Page 1,051«..1020..1,0501,0511,0521,053..1,0601,070..»

The Promise and Uncertainties of Antibody Testing for Coronavirus – UCSF News Services

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:45 am

As people around the world try to envision recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, much attention has been paid to antibody testing as a way to identify people who have developed immunity to the virus.

Perhaps those with antibodies could be given immunity passports, allowing health care workers to return to the front lines, and a subset of the population to reopen the economy.

Even as scientists at UC San Francisco and across the world rush to develop and validate antibody tests for the novel coronavirus, they are cautious about how the tests should be used. Too much is still unknown about immunity to COVID-19 and the performance of the tests, they say.

We spoke to three UCSF experts pathologist Alan Wu, PhD; infectious disease specialist Chaz Langelier, MD, PhD; and pathologist Jonathan Esensten, MD, PhD about how antibody testing works, who it can be most useful for and why we should be cautious.

Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins that bind to specific foreign substances in our bodies, such as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. They fight infection by blocking parts of the virus needed to infect a cell or by marking them for destruction by the immune system.

Antibodies are produced by immune cells known as B cells. The incredible range of antibodies we can produce stem from the incredible range of B cells we have. When we are infected with a virus, a small set of B cells recognizes the virus and, over a couple of weeks, with the help of other immune cells known as T cells, they learn to produce stronger and stronger antibodies to the virus. These B cells mature and multiply into factories for antibody production known as plasma cells.

Experts generally believe that if you develop antibodies to the novel coronavirus, then you have at least temporary immunity from reinfection, although they stress that this is still unproven and that the parameters of that immunity are still unknown.

Everybody wants to be believe that if I have antibodies, Im immune, said Wu. Well, we cant be certain of that. The antibody test for this virus hasnt been around long enough to show that nobody can get infected again if they have antibodies.

Both optimism and caution stem from what we know about other coronaviruses. Studies of the seasonal coronaviruses that cause the common cold have shown that people are protected from reinfection by the same strain for at least a year before immunity wanes. For the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, antibodies appear to persist for several years, but no studies have intentionally attempted to re-infect people, since these are deadly diseases.

For the novel coronavirus, known as SARS-CoV-2, a study in two rhesus macaques that had recovered from the virus found that they could not be reinfected a few weeks later.

So that experiment tells us that, at least in a non-human primate model, antibody mediated responses likely protect them from recurrent infection, said Langelier. What we don't know is whether that extends completely to humans or not. And we don't know how long that protection lasts.

In South Korea, more than a hundred patients have tested positive again after being discharged from the hospital, but its not clear that these represent re-infection, or are the result of faulty testing.

Langelier also noted that the strength of the immune response can vary from person to person. A recent, not yet peer-reviewed study of 175 recovered COVID-19 patients found that only 70 percent developed high antibody titers, meaning their blood contained high concentrations of antibodies to the virus, whereas 25 percent had lower titers, and 5 percent had no detectable antibodies.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized only four antibody tests for COVID-19, but it has also loosened restrictions to allow companies to sell antibody tests that have not been scientifically reviewed by the FDA, as long as the companies validate their own tests and notify the FDA. More than 90 companies now have tests on the market, but its not clear how well they work and how they compare to each other.

Antibody tests, also known as serological tests, are nothing new and are commonly used to confirm vaccinations or to monitor infections like HIV. Though methods vary, an antibody test essentially uses an antigen, which mimics a part of the virus, as bait, and has a signal that registers whether antibodies have taken the bait.

Some tests can be done at home with a finger-prick of blood while others require laboratory machines that can run hundreds of samples per hour. Some measure a type of antibody known as IgG, others measure additional types such as IgM and IgA.

At UCSF, several teams are working with companies to validate new SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests by providing blood samples from COVID-19 patients collected throughout the course of their illness. The validation process is essential to help ensure that the tests are sensitive, meaning they identify all the true positives, and specific, meaning they identify all the true negatives. One concern is that some tests may also detect antibodies for other coronaviruses and give a false positive and false assurance - to someone who does not actually have antibodies for SARS-CoV-2.

With so much still unknown about immunity to COVID-19 and a spate of antibody tests that have not been rigorously validated, experts worry that widespread antibody screening may give those who test positive a false sense of security.

I think that to do mass screening is premature, said Wu. There needs to be some plan to determine what is the goal and objective of doing such a thing.

One goal may be to allow health care workers who have antibodies to return to work in high-risk situations. Certainly understanding whether health care workers have been exposed and may be immune is one of the hopes for antibody testing, said Langelier. Unfortunately, we dont yet know how test positivity correlates with immunity, and there is likely assay to assay variability.

Experts caution that antibody testing is not meant to diagnose active infections of COVID-19 because antibodies can take many days to develop. A recent study in Nature of patients with mild COVID-10 found that only half developed antibodies by day seven after onset of symptoms, with all patients developing antibodies by day 14.

I think its important to know that early during infection, a negative antibody test does not mean someone is uninfected and that it takes time to develop an antibody response, said Langelier.

Of course, the advantage of antibody testing is its ability to pick up tell-tale signs of infection long after symptoms have faded and even if the person never showed symptoms. In contrast, diagnostic tests, such as a PCR test, detect viral RNA and work only in the narrow window of time about two weeks when the virus is in the body.

We know that a sizable fraction of people have asymptomatic infections or very mild infections and never get tested. So theres no way to know they were infected without antibody testing, said Langelier. Antibody testing could help us see the true prevalence of COVID-19, calculate more accurate mortality rates, and better model the future spread of the disease by showing how many people are still vulnerable to infection.

UCSF is already embarking on seroprevalence studies in certain communities to better understand the spread of COVID-19. Researchers aim to test as many as possible of the 2,000 residents of Bolinas, Calif, over a four-day period and then the 5,700 residents in the Mission District of San Francisco over another four-day period. Residents can voluntarily receive antibody testing as well as diagnostic testing for active COVID-19 infection.

Its likely that the true prevalence of COVID-19 is many times higher than currently reported through diagnostic testing, but most experts agree that we are far from having enough immunity in the population to quell transmission known as herd immunity.

Even if its 5 percent immunity, which I think is high, the disease will still be able to spread widely among the 95 percent. We will be nowhere close to herd immunity at that point, said Esensten.

Moreover, a positive antibody test doesnt guarantee immunity. We have not proven that the antibodies that are being produced are in fact neutralizing antibodies, said Wu. Its possible, for example, that an antibody may bind to a part of the virus that the virus doesnt need to infect our cells. In order to be neutralizing, an antibody must prevent the virus from infecting our cells.

Whether we produce neutralizing antibodies will also determine whether we can take antibodies from someone who has recovered from COVID-19 and use them to help someone still fighting the infection. Known as convalescent plasma therapy, this technique has been used since the 19th century to treat infectious diseases including measles, influenza and Ebola. Experimental trials of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 have been done in China, with some anecdotal benefit, and are underway in New York City.

Remove this text and use the embed button to add an image.

If you've recovered from COVID-19 and would like to donate plasma for clinical trials, please contact [emailprotected].

Learn More

With no proven treatments for COVID-19 and a vaccine still at least a year away, researchers see convalescent plasma as one more avenue of hope. Its very, very old and theoretically useful, but its not a very well-tested approach, said Esensten. I would call convalescent plasma a treatment of desperation, but thats where we are right now.

Esensten is currently recruiting convalescent plasma donors for clinical trials planned at Zuckerberg San Francisco General and UCSF. Potential donors include adults who have recovered from COVID-19 and are at least 14 days from their last symptoms. Volunteers first undergo an antibody test to check for antibodies and a nasal swab to make sure they are no longer infectious. The donation process takes place at a Vitalant blood center and is similar to giving blood except a machine will extract the plasma, the straw-colored component of blood that contains the antibodies, and return the rest of the blood to the donor. Frozen plasma can be stored for up to a year.

Esensten suspects that convalescent plasma may be most effective when given early on in an infection, but this, too, is still untested.

We really need donors to step forward, said Esensten. Ideally, they have been diagnosed with a COVID-19 lab test, but even if they have not been diagnosed but have a really good story for why they think they had COVID-19, were willing to speak with them.

Follow this link:
The Promise and Uncertainties of Antibody Testing for Coronavirus - UCSF News Services

Posted in New York Stem Cells | Comments Off on The Promise and Uncertainties of Antibody Testing for Coronavirus – UCSF News Services

Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Segmentation, Application, Technology, Analysis Research Report and Forecast to 2026 – Cole…

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

Shire

Global Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Segmentation

This market was divided into types, applications and regions. The growth of each segment provides an accurate calculation and forecast of sales by type and application in terms of volume and value for the period between 2020 and 2026. This analysis can help you develop your business by targeting niche markets. Market share data are available at global and regional levels. The regions covered by the report are North America, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, and Africa and Latin America. Research analysts understand the competitive forces and provide competitive analysis for each competitor separately.

To get Incredible Discounts on this Premium Report, Click Here @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=19246&utm_source=COD&utm_medium=005

Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Region Coverage (Regional Production, Demand & Forecast by Countries etc.):

North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico)

Europe (Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Russia, Spain etc.)

Asia-Pacific (China, India, Japan, Southeast Asia etc.)

South America (Brazil, Argentina etc.)

Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, South Africa etc.)

Some Notable Report Offerings:

-> We will give you an assessment of the extent to which the market acquire commercial characteristics along with examples or instances of information that helps your assessment.

-> We will also support to identify standard/customary terms and conditions such as discounts, warranties, inspection, buyer financing, and acceptance for the Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals industry.

-> We will further help you in finding any price ranges, pricing issues, and determination of price fluctuation of products in Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals industry.

-> Furthermore, we will help you to identify any crucial trends to predict Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals market growth rate up to 2026.

-> Lastly, the analyzed report will predict the general tendency for supply and demand in the Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals market.

Have Any Query? Ask Our Expert @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/Nanoparticles-in-Biotechnology-and-Pharmaceuticals-Market/?utm_source=COD&utm_medium=005

Table of Contents:

Study Coverage: It includes study objectives, years considered for the research study, growth rate and Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals market size of type and application segments, key manufacturers covered, product scope, and highlights of segmental analysis.

Executive Summary: In this section, the report focuses on analysis of macroscopic indicators, market issues, drivers, and trends, competitive landscape, CAGR of the global Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals market, and global production. Under the global production chapter, the authors of the report have included market pricing and trends, global capacity, global production, and global revenue forecasts.

Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Size by Manufacturer: Here, the report concentrates on revenue and production shares of manufacturers for all the years of the forecast period. It also focuses on price by manufacturer and expansion plans and mergers and acquisitions of companies.

Production by Region: It shows how the revenue and production in the global market are distributed among different regions. Each regional market is extensively studied here on the basis of import and export, key players, revenue, and production.

About us:

Verified market research partners with the customer and offer an insight into strategic and growth analyzes, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and objectives. Our core values are trust, integrity and authenticity for our customers.

Analysts with a high level of expertise in data collection and governance use industrial techniques to collect and analyze data in all phases. Our analysts are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research reports.

Contact us:

Mr. Edwyne FernandesCall: +1 (650) 781 4080Email: [emailprotected]

Tags: Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Size, Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Trends, Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Growth, Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Forecast, Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Analysis

Excerpt from:
Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Segmentation, Application, Technology, Analysis Research Report and Forecast to 2026 - Cole...

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Nanoparticles in Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Market Segmentation, Application, Technology, Analysis Research Report and Forecast to 2026 – Cole…

Bayer, Novartis, and Trump convicted by Nature – European Biotechnology

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

The politically overhyped use of old malaria drugs in combination with COVID-19-specific candidates has been demonstrated to be dangerous, reports Nature Medicine.

In the prestigous paper Nature Medicine, cardiologists under Lior Jankelson report that patients with COVID-19 who were on a regimen of Novartis AGs generic malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin experienced electrocardiogram abnormalities. Previous reports demonstrated that the same is true for chloroquine phosphate, an old malaria drug originally developed at Bayer AG. The authorsassessed 84 patients with COVID-19 treated at a centre in New York, USA.

Azithromycin in combination with antimalarial hydroxychloroquine has been touted by President Donald Trump as a possible "game changer" in COVID-19. Former BARDA head Rick Bright was fired because he resisted political interventions to push the use of chloroquine derivatives to treat COVID-19 despite scientific evidence of efficacy and safety according to current authorisation standards. Biocentury reported previously that Trumps preference for the cheap but antiquated malaria treatments looked more like political science than actually based on scientific evidence. Several clinical programmes coordinated by the WHO , the European Union, and the UK promote clinical testing of combinations with either chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine and may cause thousands of deaths unless they were not updated to include new findings.

Several reports demonstrated that both medications increase the risk of various types of cardiac rhythm abnormalities, such as QTc-interval prolongation and drug-inducedtorsades de pointes, and sudden cardiac death. The QTc interval is measured by an electrocardiogram and represents the time it takes for a heart to recharge between beats. A prolonged QTc interval puts a patient at risk for arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death.

Now, Jankelson and colleagues reviewed the charts and followed the QTc interval of 84 patients with COVID-19 on a 5-day oral regiment of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The patients were, on average, 63 years of age and74% were male. After the patients were administered the drugs, the authors followed up with an electrocardiogram. They observed a prolonged QTc in most patients. The QTc was severely prolonged in 11% of the patients, which put them at high risk of arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. Four patients in the cohort died from multiple organ failure a characteristic of septic shock without evidence of arrhythmia and without severe QTc prolongation.

Jankelson and colleagues found that most patients with COVID-19 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin experienced QTc prolongation. This may have been exacerbated by other pre-existing conditions and the severity of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The authors conclude that the QTc in patients with COVID-19 who are treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin should be monitored constantly, especially for patients with additional illnesses and those who are being treated with other QT-prolonging medications.

More:
Bayer, Novartis, and Trump convicted by Nature - European Biotechnology

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Bayer, Novartis, and Trump convicted by Nature – European Biotechnology

Arch Oncology Appoints Biotechnology Industry Veteran Julie Hambleton, M.D. to Board of Directors – Yahoo Finance

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

Arch Oncology, Inc., a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company focused on the discovery and development of best-in-class anti-CD47 antibody therapies, today announced the appointment of Julie Hambleton, M.D. to the Companys Board of Directors.

"Julie is an accomplished biotechnology executive who brings extensive oncology clinical drug development expertise to our Board of Directors," said Julie M. Cherrington, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Arch Oncology. "As we continue to advance AO-176 in clinical development for select solid tumors and plan for additional indications in hematologic malignancies including multiple myeloma, I am thrilled to have Julie join the Board of Directors. We share a deep commitment to developing novel therapies for patients with cancer and I look forward to working with her."

Julie Hambleton, M.D., Chief Medical Officer at IDEAYA Biosciences and Director for Arch Oncology, added, "I am very encouraged by the growing body of preclinical data, the clinical progress, and future clinical potential of AO-176. This novel anti-CD47 antibody has a best-in-class profile and I look forward to sharing my insights gained over 20 years in drug development to guide ongoing and future potential opportunities for AO-176 in across various oncology indications."

Julie Hambleton, M.D. is a senior biotechnology executive with over 20 years of experience in clinical drug development from pre-clinical through Phase 4 and post-marketing studies. She has extensive experience working with regulatory agencies, including the U.S. FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and in filings of Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), Biologics License Applications (BLAs), and Special Protocol Assessments (SPAs). Dr. Hambleton serves as Chief Medical Officer of IDEAYA Biosciences. Previously, she was Vice President, Head of U.S. Medical at Bristol-Myers Squibb, overseeing Medical & Health Economic and Outcomes Research activities in support of the Oncology, Immuno-Oncology, Specialty and Cardiovascular marketed portfolios. Previously, she served as Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer at Five Prime Therapeutics and Vice President, Clinical Development, at Clovis Oncology. Dr. Hambleton began her industry career at Genentech, most recently as Group Medical Director,Global Clinical Development, leading a cross-functional group conducting Phase 2 and 3 trials of Avastin.

Dr. Hambleton completed her medical and hematology-oncology training at the University California, San Francisco, where she then served on faculty from 1993 to 2003. She received a B.S. from Duke University, and M.D. from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and was Board-certified in Hematology and Internal Medicine.

In addition, Dr. Hambleton serves as a Director on IGM Biosciences Board of Directors.

About Arch Oncology

Arch Oncology, Inc. is a privately-held, clinical-stage immuno-oncology company focused on the discovery and development of best-in-class antibody therapies for the treatment of patients with select solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, including multiple myeloma. The Companys next-generation anti-CD47 antibodies are highly differentiated, with the potential to improve upon the safety and efficacy profile relative to other agents in this class. Arch Oncologys lead product candidate AO-176 is in a Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of patients with select solid tumors. In addition, the Company is advancing a number of antibody pipeline programs for the treatment cancer. For more information please visit http://www.archoncology.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200421005212/en/

Contacts

Amy Figueroa, CFAFor Arch Oncologyafigueroa@archoncology.com 650-823-2704

See the original post:
Arch Oncology Appoints Biotechnology Industry Veteran Julie Hambleton, M.D. to Board of Directors - Yahoo Finance

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Arch Oncology Appoints Biotechnology Industry Veteran Julie Hambleton, M.D. to Board of Directors – Yahoo Finance

Is SAGE Therapeutics Inc (SAGE) Stock Near the Top of the Biotechnology Industry? – InvestorsObserver

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

A rating of 18 puts SAGE Therapeutics Inc (SAGE) near the bottom of the Biotechnology industry according to InvestorsObserver. SAGE Therapeutics Inc's score of 18 means it scores higher than 18% of stocks in the industry. SAGE Therapeutics Inc also received an overall rating of 35, putting it above 35% of all stocks. Biotechnology is ranked 10 out of the 148 industries.

Trying to find the best stocks can be a daunting task. There are a wide variety of ways to analyze stocks in order to determine which ones are performing the strongest. Investors Observer makes the entire process easier by using percentile rankings that allows you to easily find the stocks who have the strongest evaluations by analysts.

These rankings allows you to easily compare stocks and view what the strengths and weaknesses are of a given company. This lets you find the stocks with the best short and long term growth prospects in a matter of seconds. The combined score incorporates technical and fundamental analysis in order to give a comprehensive overview of a stocks performance. Investors who then want to focus on analysts rankings or valuations are able to see the separate scores for each section.

SAGE Therapeutics Inc (SAGE) stock is trading at $38.00 as of 1:22 PM on Friday, Apr 24, a rise of $1.76, or 4.86% from the previous closing price of $36.24. The stock has traded between $35.62 and $38.03 so far today. Volume today is light. So far 545,172 shares have traded compared to average volume of 1,562,765 shares.

To see InvestorsObserver's Sentiment Score for SAGE Therapeutics Inc click here.

See the original post here:
Is SAGE Therapeutics Inc (SAGE) Stock Near the Top of the Biotechnology Industry? - InvestorsObserver

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Is SAGE Therapeutics Inc (SAGE) Stock Near the Top of the Biotechnology Industry? – InvestorsObserver

Biotech and Pharmaceutical Stocks Beat the Market in Recessions – Barron’s

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

Text size

Looking for a safe harbor during the Covid-19 pandemic? The biotech and pharmaceutical industries deserve a close look, according to SVB Leerink analyst Geoffrey Porges.

The indexes that track the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors outperformed the market in the 2001, 2008-09, and current recessions, he wrote in a Friday morning note.

On average, the biotechnology Indexes declined -1% during the three economic downturns, compared with the pharmaceutical indexs -10% and the S&P 500 indexs -20%. On a relative basis, biotech and pharmaceutical Indices outperformed the S&P 500 by 18% and 10%, respectively, Porges noted.

One likely explanation: People need their medicine, even in a recession. Porges cited published papers showing that pharmaceutical sales volume stayed steady in the U.S. during the 2008-09 recession.

So far this year, biotech indexes and exchange-traded funds have vastly outperformed the market. While the S&P 500 is down 13.4% since the start of the year, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (ticker: IBB) is up 2.2%. The SPDR S&P Biotechnology ETF (XBI) is down 1.4%, while the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index (NBI) is up 2.3%.

Pharmaceutical indexes have also performed well. The NYSE Arca Pharmaceutical index is down 1.1%, while the S&P 500 Pharmaceuticals index is down 0.5%.

Those performances have been boosted by strong showings from large-cap biotech companies like Gilead Sciences (GILD), which is up 19.7% so far this year on excitement over its experimental Covid-19 therapy remdesivir, and Moderna (MRNA), which is up a startling 142.5% so far this year over its Covid-19 vaccine, which is in clinical trials.

Major pharmaceutical companies have also outperformed. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is up 6.6%, while Eli Lilly (LLY) is up 21.7%. The company clocked a new 52-week high on Friday morning.

Porges note suggests that all this tracks with the recent history of recessions.

Our analysis of historical recessions suggested that the biotech and pharma indices (and stocks) significantly outperformed the broad market (S&P 500), despite the greater P/E multiple compressions in the healthcare indices, he wrote.

The iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF was up 0.6% in recent trading, while the S&P 500 was up 0.4%.

Write to Josh Nathan-Kazis at josh.nathan-kazis@barrons.com

Read the original:
Biotech and Pharmaceutical Stocks Beat the Market in Recessions - Barron's

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Biotech and Pharmaceutical Stocks Beat the Market in Recessions – Barron’s

Why biotech’s goal should not be to feed the world – SynBioBeta

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

Its a great moment for big food, big ag, and industry to do a self reflection and analysis of, how did we arrive here? How did we arrive to a world where the folks that picked the produce out of the field dont have access and or make enough to buy the very produce that theyre picking? Rolando Perez, graduate student and volunteer at Xinampa

Biotechnology is on the precipice of changing our world forever. Using solutions always there in biology and optimizing them with technology, biotech promises to solve global issues such as carbon emissions, plastic and chemical pollution, and, of course, feeding a booming population. But to really solve the issue of food, the industry needs to revolutionize more than just biology or technology. It needs to revolutionize the way it engages local cultures and economies. It will not be an easy task, a straightforward task, or a quick task. But it can be done and the people of the world depend on it being done right.

Climate change and population growth have led to predictions that the global population will reach nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Current food production processes cant keep pace with that growth. Fearing an existential crisis, several companies have adopted a tag line that goes something like this: we will feed the world through innovative biotechnologies that are more sustainable and make healthy food more accessible. And theyve got the sustainability beat down: from leveraging microbes to feed plants and reduce toxic nitrogen run-off to improved aquaculture techniques to genetic engineering foods to be more nutritious, the possibilities for producing ever more nutritious food while using less of the Earths precious resources are boundless and already in motion.

But what, exactly, does it mean for food to be accessible in todays world?

Food desert a term used to describe areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food is the label by which weve come to describe food accessibility today. But the term is a bit of a misnomer, says Garrett Broad, author of More Than Just Food.

It suggests theres nothing there and if food deserts are the problem, the solution sounds pretty simple: just bring [stuff] to the desert.

But is there really nothing there? According to a recent New York Times exposition on the obesity epidemic in Brazil (and in big industrys role in that), there are now more obese people in the world than underweight people. Its as if the pendulum has swung the other direction where hunger was once a very real problem as a result of access to food, period, now obesity, diabetes, and heart disease prevail as a result of access to high calorie, nutrient-poor foods. This has created a new type of malnutrition, write Andrew Jacobs and Matt Richtel, one in which a growing number of people are both overweight and undernourished.

So, continues Broad, the problem isnt food deserts [per se], the problem is really a legacy and generational disinvestment in and direct discrimination in not just food but in a variety of other arenas. [This] calls for a broader set of solutions.

Said another way, the issue of food accessibility is multi-faceted and therefore cannot be solved solely through biotechnology we must come to terms with that fact at the get go. That isnt to say biotechnology cant make the food production system as a whole better. With advances in gene editing and other technologies, we can use technology to improve the nutritional profile of food (tackling malnutrition), to enable seasonable crops to be available all year round (increasing accessibility in one sense), to remove undesired characteristics such as cherry pits (increasing accessibility in another sense), and to make food more resistant to drought, one of the biggest factors influencing a significant proportion of the world populations access to food. But none of this matters if we keep operating under our current system, which, according to Broad, bottom-lines on profit margins, not on feeding people healthily and sustainably.

The biotechnological revolution can give the food industry and low-income disadvantaged communities a chance to hit the reset button to learn from the current state of affairs and prevent the inevitable shortfall of the big promises being made by biotechnology today if we dont change the societal, political, and economic backbone of the way food is made and distributed. And according to Ana Ibarra and Rolando Perez, volunteers at Salinas Valley-based Xinampa (a bio-hub aiming to support equitable economic development, workforce development, small business incubation, and scientific literacy and education), such sea change will come from getting people from all walks of life to sit down together and talk.

From left: Steven Rhyans, Anna Ibarra-Castro, Leo Tejeda, Omar Perez, Matias Kaplan, Rolando Perez. Photo credit: Steven Rhyans

Many of the communities most affected by food inequality are disadvantaged, underrepresented cultural and ethic groups, such as the Hispanic/Latinx and indigenous populations served by Xinampa. Salinas, California, where Xinampa is based, is over 75% Hispanic or Latinx and it is this population that is the life blood of one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. Xinampa is especially passionate about teaching young people high school and college students how they can use biotechnology in their future careers and to bolster their local communities. Ibarra says that young people will be critical for speeding up the development of technologies, a crucial goal given the issues we have at a global scale to sustain human life in light of climate change, decreasing arable land. The younger generations have the ability and talent to carry this forward, she says, and I believe its crucial to start engagement at a young age.

But, Perez is careful to point out, it isnt just about reaching the young.

The work here is intergenerational, and thats really important. There has to be engagement across the whole intergenerational spectrum the bio belt could be about finding opportunities for retirees to do things in the community plant gardens that produce nutritious produce for the community, for example. The next generation is like the seventh generation. You can say seven generations in the future, seven generations in the past, or you can strategically place yourself in the middle of those seven generations; something I learned from a close friend and that has helped me understand my role as a community member and citizen of our planet.

Emphasizing culture and recognizing that the community as a whole, and in particular indigenous communities, has deep-seeded, critical knowledge about agriculture is a core value of Xinampa. Instead of feeding people the all-too-often heard script of you guys just dont know anything, youre eating unhealthy, and were here to change you, they recognize and encourage the generations of knowledge and cultural richness that will be critical for effectively governing and incorporating biotechnology into our future food systems.

What the most successful groups that work around food at the grassroots level do is they push past those scripts, and they open up some storytelling about peoples cultural histories through food, says Broad, and that allows folks to claim knowledge about food and cooking and agriculture, which makes them much more likely to have ownership in this whole conversation.

And the whole conversation must also engage policy makers, those involved in the public health care system, industry leaders essentially anyone that could be affected by biotechnology.

One of the solutions that we could employ to address these inequities is to look to the expertise of individuals in public health, policy, social welfare, or other disciplines that are exposed to issues through a different lens and can provide a different point of view, says Ibarra, adding that its important to foster interdisciplinary conversation early on. We dont want to miss something. We dont want to invest in a solution that may not be the most effective simply because you forgot to include someone in the conversation. Early engagement is how these nutritious and novel foods will be cultivated from the ground up for the benefit of everyone in society.

One of the reasons early involvement in conversation will enable effective distribution of food to everyone is rooted in money. According to Broad, one of the biggest reasons why mistrust in GMOs and how GMO foods could solve some big problems isnt because companies havent been transparent. Its because people look at the big players, the companies in charge, and see companies that havent made their lives substantively better. People recognize that priorities within the biotech industry have not necessarily always been first and foremost about feeding the world equitably and sustainably but instead about who profits from certain biotechnological developments, says Broad. This erodes trust rather than building it.

A great way to build long standing trust is to have equitable distribution of the material wealth that gets created from these innovations. Essentially, how do we think about the development of these tools in an equitable and inclusive way in terms of economic development and economic opportunity? The best way to do this is to get people involved from early on and give them an economic stake so you develop companies that people are engaged in and involved in. That would be something for entrepreneurs and communities like [SynBioBeta] to be thinking about from an early stage, as opposed to thinking about it as kind of a PR approach that comes at the very end.

Its the economy stupid, he continues. Its that classic line if people can see that their economic and social life is going to benefit from these new innovations, then theyre much more likely to be interested in supporting them and have less fear, he says.

Ibarra agrees.

There is a lot of fear around automation and AI, including in communities like ours where the fear is robots are going to come in and pick produce and there will be less jobs for our laborers, she says. But I think the opportunities deriving from biotechnology have an even greater potential. In Monterey County we have a very robust economy resulting from direct and indirect agricultural jobs, but also a significant multiplier effect. If we couple new agricultural technologies, such as automation and AI, with biotechnology in parallel, you can see this allowing communities especially rural ones to be more resilient. Its a real opportunity.

This is critical for communities like Salinas Valley, where homelessness rates in elementary schools can be as high as 50 percent. According to Ibarra, agricultural communities like Salinas are the perfect place to cultivate regenerative biotechnologies that enrich our food systems and advance public health. She and Perez imagine a future for Salinas Valley completely transformed by biotechnology rooted in racial and class equity and justice. For example, Central Coast residents could create public interest biotechnologies that emphasize community control and governance, with investment in people, infrastructure, automation, and supply-chains that extend into the community and that connect to the Valleys world-class global supply-chains. Biotechnology can also be leveraged to produce nutritious crop varieties that adapt plant morphology to make harvesting by hand easier or gene drives to combat invasive pests such as the Asian Citrus Psyllid. Animal agriculture could benefit as well, with new veterinary biotechnological tools to better care for livestock and protect them from disease. Water systems could benefit as well, from cleaning the Salinas River through mycoremediation to employing biosensors to monitor city water for pollution, pesticides, and other chemicals.

In December 2019, Golden Rice was approved for direct use in the Philippines the first Asian country to grant the controversial food approval. Some expect that the added Vitamin A present in the rice will reduce by up to 50% vitamin A deficiency, the leading cause of child mortality in the country. But, others are skeptical that the rice will be the simple solution Filipinos have been waiting for, pointing out that vitamin A deficiency is a complex problem partially rooted in culture, political economics, education, and access. In essence, Golden Rice is the perfect example of both the promise of biotechnology in agriculture and its shortcomings if we dont think critically about all sides of the issue. With up and coming companies like Pairwise Plants and others using biotechnology to produce food that is more nutritious and can be available year-round, it is critical that we heed voices like Broad, Ibarra, and Perez so that technologies that can really make a difference in how we feed the world dont meet the same fate as Golden Rice.

It is possible to feed the world with biotechnology. But its only possible if our goal isnt to feed the world, but to engage local communities, support early, equitable, and inclusive communication, and to ensure that food equity doesnt just mean that everyone can afford to buy healthy food, but that the communities producing that food have equitable economic stake. Move over, big ag its time to take biotechnology from farm to table.

Read the original post:
Why biotech's goal should not be to feed the world - SynBioBeta

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Why biotech’s goal should not be to feed the world – SynBioBeta

Will These Thrive Or Dive ? Vir Biotechnology (VIR), Pinnacle Financial Partners (PNFP) – US Post News

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

The recent performance of Vir Biotechnology (NASDAQ:VIR) stock in the market spoke loud and clear to investors as VIR saw more than 1.13M shares in trading volumes in the last trading session, way higher than the average trading volume of 1.13M shares by far recorded in the movement of Vir Biotechnology (VIR). At the time the stock opened at the value of $29.55, making it a high for the given period, the value of the stock jumped by 3.56%. After the increase, VIR touched a low price of $29.55, calling it a day with a closing price of $30.08, which means that the price of VIR went 1.6 below the opening price on the mentioned day.

Given the most recent momentum in the market in the price movement of VIR stock, some strong opinions on the matter of investing in the companys stock started to take shape, which is how analysts are predicting an estimated price of $34.33 for VIR within consensus. The estimated price would demand a set of gains in total of -37.91%, which goes higher than the most recent closing price, indicating that the stock is in for bullish trends. Other indicators are hinting that the stock could reach an outstanding figure in the market share, which is currently set at 100.45M in the public float and 3.41B US dollars in market capitalization.

When it comes to the technical analysis of VIR stock, there are more than several important indicators on the companys success in the market, one of those being the Relative Strength Indicator (RSI), which can show, just as Stochastic measures, what is going on with the value of the stock beneath the data. This value may also indicate that the stock will go sideways rather than up or down, also indicating that the price could stay where it is for quite some time. When it comes to Stochastic reading, VIR stock are showing 26.08% in results, indicating that the stock is neither overbought or oversold at the moment, providing it with a neutral within Stochastic reading as well. Additionally, VIR with the present state of 200 MA appear to be indicating bullish trends within the movement of the stock in the market. While other metrics within the technical analysis are due to provide an outline into the value of VIR, the general sentiment in the market is inclined toward positive trends.

With the previous 100-day trading volume average of 543315 shares, Pinnacle Financial Partners (PNFP) recorded a trading volume of 717220 shares, as the stock started the trading session at the value of $34.35, in the end touching the price of $34.88 after jumping by 1.54%.

PNFP stock seem to be going ahead the lowest price in the last 52 weeks with the latest change of 25.47%.Then price of PNFP also went backward in oppose to its average movements recorded in the previous 20 days. The price volatility of PNFP stock during the period of the last months recorded 6.96%, whilst it changed for the week, now showing 5.92% of volatility in the last seven days. The trading distance for this period is set at -7.95% and is presently away from its moving average by -22.96% in the last 50 days. During the period of the last 5 days, PNFP stock lost around -2.84% of its value, now recording a dip by -37.07% reaching an average $55.32 in the period of the last 200 days.During the period of the last 12 months, Pinnacle Financial Partners (PNFP) dropped by -45.50%.

According to the Barcharts scale, the companys consensus rating was unchanged to 4.00 from 4.00, showing an overall improvement during the course of a single month. Based on the latest results, analysts are suggesting that the target price for PNFP stock should be $34.88 per share in the course of the next 12 months. To achieve the target price as suggested by analysts, PNFP should have a spike by 0% in oppose to its present value in the market. Additionally, the current price showcases a discount of 34.19% when compared to the high consensus price target predicted by analysts.

PNFP shares recorded a trading volume of 588569 shares, compared to the volume of 638.57K shares before the last close, presented as its trading average. With the approaching 5.92% during the last seven days, the volatility of PNFP stock remained at 6.96%. During the last trading session, the lost value that PNFP stock recorded was set at the price of $34.88, while the lowest value in the last 52 weeks was set at $27.80. The recovery of the stock in the market has notably added 25.47% of gains since its low value, also recording -0.11% in the period of the last 1 month.

Follow this link:
Will These Thrive Or Dive ? Vir Biotechnology (VIR), Pinnacle Financial Partners (PNFP) - US Post News

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Will These Thrive Or Dive ? Vir Biotechnology (VIR), Pinnacle Financial Partners (PNFP) – US Post News

Vir Biotechnology (VIR): Stock on the Move – Investor Welcome

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

Volatility in Focus:

The stock unfolded volatility at 6.97% during a week and it has been swapped around 11.65% over a month. Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time. If the prices of a security fluctuate rapidly in a short time span, it is termed to have high volatility. If the prices of a security fluctuate slowly in a longer time span, it is termed to have low volatility.

The average true range is a volatility indicator. This stocks Average True Range (ATR) is currently standing at 4.39.

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) stock Trading Summary:

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) stock changed position at -1.54% to closing price of $30.08 in recent trading session. The last closing price represents the price at which the last trade occurred. The last price is also the price on which most charts are based; the chart updates with each change of the last price. The stock registered Wednesday volume of 944495 shares. Daily volume is the number of shares that are traded during one trading day. High volume is an indication that a stock is actively traded, and low volume is an indication that a stock is less actively traded. Some stocks tend always to have high volume, as they are popular among day traders and investors alike. Other stocks tend always to have low volume, and arent of particular interest to short-term traders. The stock average trading capacity stands with 1.11M shares and relative volume is now at 0.85.

Vir Biotechnology (VIR):

If you are considering getting into the day trading or penny stock market, its a legitimate and profitable method for making a living. Every good investor knows that in order to make money on any investment, you must first understand all aspects of it, so lets look at daily change, stock price movement in some particular time frame, volatility update, performance indicators and technical analysis and analyst rating. Picking a stock is very difficult job. There are many factors to consider before choosing a right stock to invest in it. If picking stock was easy, everyone would be rich right? This piece of financial article provides a short snap of Vir Biotechnology (VIR) regarding latest trading session and presents some other indicators that can help you to support yours research about Vir Biotechnology (VIR).

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) Stock Price Movement in past 50 Days period and 52-Week period

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) stock demonstrated 158.19% move opposition to 12-month low and unveiled a move of -59.89% versus to 12-month high. The recent trading activity has given its price a change of -59.89% to its 50 Day High and 86.95% move versus to its 50 Day Low. Prices of commodities, securities and stocks fluctuate frequently, recording highest and lowest figures at different points of time in the market. A figure recorded as the highest/lowest price of the security, bond or stock over the period of past 52 weeks is generally referred to as its 52-week high/ low. It is an important parameter for investors (as they compare the current trading price of the stocks and bonds to the highest/lowest prices they have reached in the past 52 weeks) in making investment decisions. It also plays an important role in determination of the predicted future prices of the stock.

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) Stock Past Performance

Vir Biotechnology (VIR) stock revealed -17.84% return for the recent month and disclosed 81.86% return in 3-month period. The stock grabbed 108.74% return over last 6-months. To measure stock performance since start of the year, it resulted a change of 139.20%. Past performance shows you the funds track record, but do remember that past performance is not an indication of future performance. Read the historical performance of the stock critically and make sure to take into account both long- and short-term performance. Past performance is just one piece of the puzzle when evaluating investments. Understanding how performance fits in with your overall investing strategy and what else should be considered can keep you from developing tunnel vision.

Overbought and Oversold levels

The stock has RSI reading of 49.6. RSI gives an indication of the impending reversals or reaction in price of a security. RSI moves in the range of 0 and 100. So an RSI of 0 means that the stock price has fallen in all of the 14 trading days. Similarly, an RSI of 100 means that the stock price has risen in all of the 14 trading days. In technical analysis, an RSI of above 70 is considered an overbought area while an RSI of less than 30 is considered as an oversold area. RSI can be used as a leading indicator as it normally tops and bottoms ahead of the market, thereby indicating an imminent correction in the price of a security. It is pertinent to note that the levels of 70 and 30 needs to be adjusted according to the inherent volatility of the security in question.

Analyst Watch: Analysts have assigned their consensus opinion on this stock with rating of 3.2 on scale of 1 to 5. 1 or 2 =>Buy view 4 or 5 => Sell opinion. 3 =>Hold. Analysts recommendations are the fountainhead of equity research reports and should be used in tangent with proprietary research and investment methodologies in order to make investment decisions.

View post:
Vir Biotechnology (VIR): Stock on the Move - Investor Welcome

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Vir Biotechnology (VIR): Stock on the Move – Investor Welcome

Why Clovis Oncology, Immunomedics, and Puma Biotechnology All Spiked Today – The Motley Fool

Posted: April 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

What happened

Healthcare stocks, on balance, had a great start to the week today. Cancer companies in particular posted strong gains almost across the board Monday. For instance, the stock ofClovis Oncology(NASDAQ:CLVS)ended the day up by 15.2%, shares of Immunomedics (NASDAQ:IMMU) hit a high of 10.2% before ultimately closing up by 8.5%, and Puma Biotechnology(NASDAQ:PBYI)printed a 16.3% gain today.

The odd part to this rising-tide phenomenon is that none of these companies issued a single press release or market-moving Securities and Exchange Commission filing Monday. Instead, this sea of green appears to be the result of institutional investors fleeing weaker parts of the market like oil in favor of safe havens like healthcare. Cancer stocks, after all, should be essentially immune to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that most patients can't skip out on lifesaving treatments.

Image Source: Getty Images.

If this flight-to-safety thesis is true, then Clovis, Immunomedics, and Puma would arguably all make outstanding vehicles to gain exposure to the high-growth oncology space. Each of these stocks is grossly undervalued relative to its long-term value proposition. Wall Street's 12-month price targets on these names underscore this point nicely. Even after today's sizable moves, for instance, Clovis, Immunomedics, and Puma are still trading well below their 12-month price targets.

Why are these three cancer stocks undervalued right now? Clovis and Puma have both struggled to gain the confidence of investors in this volatile market due to the uncertain commercial outlook for their flagship cancer meds. Immunomedics, on the other hand, scored a major late-stage trial win with itstriple-negative breast cancer drug candidate sacituzumab govitecan earlier this year. Even so, the company's stock has yet to truly price in the full value of this positive clinical outcome, presumably because of the unfavorable market conditions in general.

Are these suddenly red-hot biotech stocks still worth buying? In a word, yes. Clovis should grab an important label expansion for its ovarian cancer med Rubraca later this year, a pivotal event that has the potential to be an inflection point for the company's commercial operations.

Puma, on the other hand, still looks like a decent buy based on the long-term commercial prospects of its breast cancer med Nerlynx. The drug's sales have been slowed down by its onerous side-effect profile, but it should nevertheless still achieve at least $300 million in annual sales. Puma's market cap, by contrast, is only $440 million at the time of this writing.

And Immunomedics stands out as a fantastic buyout target. Triple negative breast cancer is a high-value indication for which few drugs have panned out in clinical studies. Immunomedics, in turn, should fetch a healthy tender offer if sacituzumab govitecan does indeed get the green light from regulators.

Read more:
Why Clovis Oncology, Immunomedics, and Puma Biotechnology All Spiked Today - The Motley Fool

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Why Clovis Oncology, Immunomedics, and Puma Biotechnology All Spiked Today – The Motley Fool

Page 1,051«..1020..1,0501,0511,0521,053..1,0601,070..»