydrogen, I was struck by how large the carbon dioxide fraction was. The main achievement was to produce a source of biogenic CO2that is a by-product of hydrogen production. This means that H2 can be used in a climate-neutral way and carbon dioxide can be stored, Johannes Full explains. He is head of the group Sustainable Development of Biointelligent Technologies at Fraunhofer IPA in Stuttgart.

Microbiologists are building bacteria that convert CO2 into food

Is your hamburger or protein shake going to be made out of CO2in the future? Yes, if its up to microbiologist Nico Claassens.

The proper management of organic waste helps to reduce emissions. When it is dumped in landfills, carbon dioxide and methane are released some of the major greenhouse gases that pollute the air. One of the main methods of processing waste in biological treatment facilities is anaerobic digestion which is an alternative to composting. It entails placing waste in a container devoid of air. Bacteria then break down the waste and allow methane to be captured, while the remaining matter can serve as a sustainable type of fertilizer.

In one of the approaches that Full and his team are experimenting with, so-called purple bacteria thats their color are the key players. These photosynthetic bacteria can convert agriculture and food industry waste into hydrogen. In other words, they can produce H2 through light. Professor Robin Ghoshs team from the Institute of Biomaterials and Biomolecular Systems at the University of Stuttgart found a way to grow this bacteria without light. This is a considerable breakthrough, as there is no need for more sophisticated photobioreactors to grow them, explains Full.

According to the researcher, one more year of research will help the concept move from a lab scale to a bigger one.

One other approach that researchers are currently testing is methane pyrolysis. This process converts biogas into hydrogen and solid carbon. As the ancient Greek etymology suggests literally dislodging with fire it involves the use of fire to dissolve the material. Moreover, this thermal decomposition occurs at over 500 degrees, without the presence of any air.

Full: On one hand, we get a gas fraction which contains hydrogen. On the other, we get solid carbon as a product. This makes storing it easier- no further conversion is needed.

With his team, hes experimenting a number of methods to get hydrogen out of biowaste.

Another avenue that the Fraunhofer team is currently testing is dark fermentation. This process can be viewed as one part of the whole biogas production procedure. Essentially, the same waste streams are fed into a bioreactor as is the case in the normal biowaste treatment procedure but for a shorter period of time. This ensures that hydrogen and carbon dioxide are not converted to methane.

The main disadvantage of this process is that we dont get a very high yield of hydrogen from it compared to other methods, Full emphasizes. On the flip side, its an energy-efficient procedure that can be done in standard bioreactors. It is an upgrade to biogas processing in that it provides another product in addition to biogas, which is hydrogen.

Full also cites the genetic manipulation of bacterial streams. According to him, genetic engineering will lead to bacteria behaving the way researchers want them to. Microorganisms will then play a role in either biohydrogen and HyBECCS processes or fermentation. Higher yields and better efficiency can be achieved this way. If we make bioprocesses more adaptable to waste by developing intelligent and self-adaptive control systems, we will arrive at even more efficient, biointelligent systems, the team leader adds.

Your weekly innovation overviewEvery sunday the best articles of the week in your inbox.

Food waste separation can be done with minor investment thats what a Lithuanian city is showing

Separating food waste is a relatively new practice in Lithuania. Dealing with it is one of the hardest tasks for municipalities particularly in the early stages.Since 2019, as per the national waste management plan, cities with over 50,000 inhabitants were required to start implementing a separate collection system for this waste.

The Stuttgart cohort also worked on a new model of a hydrogen-based economy. Industrial Hydrogen Hubs in Baden-Wrttemberg is the name of a study that showed the potential of green hydrogen to cover specific energy demands such as heavy goods traffic in the area. Specifically, several hydrogen production hubs were set up as part of the model. For the model to be successful, the strategic positioning of the hubs played a key role.

We thought about how to bring about hydrogen economies without having to overhaul the whole energy system. The basic premise was to think about decentralized production and use hubs through, for example, the use of biogas, photovoltaics, wind power or biogas plants. The next step was to find a local market where we wouldnt have to build a large infrastructure. This way, we wanted to prove that decentralized production is feasible. Then all of these nuclei can continue to grow towards the goal of a hydrogen economy, Full concludes.

Read the original here:
Don't call it waste - it can be turned into hydrogen if you handle it right - Innovation Origins

In May, scientists at the John Innes Centre in Norwich unveiled a new breed of biofortified tomato so rich in vitamin D that a single gram of its dried leaves could deliver an adults recommended daily amount 60 times over.

It is hoped the super crop could go some way to tackling the vitamin D deficiencies that affect a billion people worldwide and was a breakthrough only possible thanks to a scientific process known as gene editing.

From creating disease-resistant pigs, to elite wheat capable of producing high yields in tough conditions, the applications for the technology which makes precise alterations to existing genes using molecular tools appear to be vast.

And with the arrival of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill currently working its way through the House of Commons, it also seems the UK could be one step closer to allowing such products on shelves.

Many would welcome a relaxation of the rules around genetic engineering. It could, they say, bolster food security, combat climate change and lower food prices against the backdrop of a worsening cost of living crisis. But for others its an ill-thought out move toward deregulation that could bring disastrous consequences. So, whats the truth?

When Boris Johnson became prime minister in July 2019 he was clear on his post-Brexit plans for genetic engineering, insisting he would liberate the UKs extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules. Those rules have meant a de facto ban on all types of genetic engineering in the EU since 2001, with only a single approved GM crop, an insect resistant maize, currently grown in EU fields (albeit genetically modified animal feed is in widespread use).

It had been hoped by many researchers that gene editing would face a different fate. While GM involves the insertion of foreign DNA into a plant or animal, gene editing edits existing genes and thereby creates mutations that could otherwise have occurred naturally. But in 2018, the European Court of Justice rejected the distinction, and placed gene edited organisms under the same heavy restrictions as GMOs.

With Brexit though, came an opportunity for the UK to take a different view. And it hasnt wasted any time in doing so. Gene editing is a tool that could help us tackle some of the biggest challenges we face around food security, climate change and biodiversity loss, said environment secretary George Eustice in September 2021, as he confirmed the decision to move ahead with legislation that will see genetically-edited crops able to enter the UK market for the first time if they can gain approval via the novel foods process.

Its a step in the right direction, says Johnathan Napier, a professor at Rothamsted Research. But its still quite a small step forward, he says. Its not going to transform UK agriculture or the UK food chain, which is a shame.

Having said all that, it is incredibly welcome. Its the first liberalisation of regulation around genetic technologies that the UK has seen in, well, forever. The direction of travel while we were in the EU was that the hurdles got higher and higher, and the regulatory burden got greater and greater, so to be going in the other direction is incredibly encouraging and needs to be celebrated.

The powerful tool could help create crops more resilient against extreme weather, less susceptible to disease, less reliant on fertiliser and even more nutritious, explains Napier. All which would leave UK agriculture better able to withstand some of the many shocks currently being thrown at it. Shocks that include soaring food prices.

As a relatively new addition to sciences suite of genetic engineering tools, theres currently a lack of comprehensive research to say conclusively whether gene editing can help drive down costs, but there is research on genetic modification that suggests a link. Most recently, a report by the Council for Agricultural Science & Technology (CAST) in 2021 claimed that if the US were to ban biotech crops it would raise food prices by $14bn per year, and cost the US economy up to $4.9bn. Thats based on findings that non-GMO products currently carry premiums of up to 61.8% on shelf.

But Pat Thomas, director of civil society group Beyond GM, disputes any idea that the planned relaxation of rules could ease the cost of living crisis. Its an incredibly cynical argument, she says. The fact is there are no gene edited crops ready to go in the ground right now, and the crisis were experiencing is right now. The first crops could be as long as five years away from production.

It ignores the commercial reality too, points out Paula Kover, of the University of Baths department of biology and biochemistry. The technology is expensive to develop, so companies developing them will be looking for profit, and the idea that gene edited food will necessarily be cheaper is not an obvious consequence, she says. I can think of a lot of niche markets developing for crops with extra vitamins and nutrients, and these are upscale products that will not act to give the majority of people access to cheaper food.

For government to think otherwise is just the latest example of it being completely seduced by technology as a silver bullet, believes David Rose, lead of the Change in Agriculture group at Cranfield University. Be it robots picking strawberries or super crops defying climate change, theyre looking for short-term technology fixes to solve problems, many of which they should have anticipated and had a plan for, but didnt. They think technology is going to be the cavalry that rides in and solves everything when it wont.

What it will do is pander to pressure from commercial and academic quarters, believes Thomas. On the one hand, we have a very strong biotech research establishment here and they comprise a very strong lobby, we shouldnt underestimate the influence of that. Plus, the need to strike up new trade deals outside the EU, with markets that already embrace genetic engineering such as the US, Canada, Brazil and Australia, will be weighing on the governments rush to push legislation through, in her view.

The result of these muddied and even misguided motivations is legislation that is not fit for purpose according to Rose. On one level, it lacks clarity, he says, with vaguely defined terms as to exactly what type of genetically engineered products or techniques will be allowed. Thomas even goes so far as to argue the bill is so wide in scope that it could theoretically allow for genetically modified products too (when challenged on this, Defra reiterated the legislation would only apply to genetic changes that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods).

More broadly it fails to consider the full impact of allowing gene edited foods into the food supply chain, says Rose. Thats a view that was backed up by the Regulatory Policy Committee in June, which said the governments impact assessment was weak.

In the absence of a wider government strategy to say this is the vision we have for future farming and the place of gene editing within it, then its really hard to see whether the checks and balances are in place to make sure its used in a responsible way, adds Rose. It could, for example, be used to further intensify production systems.

Thats what deeply concerns UK dairy farmer Patrick Holden, CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust. It will perpetuate the decline of agricultural biodiversity, both of plants and animals. Already the gene pool used in UK agriculture is dangerously low, he points out. Weve lost a lot of the diversity that used to characterise agriculture. That leaves crops more exposed, not less, he adds. For that reason he and others take issue with the portrayal of GE as a less invasive alternative to GMOs. Not only is the distinction meaningless to the majority of shoppers, they say, but its a mischaracterisation. In fact, in a recent interview, Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist at Kings College London, said: At each one of the stages of the gene editing process, you introduce unintended genetic alterations running into the hundreds of thousands. You end up with a plant that carries a high burden of unintended DNA damage with unknown downstream consequences.

The government has not looked at the long-term effects of deregulation and liberalisation, sums up Thomas. Its looked at what the impact might be on researchers but not on natural or organic food businesses, the environment or farming. This bill is a free-for-all and unworkable at almost every level.

Given the long and controversial history of genetic engineering in this country its no surprise perhaps that the Genetic Technology Bill, which could see gene edited crops cultivated in UK fields in as little as two years, has reignited passionate views.

For Holden it is a disaster waiting to happen. The complexity of the genome is beyond the ken of the most sophisticated plant breeders in the world and yet with their arrogance and hubris they think they can redesign plants and animals to suit our purposes, he says. The arrogance of the science community is breathtaking and yet another manifestation of the way in which policy and science in agriculture has departed from the wisdom of the farming community that understand agriculture from the ground up, he says.

But for Cathie Martin, professor of plant sciences at the John Innes Centre, whose team were behind the gene edited vitamin D-rich tomatoes, that isnt fair.

Were proper scientists, and we dont want to produce something thats dangerous or rule the world, she laughs. Yes, the Genetic Technology Bill may have been drafted a little hastily, she accepts, and isnt highly defined but it will be the role of regulatory authorities such as Defra and the FSA to ensure that no unintended product gains approval. And they will judge that on a scientific basis, not on the basis of campaigners, or NGOs claims that its GM coming through in a different guise. They will do it on the basis of whether theres a risk to either the environment or food safety.

Even though the genetic mutation that allows tomatoes to produce extra vitamin D could have arisen naturally, the gene edited crop will be subject to the same stringent novel foods process that the likes of insect proteins or CBD are faced with, for example.

For Martin and many other scientists, the benefits outweigh the risks. Its a bit like Frankenstein, she adds. The worry is a monster will be created that we wont be able to control. But with plenty of regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent that happening, she and others insist, thats simply science fiction.

Though the leaves of tomato plants naturally produce vitamin D at very low levels, scientists at Norwichs John Innes Centre found that by turning off a specific molecule in the plants genome they could not only dramatically boost levels of production of the sunshine vitamin in the plants leaves, but also in the fruit itself.

The leaves could be used to create vegan vitamin D3 supplements, or for food fortification, say scientists.

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) costs European pig producers nearly 1.5bn a year. But by deleting a small section of DNA that leaves pigs vulnerable to the disease, scientists at the University of Edinburghs Roslin Institute in 2018 created a GE breed with natural immunity.

As one researcher put it: The resulting pig is still 100% pig or 99.9999999% of a pig. The only thing missing is susceptibility to PRRS.

In September 2021, Rothamsted Research was granted permission by Defra to run field trials for its strain of GE low-acrylamide wheat.

The wheat has been edited to reduce levels of the naturally occurring amino acid asparagine, which is converted into acrylamide when bread containing the grain is baked or toasted.

In April, planting began on a field trial of both GE and GM barley that is hoped could reduce reliance of the crop on chemical fertilisers.

The gene edited variant has been altered to suppress the way in which it reacts with soil fungi. Scientists hope to create barley that more efficiently absorbs water from the soil, water that contains nitrogen and phosphorus two nutrients currently supplied often via synthetic fertilisers.

Go here to read the rest:
Can gene editing ease the cost of living crisis? - The Grocer

These trees once ruled the canopies of much of Appalachia, with billions of mature American chestnut trees that towered in leafy forests from Maine to Mississippi. But around the beginning of the 20th century, an exotic fungus nearly drove the tree out of existence. Today, they still sprout in the wild but rarely reach maturity. Outside of growers orchards, scientists say, the tree is functionally extinct.

[Kyra] LoPiccolo and other researchers at SUNY ESF are growing American chestnut trees in the fields of Syracuse that can withstand that infection: Half of the nuts produced with the genetically engineered pollen will carry DNA meant to fight the blight. The researchers are now ready to sow the seeds in the wild, pushing to become the first in the United States to use genetic engineering to bring a forest tree back to its former glory.

But first, the project is seeking approval not only from three federal agencies but also from chestnut aficionados concerned about altering the genome of a beloved tree.

Anne Petermann, executive director of Global Justice Ecology Project, which helped organize the campaign against Darling 58, is worried the project will lead to morecommercial use of transgenic trees, to produce paper and lumber. She noted biotech firms hoping to make greater use of genetically modified organisms have helped fund SUNY ESFs work.

There are studies coming out weekly that show just how much we dont know about forest ecosystems, she said.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

See the original post here:
Gene editing could revive the American chestnut tree and help fight climate change but familiar anti-biotechonology activist critics will have none...

Teresa Martin| Columnist

Thethylacine, aka the Tasmanian tiger,more properly, Thylacinus cynocephalus. Meet this creature of myth and reality, a sad tale of human destruction and most recently of human hubris, all under the guise of technology power.

Thylacinus cynocephalusonce lived across Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania. This meat-eating marsupial looked a bit like a brindled dog with an oversized head as reflected in the translation of its scientific name, which roughly means pouched dog with wolf head. They appear in fossils and in aboriginal rock paintings, representing thousands of years on the planet. At some point, the population retreated primarily to Tasmania, but well into modern humanitys lifeline thylacines roamed across dry forests, wetlandsand grasslands.

Their short soft brown fur carried distinct stripes across their backs and down their long tails. They weighed in at about 60 pounds imagine something like a striped brown Labrador retriever with a pouch for baby thylacines. They were shy around humans and often surrendered without a struggle. We know this because in 1924 settlers brought sheep to Tasmania and forever altered the ecosystem. The Van Diemans Land company set a bounty on thylacines in 1830 and by 1910 they were essentially gone. In 1936 the last known thylacine died in captivity and they were officially declared extinct in 1986.

But this summer a company named Colossal announced a partnership with an Australian lab. The goal? To de-extinct the thyacine.

It seems that a large donor gave 10 years of funding to establish the TIGRR lab TIGRR stands for Thylacine Integrated Genomic Restoration Research lab whose mission is to develop technologies for marsupial conservation and restoration. Colossal Bioscience (https://colossal.com/) says it brings that tech.

The company self-describes itself as the de-extinction company … a breakthrough bioscience and genetic engineering company that builds radical new technologies to advance the field of genomics. You might remember the company name as one attached to an effort to resurrect the woolly mammoth. Although frozen mammoth carcasses have yielded DNA for genetic engineering, it isnt quite clear that this large furred creature of the ice age could thrive in our 21st-century de-forested and heating climate.

Reviving an industry: Will a federal workforce training program help invigorate Cape Cod's graying fishery industry?

In contrast, the company says the thylacine's environment remains largely the same as it was at the time of its slaughter,making it an excellent candidate for restoration and re-wilding. It says it will use CRISPR genetic engineering and nine almost simple steps to undo the past.

According to an article by Andrew Pask of the University of Melbourne published on Phys.org (https://phys.org/news/2022-03-australia-extinct-thylacine.html) last March, steps 1 and 2 are already complete. The team says it has the full thylacine genome in hand; a genome basically provides a DNA recipe for an organism. It also has the full genome for a close living relative, in this case, the dunnart, also known as the marsupial mouse. Researchers will use dunnartDNA as a starting template.

The third step, now underway, aligns the two different genomes and identifies every point of variance, creating a master plan for DNA modification. Step 4 gathers dunnart STEM cells, steps 5-7 develop the assistive reproductive techniques to create and implant embryos into the host mother, and steps 8 and 9 sort out how a tiny marsupial baby, once born, can be nourished into a living thylacine.

Exclusive: Three people die in 8 weeks at Barnstable County jail. Here's what we know

Remember, marsupials arrive in the world far smaller and less developed than mammals and the pouch provides a sort of external gestation period which explains how a smaller animal could potentially birth a much larger one.

This all sounds sort of sci-fi and gee-whiz! A whole whoosh of euphoria over how mankind can undo mankinds mistakes, restore the ecosystem, and revive the planet gushes forth in each announcement. But is playing a god of resurrection really any better than playing the god of death?

Clean waters: Orleans will take its plan to prohibit fertilizer to town meeting voters

As a species, our destruction of other species either directly or through wanton disregard for the ecosystem and environment has marked our travel through time. Some argue we represent the worst invasive species ever, wiping out all in our path. This is decidedly not good, and yet as a species, we seem unable to change. Right now, the global collective of homo sapiens seems bent on erasing the great rainforests, with their diversity and still-unknown depths, not to mention altering the base climate of our world and disrupting pretty much every other living organism. Yet, at the same time, we seem to think tech can Band-Aid it all.

Sorry, mom, I broke the vase. But dont worry, I have magic glue to put it back together again!

Marvel fans might recognize the same ethical question in the fictional storyline of the Blip/Snap, when Thanos snapped his fingers while wielding the Infinity Stones and blipped a random half of all living things in the universe out of existenceonly to have it made right five years later by Bruce Banner reversing the blip with Infinity Stones recovered from a different timeline. Are we both Thanos and Bruce Banner rolled into one?

Below the surface: What marine animals swim in the deep water canyons southeast of Cape Cod? New England Aquarium knows

Tech always brings with it a whole host of deeper questions, questions of ethics and value and hubris. Just because we can, should we? Can we do anything because godlike we believe we can reverse it? And if we do reverse it, what unintended consequences emerge?

We killed the passenger pigeon, the great auk, the dodo, the eastern moa, the blue walleye, the silver trout, the Bali tiger, the golden toad and the thylacine. The list goes on, at a length that should leave us chilled and resolved to change our ways. Instead, we seem to focus on finding tech to clean up after us. The thylacine may well deserve its rebirth but make no mistake, technology does not make us a hero nor redeem prior actions. So as you marvel at the potential of tech resurrection, dont forget to look into our historical mirror at the same time.

Teresa Martin of Eastham lives, breathes and writes about the intersection of technology, business and humanity.

Gain access to premium Cape Cod Times content by subscribing. Check out our latest offer.

Other columns by Teresa Martin:

Who knew shrimp shells could make this building material 40% stronger?

Dodd's decision: 'When it comes to privacy, no one can remain complacent'

The Power of Pup is far more satisfying than artificial intelligence

Link:
Colossal to de-extinct the Tasmanian tiger. Is it a safe thing to do? - Cape Cod Times

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Nanotechnology refers to the scientific study, research and reengineering of the properties of atoms and molecules. There's a great deal of controversy around this science, as it is intended to reshape the building blocks of matter. Like with all growing fields, there are costs and benefits, and due to its infinitely broad usage for applications, nanotech will impact our daily life in a profound way we have only started to see.

Introduced to the world in 1959 by physicist Richard Feynman, nanotechnology was conceptualized as synthesis through the reconstitution of atoms and molecules.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, nanotech has been one of the globe's fastest-growing industries, evolving each year significantly with great new applications. We've seen incredible innovation in energy, robotics, agriculture, health, computation, military intelligence and manufacturing. Those are just a small sampling of the sectors in which nanotech has been a great leader in advancement.

Related: Forget Toothpaste. This Nifty Toothbrush Scrubs Teeth Clean With Nanotech.

Through particle rescaling and manipulation, nanotech creates chemical bonds that are sometimes hundreds of times more potent than steel. These bonds increase a material's surface area, allowing for more atoms to interact with it, making the material more robust, more conductive and more malleable than its natural-sized counterparts. How the particles are manipulated affects how dense or light, big or small, visible or transparent, reflective or absorptive to waves a nanotech product is. The objects of particle manipulation are referred to as nanomaterials.

Nanomaterials are classified into two main categories: naturally occurring (such as blood hemoglobin) and artificially developed (such as quantum dots). Of the artificially generated nanomaterials, there are four common types: carbon-based, metal-based, dendrimers and nanocomposites. While carbon-based and metal-based nanomaterials are formed through the chemical manipulation of elements to derive micro-matter constructs, dendrimers either expand outwardly from a strong core or inwardly from a solid outer shell, and nanocomposites combine different nanomaterials and larger-scale high-volume materials. To be considered a nanomaterial, the engineering must operate within the parameters of a nanoscale's nanometer, which translates to a billionth of a meter.

Nanotechnology is already widely present in our daily life. You may not realize it, but it is in everything from textiles to food packaging to transportation. For example, in recent years, nanotech has been used to create lightweight road, sea, air and space vehicles. In the medical sector, nanotech has allowed for better imaging tools, diagnostic technology and even within medicine itself, including delivering antigens to compromised cells while avoiding healthy cells. And how was that accomplished? The answer might seem like it's out of the pages of sci-fi-- but it's happening today.

Nanobots are nanoscopic machines programmed to deliver a specific task. They've been functional on both bioorganic matter and inorganic matter and have been central in many of today's significant advancements in virology, clean energy, water filtration and 3D printing. Nanobots can deliver medicine, move as a unit to improve the source collection of wind and solar resources, clean contaminated water and link together to replicate a 3D object and enact the point of its function.

Currently, nanotech is researching several world-changing initiatives. Self-repair of structural surfaces is now in the testing phase. This could be revolutionary for transportation infrastructure, allowing nanotech to bind to damaged roads, bridges and railways to correct structural issues and material deficits.

Synthesis of enzymes is also in the works, as is synthetic ethanol. A finite resource naturally derived from fossils, ethanol has various uses, from fuel to household cleaning products to acting as a binding agent for personal care products.

Robust rechargeable industrial battery systems are another avenue of exploration for which nanotech actively seeks real-world testing. Imagine the generation of an infinite amount of electricity. This may soon be possible through nanobots deployed as self-adaptive sensors, working in tandem with nanomaterials fabricated into self-servicing generators capable of powering cities with environment-friendly energy.

Another investigational innovation is replacing computer microchips with nanochips capable of fitting your computer and phone's entire memory on infinitesimal storage units. Since nanotransistors already exist and have been commercially operating since 2014, we may not be so far off from this development.

Gene-sequencing and genetic engineering are incorporating nanotech in illness eradication and the study of tissue-and-organ regeneration. While this is one of the farthest from practical implementations of nanotech's practical applications, it poses significant promise. We've poised to eventually engineer sequencing at the gene level to help eliminate hereditary illnesses and replace the sequences with positive characteristics and traits.

While it can be argued that the future of nanotech is happening now, we have barely scratched the surface. For example, the meeting of nanotechnology with self-realizing AI has long been theorized for its potential benefits in predicting, resolving and managing environmental crises and space exploration through analyzing universal patterns and behaviors. Though still far away, the applications to make climate concerns a thing of the past or develop new climate systems on otherwise inhabitable planets are pretty plausible.

Projected to reach $33.63 billion by 2030, from its current $1.76 billion market size value, nanotech is well on its way to trending as one of the current fastest-growing sciences, not just due to its percentage increase, but in its continued collaboration with industries across the board, and sharing budget of their market share. Future applications are genuinely limitless through nanotechnology, and living during this age of exploration is exciting.

Related: Think Big With a Nanotechnology Business

Go here to read the rest:
The Future of Nanotech, the World's Tiniest Industry - Entrepreneur

What could be more natural than organically grown Golden Promise barley, used to make craft-brewed pale ale?

As one artisan brewer boasts:

The Golden Promise malt, showcased in this pale ale, is an early-maturing spring barley from Scotland. It has a very clean sweetness and a prominent biscuity flavour that is perfect for UK-style pale ales with their rich and malty flavour profiles.

Only hang on a minute.

Golden Promise was produced in 1965 by irradiating barley seeds with gamma rays from Cobalt 60 isotopes provided by the Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment to a profit-seeking plant breeding firm.

It was one of the first fruits of this new high-tech approach to scrambling the genomes of plants by busting their DNA in random ways in the hope of haphazardly generating valuable new forms of variation. Known as mutation breeding, some 2500 crop varieties have been bred in this way.

And yet Golden Promise is considered natural none the less. Indeed, it is a favourite crop among organic farmers.

By contrast, consider the case of genetically modified Bt maize.

This maize variety has never been near a nuclear plant but has had placed within it an entirely natural gene derived from an entirely naturally occurring bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis indeed a bacterium that has itself been used as a crop protection product by organic farmers since the 1930s.

Bt insect resistance is a technology that reduces the need for man-made chemical sprays, relying instead on proteins made within organisms arguably a far more natural product, therefore, and certainly in any normal definition of the word organic.

Yet organic farmers reject this crop variety as unnatural, even though it uses the same protein molecules as their own sprays, because they say it is not natural for a plant to contain a bacterial gene.

Actually, thats not true. We now know that there is horizontal gene transfer between plants and bacteria, quite naturally, in the wild.

For example, the sweet potato contains a number of genes that were transferred naturally from Agrobacterium sometime during the last few million years. God in this case had played God.

But this was not known at the time the organic movement set up their rules, and they decided that a line has been crossed by genetic engineering that was not crossed by using the bacterium as a pesticide or by irradiating barley with gamma rays. And they have chosen not to change their rules since it became known.

So what are the criteria by which we decide when something has become unnatural.

The word natural is the single biggest selling point on any food item in a grocery store. Its widely used and there are absolutely no rules about when you can or cannot use it.

But what does it mean in the context of food?

Does it mean made by a natural, biological process within a living wild organism and untouched thereafter in which case almost nothing qualifies?

Does it mean organic? That is to say, farmed but without chemical fertiliser? In which case its a very arbitrary definition.

Does it mean healthy? That is to say low-carb, low-fat, low-sugar or something? In which case you have to face the fact that lots of natural things are bad for you deadly nightshade, destroying angel mushrooms etc.

Does it mean ethical? That is to say produced without exploiting somebody or some animal? Well, why is that natural? A pigeon shot by a farmer is surely natural meat but it would hardly get the RSPCAs approval.

Does it mean sustainable? That is to say, needing the least land and resources? Well, the best way to use the least land, water and other imports is probably to farm as intensively as possible.

The fact is, there is no single common definition or understanding of the term natural, a conclusion also reached by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in a 2015analysis paperentitledIdeas about naturalness in public and political debates about science, technology and medicine.

Indeed, the Nuffield report found that the diversity and ambiguity of ideas associated with naturalness mean that people end up speaking at cross-purposes, or talking past one another using identical terms with different meanings and thereby fail to fully understand one another.

The report warned thateffective communication on the ethics of science, technology, and medicine may be hindered, rather than helped, by appeals to naturalness.

In a series of recommendations, the Nuffield report advised organisations and individuals contributing to public and political debates about science and technology, including policy-makers, politicians and journalists, to avoid using the terms natural, unnatural and nature without conveying the values or beliefs that underlie them.

The report also warned that manufacturers and advertisers of food and health products should be cautious about describing a product as natural given the ambiguity of this term and that it is unlawful to mislead consumers.

Since the terms natural and organic appear to have become synonymous and even more widely used in food marketing and advertising since the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced its report, I will simply conclude with the thoughts of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in an open letter to the Prince of Wales some years ago:

Agriculture has always been unnatural. Our species began to depart from our natural hunter-gatherer lifestyle as recently as 10,000 years ago too short to measure on the evolutionary timescale. Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a Pekinese is a genetically modified wolf. Playing God? Weve been playing god for centuries!

Matt Ridley is a member of the Science for Sustainable Agriculture advisory group. He is the author of numerous books on science. He has been a journalist and a businessman and served for nine years on the House of Lords. He lives on a farm in Northumberland. Follow him on Twitter@mattwridley

A version of this article was originally posted at Science for Sustainable Agriculture and is reposted here with permission. Find Science for Sustainable Agriculture on Twitter @SciSustAg

Read more:
Viewpoint: The 'natural food' sham 'Effective communication on the ethics of science may be hindered by appeals to naturalness' - Genetic Literacy...

In Japan, Toray Industries, Inc., says it has developed the worlds first 100% bio-based adipic acid, a raw material for nylon 66 (polyamide 66), from sugars derived from inedible biomass. This achievement came from using a proprietary synthesis technique combining the companys microbial fermentation technology and chemical purification technology that harnesses separation membranes.

The company has started to scale up its capabilities in this area. It will test polymerization of nylon 66, develop production technology, conduct market research, and take steps to commercialize applications for this bio-based adipic acid by around 2030.

Nylon 66 has been used for many years in fibers, resins, and other applications due to its exceptionally durable, strong, and rigid properties. Pressures to develop eco-friendly nylon 66 have risen in recent years amid a growing awareness of the need to realize a sustainable society. One challenge is that conventional chemical synthesis for producing adipic acid, the raw material of nylon 66, generates a greenhouse gas called dinitrogen monoxide.

Toray was the first in the world to discover microorganisms that produce an adipic acid intermediate from sugars. The company reconfigured metabolic pathways within microorganisms to enhance production efficiency by applying genetic engineering technology, which artificially recombines genes to streamline synthesis in microorganisms. It also employed bioinformatics technologies to design optimal microbial fermentation pathways for synthesis. Quantity of the intermediate synthesized by microorganisms has increased more than 1,000-fold since the initial discovery, and the efficiency of synthesis has improved dramatically.

Toray is using reverse osmosis separation membranes to concentrate the intermediate in the purification process. This approach is more energy efficient than other methods that do not use these membranes. This bio-adipic acid production technique is free of dinitrogen monoxide emissions, unlike the manufacturing processes for petroleum-derived adipic acid, and is expected to help combat global warming.

Tags: Adipic acid, Inc., Japan, Toray Industries

Category: Fuels

Go here to read the rest:
Toray says it has developed the worlds first 100% bio-based adipic acid - Biofuels Digest