Page 1,187«..1020..1,1861,1871,1881,189..1,2001,210..»

Part 1: What is Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance? – Biofortified Blog

Posted: January 13, 2020 at 8:42 pm

By Alma Laney and Alison Bernstein

This post is the first in a series about transgenerational inheritance, epigenetics, and glyphosate that address questions raised by the publication of the paper, Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology.

Transgenerational inheritance is the concept that traits can be passed on from parent to great-grandchildren. In the context of toxicology, this hypothesis can be described as ancestral environmental exposures to non-mutagenic agents can exert effects in unexposed descendants. If you imagine a person being exposed to some substance, their reproductive cells are exposed so their children are also exposed (intergenerational inheritance). If that person is a pregnant female, the reproductive cells of their offspring are exposed so the grandchildren are also exposed (multigenerational inheritance). Thus, true transgenerational inheritance can only be observed in the great-grandchildrens generation (transgenerational inheritance).

Transgenerational inheritance can occur through epigenetic, ecological, or cultural mechanisms (See Figure 1 of the linked paper below).

The focus of the paper under discussion is the epigenetic mechanisms through the germline, or transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In any experiment of transgenerational inheritance, it is critical to use a careful study design to separate the epigenetic piece from the other mechanisms.

Epigenetics can be defined as: the processes and marks on or around the DNA processes that control the activity of the genome and can be mitotically and/or meiotically inherited. It encompasses a set of mechanisms that regulate gene expression and that can be inherited from cell to cell within an organism. Sometimes, if they occur in germline cells, these mechanisms may also be inherited from parent to offspring. Epigenetic mechanisms can also be sensitive to environmental inputs. Because they can be modified by the environment and may be inherited from parent to offspring, epigenetic mechanisms are a prime candidate for the mediating transgenerational inheritance.

Epigenetics generally refers to four mechanisms.

These four mechanisms do not exist in isolation. They form a network of interacting mechanisms that all work together to affect gene expression. For an overview on these mechanisms of epigenetics, please visit the Intro to Epigenetics series at Mommy, PhD.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is well documented in plants and the commonly used model organisms, such as C. elegans (roundworms) and D. melanogaster (fruit flies). However, whether transgenerational inheritance occurs in mammals is still unclear.

The existence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance remains unclear in mammals. There are a few reasons why this is hard to answer.

First, humans are complicated. When we have evidence of transgenerational inheritance of a trait in people, it is nearly impossible to separate the cultural and ecological effects from the epigenetic effects to definitively say if that inheritance occurs partly or exclusively through a biological mechanism. In humans, exposures are rarely isolated to the original generation only, making it extremely difficult to separate out true transgenerational effections. In addition, even when exposures are isolated, those exposures often produce differences that have their own effects. In the example of the Holocaust, it is difficult to separate the effects of trauma from living through the Holocaust on offspring from the effect of having a parent who lived through the Holocaust on offspring.

In order to determine if transgenerational inheritance occurs, scientists must stop the exposure in the original generation to isolate the exposure. While this can be done in model organisms in the lab, exposures are rarely isolated to a single generation in humans. Even when they are, the genetic, ecological and cultural confounders are so complex that it is extraordinarily difficult to conclusively identify transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans.

Second, experimental design is extremely complicated. We can use model organisms (such as mice or rats) to control for some of these factors to determine if transgenerational epigenetic inheritance occurs in mammals. However, when properly designed, these experiments are extremely complicated, expensive, and time-consuming, as described in A guide to designing germline-dependent epigenetic inheritance experiments in mammals. These experiments can be done, but at this point in time, very few studies are properly designed to actually be able to answer this question. We will discuss this in more detail below when we get to the methods of the paper under discussion.

Third, germline reprogramming clears (erases) many epigenetic marks twice during mammalian development. First, DNA methylation marks are cleared during germ-cell development. There is a second wave of demethylation following fertilization; the timing of this demethylation and the reestablishment of methylation patterns is different for maternal and paternal chromosomes. A subset of genes (mostly imprinted genes) do not undergo this second wave of demethylation and are more sensitive to environmental regulation. Thus, only a subset of the genome could be undergoing translational epigenetic inheritance. While research in the area is still evolving, it is clear that more of the genome than previously thought is protected from this second wave of demethylation. But transgenerational epigenetic inheritance seems unlikely to be a genome-wide phenomenon.

This 2018 state of the science report on transgenerational inheritance from the National Toxicology Program cites 21 papers from the lab that published the current glyphosate study. It summarizes the weaknesses of the existing evidence and underscores the need for well-designed studies.

In conclusion, a broad range of exposures and outcomes have been reported to support transgenerational inheritance of health effects. Over 80 different agents have been tested in a transgenerational experimental design; and this state of the science review collected and categorized the literature into a systematic evidence map for transgenerational inheritance by broad health effect categories, exposures, and evidence streams. This scoping review and evidence map identifies serious limitations in the available bodies of evidence to support a systematic review for reaching hazard conclusions or even rating certainty in the bodies of evidence under evidence to decision frameworks such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

This report includes assessments of potential bias in the studies that do exist. The images below show a summary of their assessment of bias in animals studies (top) and specifically in animal studies of vinclozolin (bottom). The top panel shows that the probability of bias is probably high for many papers on many measures, with more than half of papers showing a definitely high risk of bias for confidence in the exposure characterization. The bottom panel shows the risk of bias from individual studies.

You can see from these images that much of the risk of bias seems to arise from the failure to report specific aspects of the methods and results. Nine of the fifteen papers listed in this panel are from the lab that performed the study in question. The areas identified as being of high risk for bias are also problematic in the current study as we will go through in detail below. This doesnt necessarily mean that the studies are flawed or the results are biased, but it does mean that the results cannot be accurately interpreted and it is not possible to determine if they are flawed or valid.

View the other parts of our series on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance:

Read this article:
Part 1: What is Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance? - Biofortified Blog

Posted in Epigenetics | Comments Off on Part 1: What is Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance? – Biofortified Blog

Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance and Glyphosate – Biofortified Blog

Posted: January 13, 2020 at 8:42 pm

By Alison Bernstein and Alma Laney

The paper Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology reported transgenerational epigenetic inheritance and increased disease rates after glyphosate exposure. Not surprisingly, the paper generated a lot of attention and discussion. Due to the focus on glyphosate by activist groups and recent lawsuits, weve taken an in-depth look at the state of the science on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, the data in this paper, and the larger body of work from this lab.

Whether glyphosate exposure causes health problems through transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is an important research question. The original EPA reference dose is based on a transgenerational phenotype, even though this result has been determined to be spurious and unrelated to treatment since more extensive evaluations in subsequent reproduction studies conducted at much higher doses did not replicate the offspring effects (as explained in the draft human health assessment for glyphosate).

In this series, we address questions about transgenerational inheritance and epigenetics in general, and this glyphosate study in particular.

See original here:
Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance and Glyphosate - Biofortified Blog

Posted in Epigenetics | Comments Off on Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance and Glyphosate – Biofortified Blog

Epigenetics Market Expected to Reach US$ 2,611.57 Mn By 2025 – Merck, Thermo Fisher, Abcam, Agilent, Active Motif, QIAGEN, Bio-Rad, PerkinElmer, New…

Posted: January 13, 2020 at 8:42 pm

Sameer Joshi Call: +912067274191Email: [emailprotected]Pune, January 9,2020

Premium Market Insights has announced the addition of the Epigenetics Market . The report focuses on global major leading industry players with information such as company profiles, product picture and specification.

The Epigenetics market is driven by the driving factor such as declining prices of sequencing, and is likely to drive the market in the coming years. The declining costs associated with different strategies and methods for sequencing supports to influence the scale and scope of almost all genomic research projects. In 2000, cost for sequencing was US$ 3.7 billion, which dropped down to US$ 10 million in 2006 and declined to US$ 5,000 in 2012. Owing to factors such as advances in the field of genomics, development in different methods and strategies for sequencing, there is a notable decline in the cost of sequencing, that upsurge the growth of the market.The market is likely to restrain its growth due to the factors such as high cost of advanced technologies. Companies such as Illumina and PacBio offer instruments with high cost. For instance, Illumina MiSeq cost for US$ 128,000 and PacBio RS cost for US$ 695,000. Thus, the high cost of next generation sequencers is hindering the growth of the market for in the future. Whereas the use of the neuroepigenetics to diagnose the neurodevelopmental disorders is likely to contribute a potential market growth in the forecast period.

The Epigenetics market as per the product the segment is segmented as reagents, kits, enzymes, instruments and consumables and bioinformatics tools. The market of kits has the highest market share in 2017, contributing a market share of 29.8% and is expected to retain its dominance during the forecast period from 2018 to 2025. The epigenetic kits allows researchers to perform experiments, researchers to analyze epigenetic modifications efficiently and reliably by using antibodies directed against epitope tags or RNA-binding proteins. Thus holding the major market share. Likewise the reagents contributed 26.2% of the market share in the year 2017 and is expected to be the fastest growing market in the coming near future.

Get Sample PDF For More Professional And Technical Insights at:

https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/sample/TIP00000986

The Technology segment of the epigenetics market includes histone modification, DNA methylation and other technologies. The DNA methylation segment for the epigenetics market was valued at US$ 506.29 Mn in 2017 and is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 13.9% during the forecast period from 2017 to 2025, to reach US$ 1,361.67.0 Mn by 2025. The DNA methylation segments is likely to dominate the market in the coming future as it supports the development of therapies for diseases including cancer, lupus, muscular dystrophy and various congenital defects. Thus the DNA methylation segment is expected to hold major share and is also the fastest growing segment during the forecast period.

Some of the major primary and secondary sources included in the report epigenetics market are National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program (EGRP), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Synthetic Biology Leadership Council, Chinese Academy of Sciences, World Health Organization, European Union, Food and Drug Administration and more.

Get Complete Report at: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/reports-tip/epigenetics-market

Contact Info:Name: Sameer JoshiEmail:[emailprotected]Organization: Premium Market InsightsPhone: +1-646-491-9876

About Premium Market Insights:

Premium Market Insights is a one stop shop of market research reports and solutions to various companies across the globe. We help our clients in their decision support system by helping them choose most relevant and cost effective research reports and solutions from various publishers. We provide best in class customer service and our customer support team is always available to help you on your research queries. Our commitment to customer service is best exemplified by free analyst support that we offer to our clients which sets us apart from any other provider.

Read the original here:
Epigenetics Market Expected to Reach US$ 2,611.57 Mn By 2025 - Merck, Thermo Fisher, Abcam, Agilent, Active Motif, QIAGEN, Bio-Rad, PerkinElmer, New...

Posted in Epigenetics | Comments Off on Epigenetics Market Expected to Reach US$ 2,611.57 Mn By 2025 – Merck, Thermo Fisher, Abcam, Agilent, Active Motif, QIAGEN, Bio-Rad, PerkinElmer, New…

The race for a steak grown in the laboratory – Techno EA

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:55 am

Advertisement

In 2013, the worlds first burger was cooked in butter from a laboratory and eaten at a brilliant press conference. The burger cost 215,000 (at the time $ 330,000) and despite all the media razzmatazz, the tasters were polite but not overly impressed. Close to meat, but not so juicy, said a food critic.

See the rest of the problemSubscribe to

Still, this one burger, which Google co-founder, Sergey Brin paid for, was the earliest use of a technique called cell culture to make edible meat products from scratch no dead animals are required. Cellular agriculture, the products of which are known as cultivated or laboratory-grown meat, builds muscle tissue from a handful of cells taken from an animal. These cells are then grown in a bioreactor on a scaffold and fed with a special nutrient solution.

Advertisement

Just over five years later, startups around the world are trying to produce laboratory-grown meat that tastes as good as the traditional way and costs about as much.

You are already catching up: vegetable-based meat, which consists of a mixture of non-animal products that mimic the taste and consistency of real meat, is already on the market. The biggest name in this field: Impossible Foods, whose faux meat is sold in more than 5,000 restaurants and fast food chains in the USA and Asia and is expected to be available in supermarkets later this year. Impossibles team of over 100 researchers uses techniques such as gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify the volatile molecules released during the cooking of meat.

The key to their special formula is the oxygen-carrying molecule heme, which contains iron, which gives meat its color and metallic taste. Instead of using meat, Impossible uses genetically modified yeasts to make a version of heme that is found in the roots of certain plants.

Impossible has some competitors, especially Beyond Meat, that use pea protein (among other things) to replicate minced meat. The product is sold in supermarket chains such as Tesco in the UK and Whole Foods in the USA in addition to real meat and chicken. Both Impossible and Beyond released new, improved versions of their burgers in mid-January.

In contrast, none of the meat startups bred in the laboratory have yet announced a launch date for their first commercial product. But if that happens some claim it will be at the end of this year the laboratorys approach could turn the traditional meat industry upside down.

I suspect that cultured meat proteins can do things that vegetable proteins cannot in terms of taste, nutrition, and performance, says Isha Datar, director of New Harvest, an organization that funds research into cellular Agriculture helps. Datar, cell biologist and member of the MIT Media Lab, believes that meat cultures are more likely to be more nutritionally functional and functional than real meat. The idea is that a die-hard carnivore (like me) may not feel so upset about giving up the real thing.

Dingding Hu

You might ask, why would anyone want that? The answer is that our meat consumption habits are literally unsustainable.

Livestock breeding already contributes around 15% to global greenhouse gas emissions. (You may have heard that cows would be the third largest emitter in the world as a country.) A quarter of the worlds ice-free land is used for grazing cows and a third of the acreage is used for growing food. A growing population will make things worse. It is estimated that a population of 10 billion people is expected to eat 70% more meat by 2050. The greenhouse gases from food production will even increase by 92%.

In January, a commission of 37 scientists at The Lancet reported that the harmful effects of meat are not only a global risk to people and the planet, but also to our health. In October 2018, a study in Nature found that we would need to change our diet significantly in order not to irreparably destroy our planets natural resources.

Without changes towards a more plant-based diet, says Marco Springmann, a researcher for ecological sustainability at Oxford University and main author of the nature paper, there is little chance of avoiding dangerous climate changes.

The good news is that more and more people are rethinking what they eat. A recent Nielsen report found that sales of plant-based foods to replace animal products increased by 20% in 2018 compared to the previous year. Veganism, which not only avoids meat, but also products that come from greenhouse gas-emitting dairy cattle, is now considered to be relatively widespread.

That doesnt necessarily mean more vegans. A recent Gallup survey found that the number of people in the United States who claim to be vegan has changed little since 2012, at only about 3%. Regardless, the Americans eat less meat, even if they dont cut it out entirely.

Ulma Valeti (center), CEO of Memphis Meats, and Nicholas Genovese (right), chief science officer, watch a chef prepare one of their creations.

Memphis meat

Investors are betting large sums that this dynamic will continue. Startups like MosaMeat (co-founded by Mark Post, the scientist behind the 215,000 burger), Memphis Meats, Supermeat, Just and Finless Foods have all raised a lot of venture capital. The first step now is to bring a tasty product onto the market at an acceptable cost.

Eric Schulze, Vice President of Product and Regulation at Memphis Meats, sees his product as a complement to the meat industry. With our rich cultural background, we offer a new innovation that fits into our growing list of sustainable food traditions, he says. We see ourselves as a and not or solution to help feed a growing world.

The traditional meat industry does not see it that way. The National Cattlemens Beef Association in the United States calls these new approaches repellent as wrong meat. In August 2018, Missouri passed a law prohibiting the labeling of such alternative products as meat. Only food that comes from the harvest of cattle or poultry is allowed to have the word meat on the label in any form. Violation of this law can result in a fine or even a one-year prison sentence.

The alternative meat industry is fighting back. The Good Food Institute, which advocates regulations that favor plant-based and laboratory-grown meat, has partnered with Tofurky (manufacturer of a tofu-based meat substitute since the 1980s), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund repeal the law. Jessica Almy, the director of the institute, says that existing law is nonsensical and an insult to the principle of free speech. The idea behind the law is to make vegetable meat less attractive and to put farm meat at a disadvantage when it comes to the market, she says.

Almy is confident that her case will be successful and expects an injunction to come soon. But the Battle of Missouri is just the beginning of a battle that could take years. In February 2018, the U.S. Cattlemens Association issued a petition calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pass a similar federal law.

We have to change our diet so as not to destroy the planet.

Traditional meat industry groups have also been very vocal about how to regulate meat and meat on a plant basis. Last summer, a group of the largest agricultural organizations in the United States (nicknamed The Barnyard) wrote to President Trump asking for the certainty that the USDA will oversee farmed meat to ensure level playing field (the USDA needs tougher) and be more stringent) than the Food and Drug Administration.)

Finally, in November 2018, the USDA and FDA issued a joint statement announcing that the two regulators would share responsibility for monitoring laboratory-grown meat.

Some farmed startups claim that this regulatory confusion is the only thing holding them back. One company, Just, plans to launch a ground chicken this year and has partnered with a Japanese cattle breeding company to produce a Wagyu beef product from cells in the laboratory. Managing Director is Josh Tetrick, who previously founded the controversial startup Hampton Creek, Justs ancestor. (The FDA had previously banned the company from calling the product mayonnaise because it contained no eggs.) Talk to Tetrick, a bullish, confident young man, and youll get a feel for the drive and excitement behind the alternative meat market , The only (limit) for the start, he says, is regulatory.

Dingding Hu

That is optimistic to say the least. The laboratory meat movement is still facing major technical hurdles. One of them is that the so-called fetal bovine serum is required for the production of the product. FBS is harvested from fetuses taken from pregnant cows during slaughter. This is an obvious problem for an allegedly cruelty-free product. FBS is also very expensive. It is used in the biopharmaceutical industry and in basic cellular research, but only in small quantities. However, cultivated meat requires large amounts. All laboratory meat start-ups have to use less of it or eliminate it entirely to make their products cheap enough. Last year, Finless Foods (aiming to make a fish-free version of bluefin tuna) reported that the amount of FBS needed to grow its cells had halved. And Schulze says the Memphis Meats team is working on completely cutting it out.

However, according to Datar, there are other issues with New Harvest. She says we still dont understand the basic processes well enough. While we have a fairly deep understanding of animals used in medical research, such as laboratory mice, our knowledge of farm animals is rather poor at the cellular level. I see a lot of excitement and VCs invest, but not much in scientific, material advances, she says. It will be difficult to expand the technology if we learn how these complex biological systems react and grow.

Meat from laboratory cultivation has another more tangible problem. Growing muscle cells from the bottom up produce pure meat tissue, but the result lacks an essential part of every burger or steak: fat. Fat gives meat its taste and moisture, and its texture is difficult to reproduce. Vegetable meat already partially circumvents the problem by using the shear cell technology to pull the vegetable protein mixture together in layers to form a meat-like fiber texture. However, if you want to prepare a meat-free steak from scratch, you still need to do some work. Cultivated meat needs a way to grow fat cells and somehow mix them with the muscle cells to make the end result tasty. This has proven difficult so far, which is the main reason why the first burger was so dry.

The scientists at the Dutch meat startup Meatable may have found a way. The team has focused on medical stem cell research to find a way to isolate pluripotent stem cells in cows by removing them from the blood in umbilical cords of newborn calves. Pluripotent cells that form early in the development of an embryo can develop into any type of cell in the body. This means that they can also be made to produce fat, muscle, or even liver cells in meat from the laboratory.

I think there will be queues outside the store that are longer than the next iPhone.

Meatables work could mean that the cells can be processed into a steak-like product, the fat and muscle content of which depends on the customers wishes: for example, the characteristic marbling of a rib-eye steak. We can add more fat or make it slimmer we can do whatever we want. We have new control over how we feed the cells, said Meatables CTO, Daan Luining, who is also the research director of the nonprofit Cellular Agriculture Society. Pluripotent cells are like hardware. The software you run turns it into the desired cell. Its already in the cell you just have to trigger it.

The work of the researchers is also interesting because they have found a way to work around the FBS problem: the pluripotent cells do not need serum to grow. Luining is clearly proud of this. It was a very elegant solution to bypass this other cell type, he says.

He admits that Meatable is still years from the launch of a commercial product, but is confident that it will open up prospects. I think there will be queues outside the store that are longer than the next iPhone, he says.

It looks like laboratory meat isnt quite as virtuous as you think. While greenhouse gas emissions are lower than that of the greatest villain, beef, it is more environmentally harmful than chicken or vegetable alternatives due to the energy needs currently required for its production. A World Economic Forum white paper on the impact of alternative meat found that laboratory-grown meat as it is now produced only produces about 7% less greenhouse gas emissions than beef. Other substitutes such as tofu or plants led to a reduction of up to 25%. We will have to see whether companies can actually offer low-emission products at reasonable costs, said Marco Springmann, co-author of the newspaper in Oxford.

It is also unclear how much better laboratory meat would be for you than the original. One reason why meat has been linked to an increased risk of cancer is because it contains heme, which can also be present in cultivated meat.

And do people even want to eat it? Datar believes that. The little research on this topic supports this. A 2017 study published in PLoS One magazine found that most U.S. consumers were willing to try laboratory meat and that about a third were likely or definitely willing to eat it regularly.

It is unrealistic to expect the whole world to go vegan. However, a October 2018 report in Nature suggested that if everyone switched to the flexible lifestyle (mainly vegetarian food, but with a little poultry and fish and no more than one serving of red meat a week), we could halve greenhouse gas emissions from food production and also reduce other harmful effects of the meat industry, such as the excessive use of fertilizers and the waste of fresh water and land. (According to a study in The Lancet in October, premature mortality could be reduced by about 20% as fewer people die from diseases such as coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer.)

impossible food

Some of the biggest players in the traditional meat industry recognize this and subtly call themselves protein producers rather than meat companies. Like big tobacco companies that buy vape startups, the meat giants are buying shares in this new industry. In 2016, Tyson Foods, the worlds second largest meat processor, launched a venture capital fund to support alternative meat producers. It is also an investor in Beyond Meat. The third largest company, Cargill, invested in meat culture startup Memphis Meats in 2017, and Tyson followed in 2018. Many other large food manufacturers do the same. For example, in December 2018, Unilever bought a Dutch company called Vegetarian Butcher, which produces a variety of non-meat products, including vegetable-based meat substitutes.

A meat company doesnt do what it does because it worsens the environment and doesnt like animals, says Tetrick, Justs general manager. You do it because you think its the most efficient way. But if you do give them another way to make the company more efficient, they will.

At least some in the meat industry agree. In a profile for Bloomberg last year, Tom Hayes, then CEO of Tyson, made it clear where he saw the possible future of the company. If we can grow the meat without the animal, why not?

Advertisement

Link:
The race for a steak grown in the laboratory - Techno EA

Posted in Missouri Stem Cells | Comments Off on The race for a steak grown in the laboratory – Techno EA

Malkin – The Winchester Star

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:54 am

My plan to Keep America Great is very simple:

1) Stop exporting American soldiers to countries that hate our guts.

2) Stop importing people from countries that hate our guts.

When I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, I thought this was the plan. The America First champion rightly assailed Barack Obama for recklessly endangering the lives of our soldiers to pursue politically driven endless wars. President Trump promised to build an effective wall on the southern border. He enacted tough travel restrictions, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, on visitors from countries whose terror-coddling governments pose national security threats.

Yet, here we are at the dawn of 2020 with thousands of U.S. troops headed back to the Stone Age Middle East maw, Mexican drug cartels on the loose while our Border Patrol hands out diapers to illegal immigrants and refugees from around the world including nearly 1,400 welcomed just last year from the very high-risk countries the Trump travel ban was supposed to block transforming the nation without the consent of the governed. The leaky block list includes Syria, Iraq and Iran, which launched multiple missiles at U.S. airbases late Tuesday in retaliation for our deadly airstrike last week that killed Quds General Qassem Soleimani.

Now, we are on heightened alert here in our homeland with authorities nervous that Hezbollah sleeper cells (which Ive documented since writing Invasion in 2002) might strike from within.

Some of you still wonder why I write so frequently and vehemently about our failed immigration and entrance policies. Its because nothing matters more right now to the survival of our country than the right to determine who gets in and the ability to enforce it.

As I reported last year, thanks to an executive order signed by Trump in September, local communities were given the explicit opt-in rights to stem the lucrative tide of refugees coming largely from Third World countries and jihadist breeding grounds. This Wednesday, religious charities that profit the most from this multi-billion-dollar racket will be in court to assert blanket, open-borders veto power over the people.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hear arguments from vested refugee resettlement interests who oppose Trumps order requiring government contractors to obtain written consent from all localities and states in which they plan to resettle refugees. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Church World Service and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service three of the nine State Department partners who resettle all refugees argue that the federal government should prioritize family reunification of foreign refugees over local control. Translation: Americans come last.

The lawsuit assails the White House executive order for threatening to systematically dismantle the organizations including Plaintiffs that have spent decades developing networks, expertise, and resources to carry out the American ideal of welcoming refugees. Those resources come from you and me: Tax subsidies that constitute the vast majority of these nonprofit activists budgets. Over the past decade, according to an analysis by immigration researcher James Simpson, the three plaintiff groups have raked in the following amounts from the federal refugee resettlement program:

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services: $471.6 million (94% from of its budget).

Church World Service: $433.3 million (72% of its budget).

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: $186.1 million (54% of its budget).

The refugee resettlement contractors, in turn, spread their massive wealth from both public and private sources to a galaxy of subcontractors looking to register Democratic voters, fill their pews, and recruit new clients and constituents.

The Interfaith Immigration Coalition holding a protest event after the hearing on Wednesday to support the refugee pipeline includes: Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd; U.S. Provinces; Daughters of Charity; Disciples Refugee & Immigration Ministries; Franciscan Action Network; Interfaith Immigration Coalition; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Jewish Women; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Rise for Refuge; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Institute Leadership Team; Truah; The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The United Church of Christ; and We Are All America.

Thanks to pressure from these groups with bottomless budgets and clout, 18 Republican yes, Republican governors are also standing against Trump and self-determination in favor of increased refugee settlement, including: Doug Ducey of Arizona, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Brad Little of Idaho, Mike Parsons of Missouri, Larry Hogan of Maryland, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Gary Herbert of Utah, Jim Justice of West Virginia and Phil Scott of Vermont.

The names must be named and the sellouts must be shamed, especially as war breaks out on all fronts. Whats the point of sending young American troops to fight enemies over there if we are welcoming them by the tens and hundreds of thousands over here?

Michelle Malkin is a political writer. Her column is distributed nationally by the Creators Syndicate.

Originally posted here:
Malkin - The Winchester Star

Posted in North Dakota Stem Cells | Comments Off on Malkin – The Winchester Star

Ultragenyx shares jump on ‘better than expected’ gene therapy data – FierceBiotech

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:51 am

Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical saw its shares jump around 27% in trading Friday after announcing positive top-line data out of its gene therapy trial.

Its a small number, just three patients that form part of a third cohort for the phase 1/2 study, as well as another small test but a longer-term look from the second cohort.

In cohort three testing the biotechs drug DTX301, an adeno-associated virus gene therapy for the treatment of ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, there were two confirmed female responders as well a third potential male responder who requires longer-term follow-up to confirm response status.

The Art of Recognizing Clinical Supply Risk Factors and Applying Proactive Measures to Avoid Study Delays and Disruptions

No two studies are the same and each clinical supply project carries unique risks. But what characteristics are most likely to raise a flag that issues are ahead? Are there certain types of clinical sponsors and studies that are at greater risk of experiencing supply challenges? And how do clinical sponsors know what is important to focus on and what is not? Join us for this webinar as we attempt to answer these questions.

Meanwhile, in cohort two, one female patient saw a new response after a year. The biotech added that the two previously disclosed responders in cohort one and two also remain clinically and metabolically stable at 104 and 78 weeks, respectively. Across all nine patients dosed in the study, up to six patients have demonstrated a response, it said in a statement.

RELATED: BIO: In conversation with Emil Kakkis, Ultragenyx CEO

OTC deficiency is a rare X-linked genetic disorder characterized by complete or partial lack of the enzyme OTC. Excess ammonia, which is a neurotoxin, travels to the central nervous system through the blood,

According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the severity and age of onset of OTC deficiency vary from person to person, even within the same family. A severe form of the disorder affects some infants, typically males, shortly after birth (neonatal period). A milder form of the disorder affects some children later in infancy. Both males and females may develop symptoms of OTC deficiency during childhood. Most carrier females are healthy, but may be prone to severe headaches following protein intake.

Analysts at Jefferies said the data looked better than expected and could be a positive spark to help turn the stock heading into 2020 events. It certainly did in the immediate term, with the biotechs shares up by 27% in mid-morning trading Friday.

We are encouraged to see a more uniform response at the higher doses including three female responders. To date, three patients in the study have discontinued alternate pathway medication and liberalized their diets while remaining clinically and metabolically stable, said Eric Crombez, M.D., chief medical officer of the Ultragenyx Gene Therapy development unit.

We are moving to prophylactic steroid use in the next cohort as we believe this could further enhance the level and consistency of expression that we have demonstrated so far.

Link:
Ultragenyx shares jump on 'better than expected' gene therapy data - FierceBiotech

Posted in Gene therapy | Comments Off on Ultragenyx shares jump on ‘better than expected’ gene therapy data – FierceBiotech

Gene therapy company begins operations in Longmont – The Denver Channel

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:51 am

LONGMONT, Colo. A few months ago, 2-year-old Maisie Forest was finally able to sit up on her own for the first time. Her development has been delayed by a rare genetic disorder called Spinal Muscular Atrophy, but last August, she received a groundbreaking treatment for the condition.

"It's a miracle drug," said Maisie's mother, Ciji Green. "It's not the cure, but we're talking about a disease that had no treatments four years ago," she added.

The "miracle drug" Green is referring to Zolgensma, a gene therapy for Spinal Muscular Atrophy made by Novartis-owned AveXis. On Tuesday, AveXis cut the ribbon on a new facility in Longmont where it will soon produce Zolgensma.

"Zolgensma is this first product weve had approved by the FDA for the treatment of kids with Spinal Muscular Atrophy," said AveXis President David Lennon.

The FDA approval came last May, just in time for Maisie to receive the treatment. But her mother still had to fight for the insurance company to pay for it. At $2.1 million per dose, Zolgensma is the most expensive drug or treatment ever made. Lennon said Novartis has invested half a billion dollars in the production of Zolgensma.

For Green, the cost is well worth the changes she's already seen in her daughter. Speaking to employees at the AveXis ribbon cutting, she called them heroes.

"To all of you it may just be a treatment, but to my family and so many others, its so much more," said Green.

AveXis says the same platform they used to produce Zolgensma might be applied to other therapies for other diseases in the future. The company is looking at developing treatments for Rett Syndrome, Friedreichs Ataxia, and an inherited form of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or ALS.

"There are actually thousands of these kinds of diseases. Usually they impact a few hundred kids or adults every year, but altogether there are potentially millions of patients who have genetic diseases around the world," said Lennon.

Lennon said AveXis chose Longmont for its production facility in part because of the infrastructure already in place. The building at 4000 Nelson Rd. was previously occupied by pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Amgen. He said the available talent was also a factor.

AveXis retained most of the employees from the previous tenants. With new hires, the Longmont facility currently has a staff of around 300 employees and expects to grow to 400 by the end of 2020.

Go here to see the original:
Gene therapy company begins operations in Longmont - The Denver Channel

Posted in Gene therapy | Comments Off on Gene therapy company begins operations in Longmont – The Denver Channel

Generation Bio grabs a $110M round to ramp up work on next-gen gene therapies – FierceBiotech

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:50 am

In 2018, Generation Bio broke cover with a $25 million series A, swiftly followed by a meatier $100 million second funding round.

Now, just before the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, it has grabbed its biggest yet, a $110 million series C, as it looks to go all in for IND-enabling studies for its leading programs: liver-targeted therapies for hemophilia A and phenylketonuria.

In addition to the liver, Generation Bio is also working on potential treatments for diseases of skeletal muscle and the eye.

The Art of Recognizing Clinical Supply Risk Factors and Applying Proactive Measures to Avoid Study Delays and Disruptions

No two studies are the same and each clinical supply project carries unique risks. But what characteristics are most likely to raise a flag that issues are ahead? Are there certain types of clinical sponsors and studies that are at greater risk of experiencing supply challenges? And how do clinical sponsors know what is important to focus on and what is not? Join us for this webinar as we attempt to answer these questions.

The early-stage Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotech saw its major round led by T. Rowe Price with help from Farallon, Wellington Management and existing investors Atlas Venture, Fidelity, Invus, Casdin, Deerfield, Foresite Capital and an entity associated with SVB Leerink.

Generation Bios platform is geared up to be gene therapy 2.0 and is designed to develop re-dosable, long-lasting, scalable gene therapies for severe diseases.

The company is developing gene therapies under the GeneWave banner that use closed-ended DNA rather than viruses to deliver therapeutic proteins, which could sidestep safety issues such as immune reactions

Our vision is to develop re-dosable, long-lasting gene therapies manufactured at a scale that leaves no patient or family behind, said Geoff McDonough, M.D., president and CEO of Generation Bio.

Since our founding we have had the support of high-quality investors who share our excitement about the potential of our platform to lead a new generation of gene therapy and about advancing our lead programs toward the clinic.

Read the rest here:
Generation Bio grabs a $110M round to ramp up work on next-gen gene therapies - FierceBiotech

Posted in Gene therapy | Comments Off on Generation Bio grabs a $110M round to ramp up work on next-gen gene therapies – FierceBiotech

Solid Bio Restructures to Get Halted Gene Therapy Study Back on Track – Xconomy

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:50 am

XconomyBoston

Solid Biosciences is slashing its workforce, including two top executives, in order to devote the companys remaining resources to its experimental gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

The corporate restructuring announced Thursday comes two months after the FDA placed a hold on the study after safety problems emerged that were linked to the gene therapy, SGT-001. Cambridge, MA-based Solid Bio (NASDAQ: SLDB) says going forward it will focus on how to address the clinical hold and resume testing. With the corporate changes, Solid Bio says it has enough cash to last into next year. At the end of the third quarter of 2019, the company reported cash and other holdings totaling $105.7 million.

Following the announcement, Solid Bios stock price slid more than 17 percent to $3.66 per share in pre-market trading.

Solid Bio has been developing SGT-001 as a way to potentially address the genetic defect underpinning Duchenne. Patients who have the inherited disease dont make enough of the muscle protein dystrophin. The Solid Bio gene therapy uses an engineered virus to deliver genetic material intended to restore dystrophin production. But the company had also previously disclosed theres a chance that the dosing requirements of the gene therapy could increase the risk of side effects related to the virus used in the treatment.

The complications reported in the November clinical hold included an immune system reaction, a decrease in red blood cells, kidney injury, and blood circulation difficulties. Those problems are similar to ones cited in the FDAs 2018 clinical hold on tests of SGT-001. Months later, the agency allowed the study to resume but with additional safety measures.

Solid Bios board approved the corporate restructuring on Tuesday, according to a securities filing. In the first quarter of this year, the company expects to record a $2.1 million charge related to the layoffs, which will cut about one third of its workforce. Last years annual report states that the company had 111 full-time employees as of Dec. 31, 2018. Those leaving Solid Bio include Alvaro Amorrortu, the companys chief operating officer, and Jorge Quiroz, its chief medical officer. But both will continue to advise Solid Bio under consulting agreements.

Photo by Flickr user reynermedia via a Creative Commons license

Frank Vinluan is an Xconomy editor based in Research Triangle Park. You can reach him at fvinluan [[at]] xconomy.com.

See original here:
Solid Bio Restructures to Get Halted Gene Therapy Study Back on Track - Xconomy

Posted in Gene therapy | Comments Off on Solid Bio Restructures to Get Halted Gene Therapy Study Back on Track – Xconomy

At 16, shes a pioneer in the fight to cure sickle cell disease at Boston Childrens – Boston.com

Posted: January 12, 2020 at 8:50 am

BOSTON Helen Obando, a shy slip of a girl, lay curled in a hospital bed in June waiting for a bag of stem cells from her bone marrow, modified by gene therapy, to start dripping into her chest.

The hope was that the treatment would cure her of sickle cell disease, an inherited blood disorder that can cause excruciating pain, organ damage and early death.

Helen, who at 16 was the youngest person ever to undergo the therapy, was sound asleep for the big moment.

It was a critical moment in medical science.

For more than a half-century, scientists have known the cause of sickle cell disease: A single mutation in a gene turns red blood cells into rigid crescent or sickle shapes instead of soft discs. These misshapen cells get stuck in veins and arteries, blocking the flow of blood that carries life-giving oxygen to the body and causing the diseases horrifying hallmark: episodes of agony that begin in babyhood.

Millions of people globally, a vast majority of them Africans, suffer from sickle cell disease. Researchers have worked for decades on improving treatment and finding a cure, but experts said the effort has been hindered by chronic underfunding, in part because most of the estimated 100,000 people in the United States who have the disease are African American, often poor or of modest means.

The disease also affects people with southern European, Middle Eastern or Asian backgrounds, or those who are Hispanic, like Helen.

This is the story of two quests for a sickle cell cure one by the Obando family and one by a determined scientist at Boston Childrens Hospital, Dr. Stuart Orkin, 73, who has labored against the disease since he was a medical resident in the 1970s.

Like many others affected by sickle cell, the Obando family faced a double whammy: not one but two children with the disease, Helen and her older sister, Haylee Obando. They lived with one hope for a cure, a dangerous and sometimes fatal bone marrow transplant usually reserved for those with a healthy sibling as a match. But then they heard about a potential breakthrough: a complex procedure to flip a genetic switch so the body produces healthy blood.

Scientists have been experimenting with gene therapy for two decades, with mixed success. And it will be years before they know if this new procedure is effective in the long term. But if it is, sickle cell disease could be the first common genetic disorder to be cured by manipulating human DNA.

Four weeks after the infusion of stem cells, Helen was strong enough to be discharged. At home, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, on a sofa with her mother by her side, she put a hand over her eyes and started to sob. She and her family wondered: Would it work? Was her suffering really over?

A Familys Nightmare

Sheila Cintron, 35, and Byron Obando, 40, met when she was in the eighth grade and he was a high school senior. They fell in love. Haylee, their first child, was born in 2001, when Cintron was 17.

When a newborn screening test showed that Haylee had the disease, her father asked, Whats sickle cell?

They soon found out.

As the family gathered for her first birthday party, Haylee started screaming inconsolably. They rushed her to the hospital. It was the first of many pain crises.

Doctors warned the parents that if they had another baby, the odds were 1 in 4 that the child would have sickle cell, too. But they decided to take the chance.

Less than two years later, Helen was born. As bad as Haylees disease was, Helens was much worse. When she was 9 months old, a severe blockage of blood flow in her pelvis destroyed bone. At age 2, her spleen, which helps fight bacterial infections, became dangerously enlarged because of blocked blood flow. Doctors surgically removed the organ.

After Helen was born, her parents decided not to have any more children. But four years later, Cintron discovered she was pregnant again.

But they were lucky. Their third child, Ryan Obando, did not inherit the sickle cell mutation.

As Ryan grew up, Helens health worsened. When he was 9, Helens doctors suggested a drastic solution: If Ryan was a match for her, he might be able to cure her by giving her some of his bone marrow, though there would also be major risks for her, including death from severe infections or serious damage to organs if his immune system attacked her body.

As it turned out, Ryan matched not Helen but Haylee.

The transplant succeeded, but her parents asked themselves how they could stand by while one daughter was cured and the sicker one continued to suffer.

There was only one way to get a sibling donor for Helen: have another baby. In 2017, the couple embarked on another grueling medical journey.

Obando had a vasectomy, so doctors had to surgically extract his sperm from his testicles. Cintron had 75 eggs removed from her ovaries and fertilized with her husbands sperm. The result was more than 30 embryos.

Not a single embryo was both free of the sickle cell gene and a match for Helen.

So the family decided to move to Mesa, Arizona, from Lawrence, where the cold, which set off pain crises, kept Helen indoors all winter. The family had already sold their house when they heard that doctors at Boston Childrens were working on sickle cell gene therapy.

Cintron approached Dr. Erica Esrick, a principal investigator for the trial. But the trial wasnt yet open to children.

Figuring Out the Science

Nothing had prepared Orkin for the suffering he witnessed in his 30s as a medical resident in the pediatric hematology ward at Boston Childrens. It was the 1970s, and the beds were filled with children who had sickle cell crying in pain.

Orkin knew there was a solution to the puzzle of sickle cell, at least in theory: Fetuses make hemoglobin the oxygen-carrying molecules in blood cells with a different gene. Blood cells filled with fetal hemoglobin do not sickle. But the fetal gene is turned off after a baby is born, and an adult hemoglobin gene takes over. If the adult gene is mutated, red cells sickle.

Researchers had to figure out how to switch hemoglobin production to the fetal form. No one knew how to do that.

Orkin needed ideas. Supported by the National Institutes of Health and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, he kept looking.

The breakthrough came in 2008. The cost of gene sequencing was plummeting, and scientists were finding millions of genetic signposts on human DNA, allowing them to home in on small genetic differences among individuals. Researchers started doing large-scale DNA scans of populations, looking for tiny but significant changes in genes. They asked: Was there a molecular switch that flipped cells from making fetal to adult hemoglobin? And if there was, could the switch be flipped back?

They found a promising lead: an unprepossessing gene called BCL11A.

In a lab experiment, researchers blocked this gene and discovered that the blood cells in petri dishes started making fetal instead of adult hemoglobin.

Next they tried blocking the gene in mice genetically engineered to have human hemoglobin and sickle cell disease. Again, it worked.

Patients came next, in the gene therapy trial at Boston Childrens that began in 2018.

The trial run by Dr. David Williams, an expert in the biology of blood-forming stem cells at Boston Childrens, and Esrick has a straightforward goal: Were going to reeducate the blood cells and make them think they are still in the fetus, Williams said.

Doctors gave adult patients a drug that loosened stem cells immature cells that can turn into red blood cells from the bone marrow, their normal home, so they floated free in the bloodstream. Then they extracted those stem cells from whole blood drawn from the patient.

The researchers used a disabled genetically engineered AIDS virus to carry information into the stem cells, flipping on the fetal hemoglobin gene and turning off the adult gene. Then they infused the treated stem cells into patients veins. From there, the treated cells migrated into the patients bone marrow, where they began making healthy blood cells.

With the success in adults, the Food and Drug Administration said Boston Childrens could move on to teenagers.

When her mother told her about the gene therapy trial, Helen was frightened. But the more she thought about it, the more she was ready to take the risk.

In the months after the gene therapy infusion at Boston Childrens, her symptoms disappeared.

Helen was scheduled for her six-month checkup Dec. 16. Helens total hemoglobin level was so high it was nearly normal a level she had never before achieved, even with blood transfusions. She had no signs of sickle cell disease.

Visit link:
At 16, shes a pioneer in the fight to cure sickle cell disease at Boston Childrens - Boston.com

Posted in Gene therapy | Comments Off on At 16, shes a pioneer in the fight to cure sickle cell disease at Boston Childrens – Boston.com

Page 1,187«..1020..1,1861,1871,1881,189..1,2001,210..»