With well-established regional markets such as North America and Europe presenting grim to moderate growth opportunities, emerging regions with an increased appetite for processed and packaged foods, confectionaries, and biopharmaceutical products can prove to be the most promising targets for companies in theglobal microbial fermentation technology market, observes Transparency Market Research in a recent report. Companies can benefit from the rising set of opportunities in emerging economies such as China, Brazil, and India that have billions of potential consumers seeking a diverse range of microbial fermented products to choose from.

Read Report Overview - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/microbial-fermentation-technology-market.html

Therefore, focus on expanding businesses to cater to the rising demand for various food, feed, biosimilar products, and alcoholic beverages in these regions can prove to be an excellent growth strategy for players wanting to make it big in the global microbial fermentation technology market in the near future. Some of the leading companies in the market are Biocon, Lonza, Danone Ltd., Amyris, United Breweries Ltd., Novozymes, TerraVia Holdings, Inc., F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd., and BioVectra, DSM.

According to the report, the global microbial fermentation technology market was valued at US$1,493.8 bn in 2016 and is projected to expand at a CAGR of 5.7% from 2017 to 2025 to rise to a valuation of US$2,447.5 bn in 2025.

Request Brochure of Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=25952

Asia Pacific Region to remain a key Consumer of Microbial Fermentation Technologies

Geographically, the market in Asia Pacific dominated with nearly 40% share in the global market in 2016. Growth of the regional market can be attributed to the vast rise in geriatric population, a well-established chemical industry in China, cutting-edge research in the field of biotechnology and health care, and changing lifestyles in developing nations. The thriving nutraceuticals market in India is also likely to fuel the microbial fermentation technology market in Asia Pacific.

Request for Analysis of COVID-19 Impact on Microbial Fermentation Technology Market- https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=covid19&rep_id=25952

In terms of product type, the segment of alcoholic beverages accounted for the dominant share in the overall market in 2016 and the trend is likely to remain strong over the forecast period as well, thanks to the expanding urban population and the rising popularity of alcohol among the young population of the globe.

Increased Usage of Microbial Fermentation in Biotechnology to Help Market Pick Pace

Fermentation technology has remained a highly favored biological process across a number of industrial applications for many decades due to low cost, high specificity, simplicity of reaction, and usage in versatile applications. While microbial fermentation has been used traditionally for preservation of foods only, it has seen a vast rise in application in the past few years owing to promising outcomes and the possibility of development of various bioprocess and products with its help.

Request for Custom Research - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=CR&rep_id=25952

Modern industry has complemented the basic principle of fermentation technology with advances in genetic engineering by extending applications to produce a vast range products in the biotechnology sector, including biofuels, biochemicals, biopharmaceuticals, biosimilars, and biomolecules. Moreover, rising petrol prices and depleting reserves of fossil fuels have diversified applications of microbial fermentation process in the chemical sector to provide products such as alcohols, enzymes, organic acids, amino acids, vitamins, alkaloids, and Xanthan. The rising global demand for these products is likely to play a key role in helping the global microbial fermentation market expand at a promising pace in the next few years.

Pre Book Microbial Fermentation Technology Market Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/checkout.php?rep_id=25952&ltype=S

This analysis of the global microbial fermentation market is based on a recent market research report by Transparency Market Research, titled Microbial Fermentation Technology Market (Product Type - Medical (Antibiotics, Probiotics, Monoclonal Antibodies, Recombinant Proteins, and Biosimilars), Industrial (Acetone, Ethanol and Butanol, Enzymes, and Amino Acids), Alcohol Beverages (Beer, Spirits, and Wine) and Food and Feed Products); End User - Bio-Pharmaceutical Industries, Food and Feed Industry, Contract Research Organizations (CROs) and Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMOs), and Academic Research Institutes) - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 20172025.

Browse More Trending Reports by Transparency Market Research:

Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Drugs Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/aneurysmal-subarachnoid-hemorrhage-drugs-market.html

Aicardi Syndrome Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/aicardi-syndrome-market.html

Cowden Syndrome Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/cowden-syndrome-market.html

About Us

Transparency Market Research is a next-generation market intelligence provider, offering fact-based solutions to business leaders, consultants, and strategy professionals.

Our reports are single-point solutions for businesses to grow, evolve, and mature. Our real-time data collection methods along with ability to track more than one million high growth niche products are aligned with your aims. The detailed and proprietary statistical models used by our analysts offer insights for making right decision in the shortest span of time. For organizations that require specific but comprehensive information we offer customized solutions through ad hoc reports. These requests are delivered with the perfect combination of right sense of fact-oriented problem solving methodologies and leveraging existing data repositories.

TMR believes that unison of solutions for clients-specific problems with right methodology of research is the key to help enterprises reach right decision.

Contact

Mr. Rohit BhiseyTransparency Market Research

State Tower,

90 State Street,

Suite 700,

Albany NY - 12207

United States

USA - Canada Toll Free: 866-552-3453

Email: sales@transparencymarketresearch.com

Website: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/

Read the original post:
Microbial Fermentation Technology Market: Alcoholic Beverages to Remain Most Lucrative Product Segment - BioSpace

Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market

Los Angeles, United State,- This research study is one of the most detailed and accurate ones that solely focus on the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. It sheds light on critical factors that impact the growth of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market on several fronts. Market participants can use the report to gain a sound understanding of the competitive landscape and strategies adopted by leading players of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. The authors of the report segment the globalZinc Finger Nuclease Technologymarket according to a type of product, application, and region. The segments studied in the report are analyzed on the basis of market share, consumption, production, market attractiveness, and other vital factors.

The geographical analysis of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market provided in the research study is an intelligent tool that interested parties can use to identify lucrative regional markets. It helps readers to become aware of the characteristics of different regional markets and how they are progressing in terms of growth. The report also offers a deep analysis of Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market dynamics, including drivers, challenges, restraints, trends and opportunities, and market influence factors. It provides a statistical analysis of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, which includes CAGR, revenue, volume, market shares, and other important figures. On the whole, it comes out as a complete package of various market intelligence studies focusing on the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market.

Get PDF template of this report:https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1689213/covid-19-impact-on-global-zinc-finger-nuclease-technology-market

Company Profiles: It is a very important section of the report that includes accurate and deep profiling of leading players of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. It provides information about the main business, markets served, gross margin, revenue, price, production, and other factors that define the market progress of players studied in the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology report.

Major Players Cited in the Report

, Sigma-Aldrich, Sangamo Therapeutics, Labomics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Gilead, Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size Estimation

In order to estimate and validate the size of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, our researchers used bottom-up as well as top-down approaches. These methods were also used to project the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market size of segments and sub-segments included in the report.

We used secondary sources to determine all breakdowns, splits, and percentage shares and completed their verification with the help of primary sources. We used both primary and secondary research processes to estimate the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market size vis--vis value and analyze the supply chain of the industry. In addition, extensive secondary research was conducted to identify key players in the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market.

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Product

, Cell Line Engineering, Animal Genetic Engineering, Plant Genetic Engineering, Other Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Application

, Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory, Academic and Research Institutes, Others

Report Objectives

Tracking and analyzing competitive developments in the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, including research and development, merger and acquisition, collaboration, and product launch Analyzing core competencies and market shares of leading companies in a comprehensive manner Forecasting the growth of the overall global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market and its important segments on the basis of revenue and volume Pinpointing market opportunities for stakeholders, vendors, market players, and other interested parties Strategically analyzing microeconomic and macroeconomic factors and their influence on future prospects and growth trends of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market

Enquire for customization in Report @https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1689213/covid-19-impact-on-global-zinc-finger-nuclease-technology-market

TOC

1 Report Overview1.1 Study Scope1.2 Key Market Segments1.3 Players Covered: Ranking by Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue1.4 Market Analysis by Type1.4.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size Growth Rate by Type: 2020 VS 20261.4.2 Cell Line Engineering1.4.3 Animal Genetic Engineering1.4.4 Plant Genetic Engineering1.4.5 Other1.5 Market by Application1.5.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Share by Application: 2020 VS 20261.5.2 Biotechnology Companies1.5.3 Pharmaceutical Companies1.5.4 Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory1.5.5 Academic and Research Institutes1.5.6 Others1.6 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Industry Impact1.6.1 How the Covid-19 is Affecting the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Industry1.6.1.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business Impact Assessment Covid-191.6.1.2 Supply Chain Challenges1.6.1.3 COVID-19s Impact On Crude Oil and Refined Products1.6.2 Market Trends and Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Potential Opportunities in the COVID-19 Landscape1.6.3 Measures / Proposal against Covid-191.6.3.1 Government Measures to Combat Covid-19 Impact1.6.3.2 Proposal for Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players to Combat Covid-19 Impact1.7 Study Objectives1.8 Years Considered2 Global Growth Trends by Regions2.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Perspective (2015-2026)2.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Growth Trends by Regions2.2.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Regions: 2015 VS 2020 VS 20262.2.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Historic Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)2.2.3 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Regions (2021-2026)2.3 Industry Trends and Growth Strategy2.3.1 Market Top Trends2.3.2 Market Drivers2.3.3 Market Challenges2.3.4 Porters Five Forces Analysis2.3.5 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Growth Strategy2.3.6 Primary Interviews with Key Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players (Opinion Leaders)3 Competition Landscape by Key Players3.1 Global Top Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players by Market Size3.1.1 Global Top Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players by Revenue (2015-2020)3.1.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue Market Share by Players (2015-2020)3.1.3 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3)3.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Concentration Ratio3.2.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Concentration Ratio (CR5 and HHI)3.2.2 Global Top 10 and Top 5 Companies by Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue in 20193.3 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players Head office and Area Served3.4 Key Players Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Product Solution and Service3.5 Date of Enter into Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market3.6 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans4 Breakdown Data by Type (2015-2026)4.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Historic Market Size by Type (2015-2020)4.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Type (2021-2026)5 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Breakdown Data by Application (2015-2026)5.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)5.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Application (2021-2026)6 North America6.1 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)6.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in North America (2019-2020)6.3 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)6.4 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)7 Europe7.1 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)7.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Europe (2019-2020)7.3 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)7.4 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)8 China8.1 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)8.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in China (2019-2020)8.3 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)8.4 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)9 Japan9.1 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)9.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Japan (2019-2020)9.3 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)9.4 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)10 Southeast Asia10.1 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)10.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Southeast Asia (2019-2020)10.3 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)10.4 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)11 India11.1 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)11.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in India (2019-2020)11.3 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)11.4 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)12 Central & South America12.1 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)12.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Central & South America (2019-2020)12.3 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)12.4 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)13 Key Players Profiles13.1 Sigma-Aldrich13.1.1 Sigma-Aldrich Company Details13.1.2 Sigma-Aldrich Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.1.3 Sigma-Aldrich Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.1.4 Sigma-Aldrich Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020))13.1.5 Sigma-Aldrich Recent Development13.2 Sangamo Therapeutics13.2.1 Sangamo Therapeutics Company Details13.2.2 Sangamo Therapeutics Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.2.3 Sangamo Therapeutics Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.2.4 Sangamo Therapeutics Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.2.5 Sangamo Therapeutics Recent Development13.3 Labomics13.3.1 Labomics Company Details13.3.2 Labomics Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.3.3 Labomics Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.3.4 Labomics Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.3.5 Labomics Recent Development13.4 Thermo Fisher Scientific13.4.1 Thermo Fisher Scientific Company Details13.4.2 Thermo Fisher Scientific Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.4.3 Thermo Fisher Scientific Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.4.4 Thermo Fisher Scientific Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.4.5 Thermo Fisher Scientific Recent Development13.5 Gilead13.5.1 Gilead Company Details13.5.2 Gilead Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.5.3 Gilead Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.5.4 Gilead Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.5.5 Gilead Recent Development14 Analysts Viewpoints/Conclusions15 Appendix15.1 Research Methodology15.1.1 Methodology/Research Approach15.1.2 Data Source15.2 Disclaimer15.3 Author Details

About Us:

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

The rest is here:
Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Projected to Witness Vigorous Expansion by 2020-2026 | , Sigma-Aldrich, Sangamo Therapeutics - StartupNG

Pune, Aug. 18, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global recombinant vaccines market size is expected to reach USD 25.32 billion by 2027, exhibiting a CAGR of 11.3% between 2019 to 2027. The introduction of innovative recombinant vaccines owing to the incidence of several infectious viruses such as coronavirus and hepatitis B will uplift the market potential during the forecast period, states Fortune Business Insights, in a report, titled Recombinant Vaccines Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Subunit and Live Attenuated), By Route of Administration (Parenteral and Oral), By Disease Indication (Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Herpes Zoster, Meningococcal B, and Others), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2020-2027. The market size stood at USD 10.82 billion in 2019.

Request a Sample Copy of the Research Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

The report recombinant vaccines market comprises:

Market Driver:

Development of Novel Vaccines by Significant Players to Augment Growth

The growing prevalence of diseases and viruses has led to huge investments in R&D for the development of innovative drugs and vaccines. The production of vaccines in larger quantities to relieve the population and prevent the risk of vaccine unavailability. The rising focus of key players towards advanced DNA technology, genomics, and other biotechnology techniques can further enhance the production and thus, benefit the market effectively.

Furthermore, the stellar sales of novel products will subsequently boost the growth of the market. For instance, Mercks Gardasil sales sprouted to US$ 3.7 billion in 2019 from US$ 1.7 billion in 2014. The vast majority of the population affected by Hepatitis B is predicted to be an essential factor in promoting the expansion of the market. As per the Hepatitis B Foundation, every year 30 million people are infected by the hepatitis B virus. Besides, the rising government initiatives and immunization programs will certainly create opportunities for the market in the forthcoming years.

The coronavirus emergency has given immense loss to industries and sectors across the globe. The governments of several countries have instigated lockdown to thwart the spread of this deadly virus. Such plans have caused disturbances in the production and supply chain. But, with time and resolution, we will be able to combat this stern time and get back to normality. Our well-revised reports will help companies to receive in-depth information about the present scenario of every market so that you can adopt the necessary strategies accordingly.

To get to know more about the short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on this market,

please visit: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Heavy Demand for Vaccines to Escalate Business During Coronavirus

The growing demand for immunization drugs and vaccines due to the extensive spread of the disease amid coronavirus will improve the prospects of the market. The enormous R&D spending by industry players to develop recombinant COVID-19 vaccine will enable speedy expansion of the market in the forthcoming years. For instance, Novavax, a pipeline candidate NVX-CoV2373 is in the phase-1 clinical study against COVID-19. The ongoing clinal trials by pharmaceutical giants for the introduction of an effective COVID vaccine will accelerate the market revenue in the foreseeable future.

Regional Analysis:

Rapid Adoption of Effective Vaccines to Propel Market in North America

The market in North America stood at USD 4.97 billion in 2019 and is expected to rise excellently during the forecast period. The growth in the region is attributed to growing R&D investments by eminent players. The rapid adoption of efficient recombinant vaccines in the US. The increasing accessibility of advanced molecular & genetic engineering instruments is likely to improve the prospects of the market. Asia Pacific is expected to expand rapidly during the forecast period due to the immunization programs by governments.

The increasing demand for effective vaccines is likely to support the development of the market. The rising cases of human papillomavirus disease and hepatitis B are expected to spur opportunities for the market in the foreseeable future. According to the HPV Information Center in 2019, 106,430 annual incidences of human papillomavirus was recorded in China alone. The growing need for vaccine supply can be a crucial factor bolstering the growth of the market in Asia Pacific.

Quick Buy - Recombinant Vaccines Market Research Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/checkout-page/101935

Important Development:

April 2020: AstraZeneca announced that it has collaborated with the University of Oxford for the development and distribution of recombinant adenovirus vaccine indicated against COVID-19 infection.

List of the Leading Companies Operating in the Recombinant Vaccines Market are:

Have Any Query? Ask Our Experts: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/speak-to-analyst/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Detailed Table of Content:

TOC Continued.!!!

Request for Customization: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/customization/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Have a Look at Related Reports:

Vaccines Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Recombinant/Conjugate/Subunit, Inactivated, Live Attenuated and Toxoid), By Route of Administration (Parenteral and Oral), By Disease Indication (Viral Diseases and Bacterial Diseases), By Age Group (Pediatric and Adults), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Region Forecast, 2019-2026

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Bivalent and Polyvalent), By Disease Indication (HPV Associated Cancer and Genital Warts), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers, and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2019-2026

Influenza Vaccine Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Inactivated and Live Attenuated), By Valency (Quadrivalent and Trivalent), By Age Group (Pediatric and Adults), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2019-2026

Pediatric Drugs and Vaccines Market Share and Global Trend By Product (Vaccines, Drugs) By Disease Indication (Infectious Disease, Cancer, Allergy And Respiratory, Nervous System Disorders, Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, Others), By Distribution Channel (Hospital Pharmacies, Retail Pharmacies, Online Pharmacies) and Geography Forecast till 2026

Recombinant DNA Technology Market Share and Global Trend By Product (Vaccines, Therapeutic Agents, Recombinant Protein, Others), By Component (Vectors, Expression System, Others), By Application (Diagnostics, Therapeutic, Food and Agriculture, Others), By End User (Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies, Diagnostic Laboratories, Academic and Government Research Institutes, Other) and Geography Forecast till 2026

About Us:

Fortune Business Insights offers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.

Our reports contain a unique mix of tangible insights and qualitative analysis to help companies achieve sustainable growth. Our team of experienced analysts and consultants use industry-leading research tools and techniques to compile comprehensive market studies, interspersed with relevant data.

At Fortune Business Insights we aim at highlighting the most lucrative growth opportunities for our clients. We, therefore, offer recommendations, making it easier for them to navigate through technological and market-related changes. Our consulting services are designed to help organizations identify hidden opportunities and understand prevailing competitive challenges.

Contact Us:

Fortune Business Insights Pvt. Ltd. 308, Supreme Headquarters, Survey No. 36, Baner, Pune-Bangalore Highway, Pune - 411045, Maharashtra, India.

Phone:US :+1 424 253 0390UK : +44 2071 939123APAC : +91 744 740 1245Email: sales@fortunebusinessinsights.comFortune Business InsightsLinkedIn | Twitter | Blogs

Press Release: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/press-release/recombinant-vaccines-market-9498

See the rest here:
Recombinant Vaccines Market to Reach USD 25.32 Billion by 2027; Increasing Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Disease to Brighten Business Prospects,...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Hammond, this explosion represents a hazard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the latter replied:

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

Ralph Baric UNC Gillings School of Public Health-web.

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

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

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

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

Application 75223:

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

and

Application 73790:

and

Application 74962:

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

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

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

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

Richard Ebright goes further:

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

Are universities doing too many risky experiments on coronaviruses?

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

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

For this reason Ebright argues that:

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

This article first appeared in Independent Science News.

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