StemCell Therapy

As conspiracy theories started spreading like wildfire on the Internet, several misguided rumours about the connection between 5G and coronavirus surfaced online. COVID-19, is believed to have originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, in November. Coincidentally, China also turned on some of its 5G networks in November.

Rumours gained steam when Keri Hilson, popular American singer, with 4.2 million followers on Twitter, sent out tweets last week about the alleged connection between 5G and COVID-19, writing, "People have been trying to warn us about 5G for YEARS. Petitions, organizations, studies... what we're going through is the affects [sic] of radiation. 5G launched in CHINA. Nov 1, 2019. People dropped dead."

Several conspiracy theorists also alleged that the viral videos of people dropping on the ground and fainting in China, were a result of 5G radio waves messing with the oxygen levels in blood of the general public.

Soon, a UK based fact checking website, FullFact, debunked the claims and argued that there is no evidence that 5G is harmful to peoples health.

Read more:
A Bioweapon Or Effects Of 5G? 7 Conspiracy Theories Around Coronavirus That Will Shock You - The Biggest Humanitarian Crisis - Economic Times

GMOs: Not as scary as you may think.

Glow-in-the-dark mice, silk-producing goats, venomous cabbage -- these are all wacky and downright unsettling examples of what can happen when scientists tinker with DNA. They're also part of the reason that the public and scientific debates about genetically modified organisms -- known as GMOs -- persist.

Luckily, "Frankenfoods" like the venomous cabbage, aren't something you'll likely ever come into contact with. The GMOs that might be on your plate or in your snacks have been evaluated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and they're perfectly safe, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Read more: 18 health myths that are outdated and wrong

The first GMO food on the market was a tomato engineered to resist softening. It was called the Flavr Savr tomato.

GMO foods have been genetically engineered to alter the DNA of the food source for some specific purpose -- a good example is the famed Flavr Savr tomato, which was genetically engineered to inhibit a gene that produces the protein that makes tomatoes ripen and rot. Thus, the Flavr Savr tomato remained firm and bright red for longer than non-GMO tomatoes.

The Flavr Savr tomato was introduced in 1994 as the first GMO crop brought to market for consumers, and it sparked the GMO debate that's been raging ever since. It was later taken off the market when genetic engineering giant Monsanto bought the company that made the Flavr Savr.

Usually, scientists and food technologists make GMOs by separating a piece of DNA from one organism (such as a bacterium or another plant or animal) and inserting it into the DNA of another organism. The point is to take traits from organism A and make organism B show the same traits.

According to the WHO, GMOs are "derived from organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally," which makes it different from other agricultural practices, such as selectively breeding cows to get the highest-quality beef.

Golden rice (right) is a genetically modified rice meant to cure vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.

GMOs came about for the same reason that most agricultural and food innovations come about: There's some perceived benefit, either for the producer or the consumer. Most GM crops are produced for one of these reasons:

The famed Impossible Burger uses genetically modified soy to make its crucial ingredient, heme.

Let's put it this way: Overall, not many different types of foods are genetically modified. But of those foods that are, the GM percentage is high.

For example, about 90% of corn, canola, soy and cotton grown in the US is genetically modified. Other GM crops in the US include alfalfa, canola, cotton, papaya, potatoes, eggplant, squash and sugar beets.

A few other GM crops have been approved by the FDA, such as the Arctic Apple, which resists browning, and the Innate Potato, which also resists rotting.

While it's unlikely that the produce you're buying on a regular basis is genetically modified, it's hard to find any processed foods without a single GM ingredient, because corn, canola and soy are so widely used in processed products, like cookies, juice, granola bars, cereal and frozen meals.

Only one GM animal has been approved by the FDA for human consumption: the AquAdvantage salmon, which grows faster than a non-GMO farmed salmon. Scientists at AquaBounty, the company that produced the fast-growing salmon, did so by inserting a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon into an Atlantic salmon.

There is currently no scientifically sound evidence that GMOs cause cancer or other health problems.

The scientific consensus to date is that GMOs do not pose health risks to humans. GMOs have been heavily studied and new GM crops must go through an evaluation and approval process through the FDA. If the FDA doesn't determine they're safe, they won't go to market.

The WHO says that because all GM crops are different, there shouldn't be a blanket statement about whether all GM foods are safe or not -- but the organization follows with "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."

The position of the American Dietetic Association is that "food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value and variety of food available for human consumption, and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management."

While there are some studies that have reported potential health risks, a 2017 review of "studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food" found that most of those studies were invalid due to conflict of interest, flawed study design or poor implementation.

The new label required on GMO foods, which became effective in 2020.

Even though GMOs have been around for nearly 30 years, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USDA) released the first set of rules for GMO labeling in December 2018.

By 2022, GM foods or foods made with GM ingredients must display the "bioengineered" emblem on the packaging. Implementation of the new labeling began on Jan. 1, 2020 for large food manufacturers and begins on Jan. 1, 2021 for small manufacturers. For both, the mandatory compliance date is Jan. 1, 2022.

However, the notice clarifies that "For refined foods that are derived from bioengineered crops, no disclosure is required if the food does not contain detectable modified genetic material."

So just like you'll start seeing (or have already seen) the new nutrition facts label this year, expect to see the new emblem soon. You can also still look for the Non-GMO Project label, a sign that the independent organization has evaluated that food for GM ingredients.

If you're really worried about eating GMOs, you can keep them out of your diet by eating organic food and avoiding foods with soybeans, canola oil, corn and sugar from sugar beets.

The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.

Read the original:
GMOs: What they are, are they safe and which foods have them - CNET

Genetic engineering is the process of using technology to change the genetic makeup of an organism - be it an animal, plant or a bacterium.

This can be achieved by using recombinant DNA (rDNA), or DNA that has been isolated from two or more different organisms and then incorporated into a single molecule, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

Recombinant DNA technology was first developed in the early 1970s, and the first genetic engineering company, Genentech, was founded in 1976. The company isolated the genes for human insulin into E. coli bacteria, which allowed the bacteria to produce human insulin.

After approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genentech produced the first recombinant DNA drug, human insulin, in 1982. The first genetically engineered vaccine for humans was approved by the FDA in 1987 and was for hepatitis B.

Since the 1980s, genetic engineering has been used to produce everything from a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery to infection-resistant crops such as the HoneySweet Plum. These organisms made by genetic engineering, called genetically modified organisms (GMOs), can be bred to be less susceptible to diseases or to withstand specific environmental conditions.

But critics say that genetic engineering is dangerous. In 1997, a photo of a mouse with what looked like a human ear growing out of its back sparked a backlash against using genetic engineering. But the mouse was not the result of genetic engineering, and the ear did not contain any human cells. It was created by implanting a mold made of biodegradable mesh in the shape of a 3-year-old's ear under the mouse's skin, according to the National Science Foundation, in order to demonstrate one way to produce cartilage tissue in a lab.

While genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of one or more genes, DNA can also be controlled through selective breeding. Precision breeding, for example, is an organic farming technique that includes monitoring the reproduction of species members so that the resulting offspring have desirable traits.

A recent example of the use of precision breeding is the creation of a new type of rice. To address the issue of flooding wiping out rice crops in China, Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California-Davis, developed a more flood-tolerant strain of rice seed.

Using a wild species of rice that is native to Mali, Ronald identified a gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties using precision breeding creating rice that can withstand being submerged in water for 17 days, rather than the usual three.

Calling the new, hardier rice the Xa21 strain, researchers hope to have it join the ranks of other GMOs currently being commercially grown worldwide, including herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant soy, cotton and corn, within the next year, Ronald said. For farmers in China, the world's top producer and consumer of rice, being able to harvest enough of the crop to support their families is literally a matter of life and death.

Because Ronald used precision breeding rather than genetic engineering, the rice will hopefully meet with acceptance among critics of genetic engineering, Ronald said.

"The farmers experienced three to five fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance," Ronald said at a World Science Festival presentation in New York. "This rice demonstrates how genetics can be used to improve the lives of impoverished people."

Got a question? Email it to Life's Little Mysteries and we'll try to answer it. Due to the volume of questions, we unfortunately can't reply individually, but we will publish answers to the most intriguing questions, so check back soon.

View original post here:
What's Genetic Engineering? | Live Science

NEW YORK, March 18, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --

The report on the global zinc finger nuclease technology market provides qualitative and quantitative analysis for the period from 2017 to 2025.

Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05874235/?utm_source=PRN

The report predicts the global zinc finger nuclease technology market to grow with a healthy CAGR over the forecast period from 2019-2025. The study on zinc finger nuclease technology market covers the analysis of the leading geographies such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and RoW for the period of 2017 to 2025.

The report on zinc finger nuclease technology market is a comprehensive study and presentation of drivers, restraints, opportunities, demand factors, market size, forecasts, and trends in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market over the period of 2017 to 2025. Moreover, the report is a collective presentation of primary and secondary research findings.

Porter's five forces model in the report provides insights into the competitive rivalry, supplier and buyer positions in the market and opportunities for the new entrants in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market over the period of 2017 to 2025. Further, IGR- Growth Matrix gave in the report brings an insight into the investment areas that existing or new market players can consider.

Report Findings1) Drivers Rising use of gene therapy and genome therapy Benefits offered by zinc finger nuclease technology such as permanent and heritable mutation and efficient creation of animal models2) Restraints Complexities associated with zinc finger nuclease technology3) Opportunities Application of zinc finger nuclease technology in drug discovery

Research Methodology

A) Primary ResearchOur primary research involves extensive interviews and analysis of the opinions provided by the primary respondents. The primary research starts with identifying and approaching the primary respondents, the primary respondents are approached include1. Key Opinion Leaders associated with Infinium Global Research2. Internal and External subject matter experts3. Professionals and participants from the industry

Our primary research respondents typically include1. Executives working with leading companies in the market under review2. Product/brand/marketing managers3. CXO level executives4. Regional/zonal/ country managers5. Vice President level executives.

B) Secondary ResearchSecondary research involves extensive exploring through the secondary sources of information available in both the public domain and paid sources. At Infinium Global Research, each research study is based on over 500 hours of secondary research accompanied by primary research. The information obtained through the secondary sources is validated through the crosscheck on various data sources.

The secondary sources of the data typically include1. Company reports and publications2. Government/institutional publications3. Trade and associations journals4. Databases such as WTO, OECD, World Bank, and among others.5. Websites and publications by research agencies

Segment CoveredThe global zinc finger nuclease technology market is segmented on the basis of type, and application.

The Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Type Cell Line Engineering Animal Genetic Engineering Plant Genetic Engineering Other

The Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Application Biotechnology Companies Pharmaceutical Companies Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory Academic and Research Institutes

Company Profiles Sigma-Aldrich Corporation Thermo Fisher Scientific Sangamo Therapeutics inc. LabOmics S.A. Gilead Sciences, Inc. OriGene Technologies, Inc Others

What does this report deliver?1. Comprehensive analysis of the global as well as regional markets of the zinc finger nuclease technology market.2. Complete coverage of all the segments in the zinc finger nuclease technology market to analyze the trends, developments in the global market and forecast of market size up to 2025.3. Comprehensive analysis of the companies operating in the global zinc finger nuclease technology market. The company profile includes analysis of product portfolio, revenue, SWOT analysis and latest developments of the company.4. IGR- Growth Matrix presents an analysis of the product segments and geographies that market players should focus to invest, consolidate, expand and/or diversify.

Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05874235/?utm_source=PRN

About Reportlinker ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________ Contact Clare: [emailprotected] US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001

SOURCE Reportlinker

http://www.reportlinker.com

See original here:
Global zinc finger nuclease technology market is expected to grow with a healthy CAGR over the forecast period from 2019-2025 - PRNewswire

Scientists have analysed the entirety of the novel coronavirus' genomic sequence to assess claims that it may have been made in a laboratory or been otherwise engineered.

The coronavirus outbreak first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan last December and has caused an international pandemic, infecting more than 198,000 people and leading to over 7,900 deaths.

International blame around the COVID-19 pandemic has incited conspiracy theories about its origin.

Without evidence Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, suggested on Twitter that the virus could have been brought to Wuhan by the US army.

While he may have been insincerely provocative in response to American officials describing the outbreak as the Wuhan virus, stressing its beginnings in China, he received thousands of retweets.

Rumours linking the virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - based on geographic proximity, and without any endorsement from qualified epidemiologists - have also circulated.

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker.

Shortly after the epidemic began, Chinese scientists sequenced the genome of the virus and made the data publicly available for researchers worldwide.

Even the integrity of these scientists and medical professionals has been called into question by conspiracy theorists, prompting an international coalition of scientists to sign a joint letter of support for them and their work, published in medical journal The Lancet.

The value of the genomic sequence could prove vital for those developing a vaccine, but it also contains key details revealing how the virus evolved.

New analysis by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in the US, UK and Australia discovered that the virus has proved so infectious because it developed a near-perfect mechanism to bind to human cells.

This mechanism is so sophisticated in its adaptions that the researchers say that it must have evolved and not been genetically engineered in their paper, titled "COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin", published in the journal Nature Medicine.

Dr Josie Golding, the epidemics lead at the Wellcome Trust in the UK, described the paper as "crucially important to bring an evidence-based view to the rumours that have been circulating about the origins of the virus causing COVID-19".

"They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution, ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering," Dr Golding added.

So how do they know? One of the most effective parts of the virus are its spike proteins, molecules on the outside of the virus which it uses to grab hold of and then penetrate the outer walls of human and animal cells.

There are two key features in the novel coronavirus' spike proteins which make its evolution a certainty.

The first is what's called the receptor-binding domain (RBD) which they describe as "a kind of grappling hook that grips on to host cells", while the second is known as the cleavage site, "a molecular can opener that allows the virus to crack open and enter host cells".

If researchers were actually going to design a virus to harm humans then it would be constructed from the backbone of a virus already known to cause illness, the researchers said.

However the coronavirus backbone is radically different to those which are already known to affect humans, and in fact are most similar to viruses which are found in bats and pangolins.

"These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for [the coronavirus]," said Dr Kristian Andersen, corresponding author on the paper.

Another study of the genome by researchers at the Wuhan Institute for Virology reported that the virus was 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, one of the many animals sold at a Wuhan seafood market where it is suspected the virus jumped to humans.

However the new research was unable to determine whether the virus evolved into its current pathogenic state in a non-human host before jumping to a human, or if it evolved into that state after making the jump.

More:
Coronavirus: Scientists tackle the theories on how it started - Sky News

Last week, we published a story about a team of German researchers who claimed to have identified an existing drug with potential to treat coronavirus Covid-19. Now, U.S. scientists from Greffex, aHouston, Texas-based genetic engineering company said it has completed a vaccine targeting the current outbreak of the coronavirus that the World Health Organization calls COVID-19. The company said it intends to give away its vaccine for free to nations affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, John Price, president and CEO, said.

Price told the Houston Business Journal that Greffexs scientists completed the coronavirus vaccine this week. The company said the vaccine will now move to animal testing by the necessary government agencies in the U.S., thats the Food and Drug Administration. Countries impacted by the outbreak, like China and Vietnam, have their own agencies with their own clinical testing regulations.

To ensure safety, Greffex did not use a living or killed virus for its vaccine, Price said. Greffexs treatments use adenovirus-based vector vaccines, which are used to target various kinds of infectious diseases and cancers, according to research published in the peer reviewed journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. In September 2019, Greffex received an $18.9 million contract from the National Institute of Healths National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to develop new treatments for infectious threats, according to a press release.

Greffex intends to give away its vaccine for free to nations affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, Price said. Hes traveling to Vietnam Feb. 20.There are certain things which should not be sold. We have a health crisis in Asia, Price said. For certain governments, we will give them the vaccine and not charge them for it.

Greffex has previously developed vaccines for notable infectious diseases including Avian Influenza (bird flu), Ebola, Zika and MERS, Price said. Greffexs current coronavirus vaccine is similar to its vaccine for MERS, or Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus.

The firms technology allows Greffex to develop new vaccines quickly usually in about a month, Price said. Following months of animal studies and abbreviated human clinical trials, Price said he could see the coronavirus vaccines being deployed into impacted nations as soon as early summer.

Read more from the original source:
U.S. scientists at Texas genetic engineering company Greffex have created a coronavirus vaccine, plans to give away the vaccine for free -...

Roasted soybeans are a common ingredient in the diets of dairy cows because they are a great source of fat and protein, including protein that escapes the rumen, according to researchers with The Pennsylvania State University.

Farm-grown and locally available soybeans and on-farm or local roasting make soybeans an economical ingredient in many situations, Penn State said in an announcement.

Until recently, farmers had to decide only how to process soybeans and how much to feed, but now they also have the opportunity to choose high-oleic acid soybeans that bring additional advantages in dairy rations, according to Kevin Harvatine, associate professor of nutritional physiology in the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences.

Harvatine said soybeans contain about 20% fat, and normal soybean fat is high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are less stable and, therefore, prone to becoming rancid more quickly.

For many years, soybean oil was hydrogenated to make margarine, shortening and frying oils, but more than a decade ago, we realized the trans fats in these were very bad for us and increased heart disease, among other things, he said. Oleic acid is an unsaturated fatty acid and is much more stable when frying and storing, which sparked interest in breeding soybeans high in oleic acid and low in polyunsaturated fat.

There is a long history of selecting plants to increase oleic acid concentration. The best known is canola, which is rapeseed that was selected for high oleic acid levels to improve the healthfulness of the fat, Harvatine noted. Normal plant-breeding methods were also very successful in increasing oleic acid in sunflower and safflower oil, with some varieties containing more than 80% oleic acid.

However, normal plant breeding methods failed to create a high-oleic soybean, Harvatine pointed out, so high-oleic varieties that contain about 75% oleic acid and less than 10% polyunsaturated fat were created using genetic engineering approaches. The brand names are Plenish from Pioneer and Vistive Gold from Bayer.

High-oleic acid soybeans have been grown for a number of years but only recently have been widely available to grow outside of contracts, he said. The seed sells for a comparable price to normal seed and does not differ in yield or protein and fat concentration, so the cost of production is comparable.

Roasted high-oleic acid soybeans have benefits for dairy cows, Harvatine explained, adding that polyunsaturated fatty acids are toxic to rumen microbes and disrupt normal rumen function, leading to production of bioactive fatty acids that cause milk fat depression. We expect oleic acid to be lower risk, and recent studies both at Penn State and the University of Wisconsin demonstrated that high-oleic acid soybeans were lower risk for causing diet-induced milk fat depression, he said.

A recent study conducted by Harvatine at Penn State, funded by the Pennsylvania Soybean Board, compared feeding dairy cows normal versus high-oleic acid roasted soybeans at 5% and 10% of the diet. Soybean type and level had no effect on milk yield, but high-oleic acid soybeans resulted in 0.17 units higher milk fat concentration and 0.2 lb. higher milk fat yield.

This increase was explained by a decrease in diet-induced milk fat depression, and increasing the level of roasted soybeans from 5% to 10% of the cows diet increased milk fat 0.2 units, Harvatine said, likely because the diet contained a low level of fat relative to the production level of the cows.

Research on the benefits of high-oleic acid soybeans in dairy cow diets at Penn State is continuing. Harvatines research group currently is conducting additional experiments funded by the Pennsylvania Soybean Board to determine the optimal level of high-oleic soybeans. It is clear that high-oleic acid soybeans decrease the risk of diet-induced milk fat depression, he said.

We would expect to see the largest effect in herds with lower milk fat. However, some cows in every herd have lower milk fat and would be expected to benefit, he said. In addition, feeding high-oleic acid soybeans may allow increased use of other economical byproducts that are higher in polyunsaturated fat, such as distillers grains.

High-oleic acid soybeans are one of the new ingredients available to farmers interested in designing a diet that is energy-dense while minimizing risk for rumen disruptions and diet-induced milk fat depression, Harvatine said, adding, Because price, agronomics, fat and protein concentration are equivalent, there are few downsides to growing or feeding high-oleic acid soybeans. As a new variety, they are not available everywhere, but it is likely that farmers will see them soon, if they have not already.

Go here to see the original:
High-oleic acid soybeans offer benefits to dairy cows - Feedstuffs

In 2010, Craig Venters lab embedded text and images into the DNA of a bacterium. Would a future investigator be able to tell? It would take special tools to see the insertion, but the difference should be detectable. What if bioengineers invent new genes that use the cells translation machinery to build non-natural proteins? This is already coming to pass with CRISPR/Cas9 methods. If the insertion were made in an embryo, all the adult cells would inherit the change. The line between natural and artificial is getting more blurry.

In a sense, the new bioengineering developments are similar in principle to longstanding cases of artificial interference in nature, as in agriculture, camouflage, or construction of simple dwellings with available materials like grass or fallen branches. The Design Filter takes into account what chance and natural law can do. There will always be difficult cases; ID errs on the side of non-intelligent causes when the degree of specified complexity is borderline. But now, specified complexity exists in both natural DNA and DNA altered by human intelligence. There should be ways to distinguish between human intelligent causes and non-human intelligent causes, whether those be space aliens, spirit beings, or a transcendent Creator.

In their epilogue to the book The Mystery of Lifes Origin (newly updated and expanded by Discovery Institute Press), Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen considered five sources for a more satisfactory theory of origins. These included: new natural laws, panspermia, directed panspermia, special creation by a creator within the cosmos, and special creation by a creator outside the cosmos. The last four involve intentional, mind-directed activity; only #5 necessarily involves the supernatural. To the investigator, though, the output of the Design Filter would be the same. It boils down to natural versus artificial: unguided, or mind-directed. But what happens when the mind-directed interference of bioengineers gets so good, it looks natural? It becomes a case of the perfect crime, leaving the investigator baffled. Todays Mars rovers are easily distinguished from the rocky, dusty environment of Mars. But what if future designers made them look like rocks, functioning when they roll over in the wind?

This is a growing challenge for ID as bioengineering progresses. News from ETH Zurich says:

Every living creature on earth has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on representing an unbroken line of ancestry all the way back to the very first organisms that lived here billions of years ago. Soon we will have life forms that have no such direct lineage. The first of these organisms will be bacteria. Bioengineers will use computers to develop such bacteria and specifically tailor them for applications in medicine, industry or agriculture. With the help of DNA synthesisers, they will build these bacterias genomes from the ground up to produce artificial life forms. [Emphasis added.]

This implies that an investigator will have to search the ancestry of an organism to make a design inference.

I dont mean organisms in which only individual genes have been altered a technique that has been applied in biotechnology and crop breeding for decades, and that todays CRISPR gene scissors have made very simple. No, I mean organisms for which bioengineers have literally developed the genome from scratch so that they can synthesise it in the lab.

The author, Dr. Beat Christen of ETH, says this is not science fiction. The tools to do this are already in place. I am convinced that they will soon be a reality, he says. It may not require designing every molecular machine de novo.

Digital databases store over 200,000 genome sequences from a broad range of organisms providing us access to a wealth of molecular building plans. By cleverly combining or modifying known genetic functions, bioengineers can develop microorganisms with new and useful characteristics.

How would an investigator in such cases be able to differentiate a synthetic organism from known examples of mosaic organisms or natural organisms containing orphan genes? On ID the Future recently, Paul Nelson acknowledged from his trip to the Galpagos Islands that Darwin got something right: organisms have a history. There can be some natural modification in a lineage over time, as in the case of flightless cormorants, he said, and ID advocates need to build that into their theory of design. With bioengineering entering the mix, they will also have to distinguish natural history from artificial history in the codes of life.

This is an extension of what they must do in distinguishing the artificial history of cultivated crops and animal breeds. The dachshund looks very different from the wolf from which domestic dogs descended. The ears of corn we buy in supermarkets differ substantially from the maize or teosinte from which farmers selectively bred them. But now that bioengineers can selectively edit the genes, they will have to discern the history in the genotype as well as the phenotype. The ability to do this could become very important.

Another challenge will arise as human history progresses. Right now, we have more clues to trace genetic editing to particular labs. But as the number of gene editing labs grows over time, and editing becomes routine maybe even to individuals it may become impossible to trace the edits to their source. This happens with artificial breeding as well; unless particular breeders documented their work, historians and archaeologists can only gain indirect clues to the time and place of origin for a particular breed. It could have started in ancient Babylon, Egypt, or Rome. Its not IDs job to identify the agent, the books explain (e.g., The Design Revolution, Chapter 26); the investigator should be able to detect design from its effects alone. Genetic tinkering will make that inference more difficult, if genetic engineers continue to blur the line between natural genetic information and edited genetic information. Moreover, not all gene editors publish their work. As in the case of bioweapons, the source may intentionally try to conceal its designs.

In Nature, three scientists wrote a review titled, The coming of age of de novo protein design. The opening sentence of the article by Huang, Boyken, and Baker makes a point that Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger would agree with: functional space is dwarfed by sequence space.

There are 20200 possible amino-acid sequences for a 200-residue protein, of which the natural evolutionary process has sampled only an infinitesimal subset. De novo protein design explores the full sequence space, guided by the physical principles that underlie protein folding. Computational methodology has advanced to the point that a wide range of structures can be designed from scratch with atomic-level accuracy. Almost all protein engineering so far has involved the modification of naturally occurring proteins; it should now be possible to design new functional proteins from the ground up to tackle current challenges in biomedicine and nanotechnology.

The summary on Phys.org has the title, Scientists can now design new proteins from scratch with specific functions. One of the techniques of de novo protein design involves evolutionary algorithms, in which the intelligent agent provides the selective pressure to find the fittest protein for the chosen goal. If engineers succeed in taking an amino acid sequence that folds in silico and then can reverse engineer the genetic code for it so that it can be translated by a natural bacteriums cellular machinery, does it become indistinguishable from an orphan gene? In both instances, the Design Filter would register a positive, but should ID advocates be able to tell the difference? Does it matter?

Another blurring of lines between the natural and the artificial occurs in cases of guiding organisms to do unnatural things. At the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), biotechnicians have turned a bacterial cell into a biological computer.

In recent decades, the barriers between engineering and life sciences have been falling, and from the encounter between the two different disciplines, a new science synthetic biology was born. Synthetic biology introduces engineering into biology, makes it possible to design and build biological systems that dont exist in nature, and supplies an innovative toolbox for reprogramming the genetic code in living creatures, including humans.

We built a kind of biological computer in the living cells. In this computer, as in regular computers, circuits carry out complicated calculations, said Barger. Only here, these circuits are genetic, not electronic, and information are [sic] carried by proteins and not electrons.

Once again, telling the difference will require a robust design inference. This type of tinkering might be compared to animal training. Shown two wolves, one trained to respond to human words and one in its wild state, could the investigator tell them apart by their behavior alone? Probably, but discriminating biological computers from wild bacteria could be a lot tougher, tractable only to molecular biologists.

These examples in the news present both challenges and opportunities. As lines blur between the natural and the synthetic in the 21st century, the design inference must be tightened accordingly. The specified-complexity criterion is robust against false positives (This is designed when its not), but not against false negatives (This isnt designed when it is; see William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pp. 22-28). To avoid a growing number of false negatives, the investigator must now become aware of the history of the genotype as well as the phenotype.

Its well and good to lump all instances of complex specified information into the designed category, whether a gene was edited by humans or designed by a transcendent entity. But these rapidly growing capabilities for bioengineering raise additional challenges for the ID community. Fortunately, with the challenges come opportunities. The very act of genetic engineering must surely be raising awareness in the scientific community of the degree of specified complexity in natural organisms, and the extremely limited tolerances for success. Nature confesses:

It is useful to begin by considering the fraction of protein sequence space that is occupied by naturally occurring proteins [1012 out of 20200]Evidently, evolution has explored only a tiny region of the sequence space that is accessible to proteins.

The design inference is not changing in principle; it only needs clarification to fit more challenging cases. It also affords opportunities to communicate design principles to those still clinging to the hope that blind, unguided processes are capable of navigating endless fields of haystacks for a tiny number of needles.

Photo: Topiary animals, by Doko Jozef Kotuli / CC BY.

Read the original:
Blurring the Line Between Natural and Artificial - Discovery Institute

Colette Bancroft, Tampa Bay Times Published 4:43 p.m. ET March 18, 2020

What to read while you're self-isolating to avoid the coronavirus? How about books about all the various plagues humankind has survived before?

There are classics like Giovanni Boccaccio's 1353 classic "The Decameron," about Italian aristocrats who flee the bubonic plague in Florence, or Daniel Defoe's 1722 novel "A Journal of the Plague Year," an account of the Black Death in London half a century before.

There are many more recent works about pandemics, some nonfiction, some historical fiction, some speculative fiction. On March 8, Stephen King resisted comparisons of the current crisis to his 1978 novel "The Stand," set in a world where a pandemic has killed 99% of the population.

King tweeted, "No, coronavirus is NOT like THE STAND. It's not anywhere near as serious. It's eminently survivable. Keep calm and take all reasonable precautions." Despite King's protestations, readers often look to books to help explain real-world phenomena, especially in bewildering times like these.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.(Photo: Penguin Random House, TNS)

Here are a few more plague books to consider.

"Pale Horse, Pale Rider" (1939) by Katherine Ann Porter is a short novel set during the influenza pandemic of 1918, which killed five times as many Americans as did World War I. Its main character, Miranda, is a young reporter who falls in love with a soldier; the book's fever-dream style captures the experience of the disease.

"The Andromeda Strain" (1969) by Michael Crichton is a bestselling techno-thriller that begins when a military satellite crashes to earth and releases an extraterrestrial organism that kills almost everyone in a nearby small town. Then things get bad.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" (1985) by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is the great Colombian author's beguiling tale of a 50-year courtship, in which lovesickness is as debilitating and stubborn as disease.

"The MaddAddam Trilogy" by Margaret Atwood, which includes "Oryx and Crake" (2003), "The Year of the Flood" (2009) and "MaddAddam" (2013), is a masterwork of speculative fiction by the author of "The Handmaid's Tale." Set in a near future in which genetic engineering causes a plague that almost destroys humanity, it's savagely satirical, thrilling and moving.

"The Road" (2006) by Cormac McCarthy is a bleak, beautifully written, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel set after an unspecified extinction event has wiped out most of humanity. An unnamed man and boy travel on foot toward a southern sea, fending off cannibals and despair.

"Nemesis" (2010) by Philip Roth is the author's 31st and last novel, a sorrowful story set in Newark, N.J., in 1944, as the United States is in the grip of the polio epidemic that killed and disabled thousands of children.

"Station Eleven" (2014) by Emily St. John Mandel is a bestselling novel about a group of actors and musicians traveling through the Great Lakes region in future years after a mysterious pandemic called the Georgian flu has killed almost everyone.

"The Old Drift" (2019) by Namwalli Serpell is a dazzling debut novel set in Zambia, spanning a century but focusing in part on the disaster wrought in that country by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Nonfiction

"The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance" (1995) by Laurie Garrett is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter's clear-eyed look at how rapidly the modern world has changed the nature of disease, how important preparedness is and how endangered we are without it.

"Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic" (2013) by David Quammen is the great science writer's fascinating look at zoonotic diseases, such as AIDS and Ebola (and now coronavirus), that jump from animal species to ours.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/03/18/books-pandemics-read-time-coronavirus/2863307001/

View post:
Books about pandemics to read in the time of coronavirus - The Detroit News

For the first time ever, CRISPR has been used to edit DNA inside a living human being. Scientists have also tapped the gene-editing tool to accelerate DNA sequencing in hopes of customizing cancer treatments. Plant-based burger startup Beyond Meat blasts critics who claim its products are ultra-processed. Genetic engineering may save the worlds favorite banana from extinction. But how does the public feel about all this genetic tinkering?

On this episode of Science Facts & Fallacies, plant geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English go beyond the headlines to break down the latest developments from the world of genetics and biotechnology.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android |

Can CRISPR gene editing save the Cavendish banana from extinction?

The Cavendish bananathat delicious, yellow tropical fruit currently populating the produce sections of our grocery storesmay not be available for much longer. A fungal disease known as Tropical Race 4 (TR-4) is wreaking havoc on banana plantations across South America, threatening to wipe out the Cavendish for good. TR-4 spreads rapidly and isnt easily controlled with pesticide applications. Thats why scientists are working feverishly to immunize the banana by cutting a segment of DNA out of its genome that makes it susceptible to TR-4.

More precise cancer treatments may be possible by pairing CRISPR with genetic sequencing

Researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have used CRISPR to rapidly sequence particular genes involved in the development of breast cancer, eliminating the DNA replication process usually required for genome sequencing. The development could enable the selection of customized cancer drugs that treat the disease based on the genetic makeup of individual patients.

Beyond Meat goes on the offensive, blasting critics who claim plant-based burgers are ultra-processed

Plant-based burgers have been a hit with consumers so far, achieving nearly a $1 billion in sales in 2019. This development has made the meat industry nervous, and theyve launched expensive marketing campaigns to dissuade the public from chowing down on the beef-free alternatives. The industrys biggest criticism: plant-based meats are ultra-processed, and presumably less nutritious than traditional burgers.

Beyond Meat, maker of the wildly popular Beyond Burger, is having none of this. The company announced in early March it was going on the offensive to counter the marketing assault on its products, arguing that plant-based foods may actually be healthier than meat in some cases.

Targeting blindness with CRISPR: Doctors attempt first editing of genes inside a human body

Gene editing has yielded dozens of important medical treatments for deadly diseases, including cancers like leukemia and lymphoma. Typically, doctors extract immune cells from a patient, edit their DNA, then infuse them back into the persons body to attack the disease. Scientists have now taken this approach a step further by injecting a virus carrying the instructions to produce CRISPR-Cas9 directly into a patients eye, where it is expected to edit out a mutation involved in Leber congenital amaurosis, a genetic condition that causes blindness. Will this groundbreaking procedure work? Is it safe?

Infographic: What the US public thinks about tinkering with human genetics

As all this genetic engineering work begins reshaping intimate aspects of our lives, scientists and policy makers are eager to find out how consumers feel about the technology. Is the public on board, or do they fear a loss of human control? Both.

A majority of people surveyed by Pew (60%) said genetic engineering should be used to prevent serious diseases and produce organs for people who need them (57%), but they were also concerned about using the technology to enhance human performance. 69 percent, for example, said implanting brain chips to improve memory and information processing would be a step too far.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the GLPs senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

See the original post:
Podcast: Treating blindness with CRISPR; customized cancer drugs; Beyond Meat takes on critics; and saving bananas from extinction - Genetic Literacy...

WASHINGTON, DC, US The US Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture launched a $7.5 million consumer education initiative focused on highlighting the science behind genetically modified organisms.

The goal of the effort, called Feed Your Mind, is to answer the most common questions consumers have about GMOs, including how they are regulated and whether they are safe and healthy.

Less than a dozen genetically modified crops are grown in the United States, but they often make up an overwhelming majority of the crop grown. More than 90% of soybeans, corn and sugar beets planted in 2018 were genetically modified.

Genetic engineering has created new plants that are resistant to insects and diseases, led to products with improved nutritional profiles, as well as certain produce that dont brown or bruise as easily, said Stephen M. Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA.

One educational video from the FDA points out that genetically modified soybeans have healthier oils that may be used to replace oils that contain trans fats. Other materials highlight how reduced bruising and browning may help combat food waste.

Consumers, however, remain uncertain. Concerns that GMOs are unhealthy and harmful are widespread. The number of shoppers avoiding GMOs tripled over the past decade, according to The Hartman Group. Close to half of consumers surveyed last year said they avoid bioengineered ingredients, compared to 15% in 2007.

A study published last year in Nature Human Behavior found more than 90% of participants had some level of opposition to GMO foods. It also found that consumers with the strongest opposition to GMO foods thought they were more knowledgeable about the topic than other participants, despite scoring lower on an actual knowledge test.

While foods from genetically engineered plants have been available to consumers since the early 1990s and are a common part of todays food supply, there are a lot of misconceptions about them, Hahn said. This initiative is intended to help people better understand what these products are and how they are made.

The Feed Your Mind initiative will launch in phases. Materials already released include a new website, fact sheets, infographics and videos. Supplementary science curriculum for high schools, resources for health professionals and additional consumer materials will be released later this year and in 2021.

Read this article:
US agencies launch initiative to boost understanding of GMOs - World Grain

A Texas-based genetic engineering company claims to have created a vaccine to prevent the coronavirus (COVID-19) and is hoping to have the drug approved and available to the public by the end of the year.

John Price, the CEO of Greffex, told Fox News Monday that he was completely confident in his companys new vaccine.

Were confident in the vaccine, the quality of the vaccine completely. The end result will be what the government wants to do in terms of testing, Price said.

The company had previously created a vaccine to combat MERS and that research helped them develop the new vaccine. MERS has a tremendous number of similarities to the coronavirus, Price explained.

The vaccine is still in the testing stage, and if approved, could be available to the public by years end, he said.

When asked whether there was a way to fast track the approval process, Price answered that it would be a policy decision for the government.

Thats always the $100 million question. The earliest that we think would be the end of the year. The latest would be 18 months. But we think that we could depending on the approval process of the government get something in 2020, he said.

Yesterday was the first time I heard people say its a pandemic, Price added. If its truly a pandemic, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. The process is roughly four weeks for the first animal testing and then you go into human trials. And thats the part that will be determined by the government.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team, meanwhile, are working on a separate vaccine which could take up to 18 months to prove safety and effectiveness. The FDA has granted approval for the National Institutes of Health to begin the first stage of clinical testing in that vaccine.

Media-driven panic about the virus has contributed to a jittery and unnerved stock market in recent days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 1,500 points in early trading, Monday.

As of Monday morning, there were approximately 600 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States and 22 deaths. There are now 111,362 cases worldwide, according to the John Hopkins tracking map.

By comparison, the CDC estimates that 35.5 million people got sick with seasonal influenza in the United States during the 20182019 season, with an estimated 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness. According to the CDC, there have been 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza, this season.

Unfortunately, the global death rate for COVID-19 is 3.4 percent, which is much higher than the common flu, according to the World Health Organization.

Continued here:
Genetic Engineering Co. Says Its COVID-19 Vaccine Could Be Approved By End of the Year - American Greatness

It sometimes feels like society is permanently at loggerheads, divided over any number of issues, from genetic engineering and vaccines to euthanasia and religion, and unable to engage in productive exchanges across ideological divides.

Consequently, if education is to develop the next generation, it must nurture children as future citizens with the capacity to have productive conversations across these barriers of opinion and discipline.

We are often faced with big questions. But beyond the eternal questions concerning how life came into being and its purpose, there are more immediate concerns about which there will need to be decisions from citizens and leaders both now and in the future. How should we respond to climate change? Should government be allowed to quarantine people to prevent the spread of disease? Should euthanasia of terminally ill children be allowed?

Responses to questions such as these can be informed by science, as well as by ethics, philosophy and religion. But how can we generate a well reasoned argument using a range of diverse and often contradictory sources? And how can we develop childrens ability to do so, too? Children, after all, are the future.

First, children need to explore what an argument is, and what a good argument looks like within the subject they are studying. Put simply, an argument is a claim or set of claims supported by evidence and reasons, while a good argument is one justified by strong reasons and evidence that are relevant to the claim. But how do these arguments differ when it comes to the study of science and religious education (RE) in school?

The teaching and learning of arguments in science subjects has been extensively researched over the past 20 years. Academic textbooks and practical resources for teaching have been produced to support it.

But while RE curriculum documents often cite the need for students to produce well reasoned arguments, there has been far less research on and fewer resources for the teaching and learning of arguments within the subject.

One distinguishing feature between arguments in different subject areas is what is considered to be an acceptable reason. In the case of arguments in RE, what counts as a reason can be less defined and evidence-based than in the sciences, particularly when the focus may be on providing a safe space for expressing beliefs and respecting diversity, rather than on constructing persuasive arguments.

So what can be done about this and how can we ensure that children studying the two subject areas can better argue with one another? The Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science (OARS) project brings the expertise of working science and RE teachers together, in collaboration with academic researchers. The project is exploring potential approaches for cross-curricular work across these disciplines, producing resources to support the teaching and learning of argument and reasoning in schools.

Our project team suggests that there are at least three good reasons to engage in cross-curricular teaching of argument and reasoning.

First, the subject groups can learn useful lessons from each other. Science teachers can draw on the skills of RE teachers for whom discussion, debate and dialogue are core features of their curriculum and daily work. RE teachers, on the other hand, could benefit by drawing on the well established resources and structure for teaching scientific arguments. They may also draw upon science teachers expertise when exploring scientific ideas and worldviews in RE.

Second, for the range of issues that might draw on both scientific and religious arguments for example, abortion, end-of-life decisions, evolution cross-curricular teaching could help develop a students capacity to discern the difference between those based on scientific evidence and those based more on faith and belief. It could also further their ability to accept and learn from other worldviews.

Finally, this work could extend across the whole school curriculum and bring greater coherence between school subjects. Learning about arguments in different subjects can make clear what is distinctive about each subject area (for example, highlighting the features of scientific arguments that make them distinctly scientific, as compared to other subjects). It can also highlight what features of arguments are common across specialities, showing how different subjects across the curriculum are related.

There is no single way that this cross-curricular collaboration could be rolled out in schools. Indeed, our participating teachers are innovative in finding approaches that work within the bounds of their busy, and often different, school lives.

In one example, an RE teacher and a science teacher are exploring the same question in their separate subject lessons: Why should we act on climate change? Students are asked to construct arguments using information that they have been learning in each subject, before combining these separate arguments from religion and science to present a convincing and coherent answer that draws on both disciplines.

We do not have all the answers and our work is ongoing. But we are convinced of the importance of learning how to argue and how to engage with others arguments for the sake of better scientific literacy, better religious literacy, and to create better citizens. Ultimately, it is about having productive discussions about what often appear to be unbridgeable divides and unanswerable dilemmas and to bring people together in the process.

Continued here:
How children can learn to balance science and religion - The Conversation UK

The initiative aims to educate consumers about GMOs, including their production processes, their health information and other safety-related questions.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), have launched a new initiative to help consumers better understand foods created through genetic engineering, commonly called GMOs or genetically modified organisms.

The initiative, Feed Your Mind, aims to answer the most common questions that consumers have about GMOs, including what GMOs are, how and why they are made, how they are regulated and to address health and safety questions that consumers may have about these products.

While foods from genetically engineered plants have been available to consumers since the early 1990s and are a common part of todays food supply, there are a lot of misconceptions about them, said FDA Commissioner, Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. This initiative is intended to help people better understand what these products are and how they are made. Genetic engineering has created new plants that are resistant to insects and diseases, led to products with improved nutritional profiles, as well as certain produce that dont brown or bruise as easily.

Farmers and ranchers are committed to producing foods in ways that meet or exceed consumer expectations for freshness, nutritional content, safety, sustainability and more. I look forward to partnering with FDA and EPA to ensure that consumers understand the value of tools like genetic engineering in meeting those expectations, said Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at USDA.

As EPA celebrates its 50th anniversary, we are proud to partner with FDA and USDA to push agricultural innovation forward so that Americans can continue to enjoy a protected environment and a safe, abundant and affordable food supply, said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn.

The Feed Your Mind GMO initiative is launching in phases. The current materials released include a new website, as well as a selection of fact sheets, infographics and videos. Additional materials including a supplementary science curriculum for schools, resources for health professionals and additional consumer materials will be released later in 2020 and 2021.

To guide development of the Feed Your Mind initiative, the three government agencies formed a steering committee and several working groups consisting of agency leaders and subject matter experts; sought input from stakeholders through two public meetings; opened a docket to receive public comments; examined the latest science and research related to consumer understanding of genetically engineered foods; and conducted extensive formative research. Funding for Feed Your Mind was provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 as the Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative.

Follow this link:
FDA, EPA and USDA launch GMO education initiative - New Food

While Beyond Meat debuted in the frozen aisle with beef crumbles and chicken strips (the latter have been dropped), the brand took off after launching refrigerated burgers and sausages designed to sit in the [animal] meat case, with sales in its fresh platform growing 275% in 2019 vs 11.8% growth in frozen.

If the refrigerated plant-based meat category is growing significantly faster, however, the frozen aisle is still the largest section in grocery for plant-based meat and still represents a sizeable opportunity, chief growth officer Chuck Muth told FoodNavigator-USA. Plus, our breakfast sausage patty cooks better from frozen.

The patties (MSRP $4.99 for six) contain 11g protein per serving, with 50% less total fat, 35% less saturated fat and sodium, 33% fewer calories, and 35% less sodium than the leading brand of pork sausage patties, with a base of pea protein and brown rice protein.

Asked about pricing in the plant-based meat segment following rival Impossible Foods move to cut prices to foodservice distributors by 15%, Muth said:

Impossible is quite a bit smaller than us; they are just starting to scale and as they are scaling, they are finding efficiencies and, I assume, bringing their price down accordingly. However their frontline pricing is still significantly higher than ours, so they still have a bit to go, and our pricing is more attractive.

He added:One of our goals is to reduce our pricing, so as we are able to develop more production efficiencies and [increase] capacity, and as we engineer products, we are very much focused on bringing our prices down.

Weve made it our stated goal that at least one of our items will be as cheap or cheaper than animal meat within the next four years or so, and thats the long term goal, to be priced competitively, not just with other plant based meats but with animal meats as well.

So is Beyond Meat sustaining or growing sales velocities in high-profile restaurant chains after the initial excitement or marketing budget wears off?

I think the encouraging thing for us is seeing product expansions in existing chains where we have partnerships, because theyre seeing good results coming in, said Muth, citing the example of Carls Jr and Hardees now offering Beyond Sausage breakfast burritos and egg and cheese biscuits as well as burgers.

He also noted that Dunkin which is rolling out Beyond Sausage sandwiches nationwide after a successful trial had attracted new guests and increased check sizes in part because plant-based products are premium items, but also because customers have proved more likely to pair them with higher-priced beverages such as lattes and cold brew. Its bringing in bigger register rings.

While some big names in QSR have not yet introduced plant-based entrees or breakfast options, they are all monitoring the space closely, he said.

Its more a timing issue than anything, plus they also want something thats unique to them since they are not going to be first to market, so they are thinking about what will differentiate them from the competition. But long term if they see their competitors being successful in this space they are going to have to take a very serious look.

Asked if Beyond Meat were in a position to be able to say yes to every account thats interested, or whether supply constraints were holding the company back, Muth said the firm was expanding in-house extrusion capabilities in the near future and adding more co-packers to its network in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia for downstream patty/sausage formation and packaging.

His comments came as CEO Ethan Brown told analysts last month that Beyond Meat began the year with around $700m in gross revenue capacity, with plans to scale to over a billion by the end of the year.

On the ingredient sourcing front, while Beyond Meat has recently expanded its pea protein sourcing capabilities,it is also exploring multiple other plant-based protein sources for sensory reasons (adding new flavors), nutritional reasons (to balance out amino acid profiles), and supply chain reasons (to diversify), said Muth, who noted that the Beyond Sausage uses a small amount of faba bean protein, while Beyond Beef and Beyond Burgers utilize mung bean and rice protein as well as peas.

As for the innovation pipeline, right now, Beyond Meat is focused on beef, poultry, and pork alternatives including plant-based bacon, said Muth. But down the road wed potentially look at other things.

Quizzed about the brands decision to go on the offensivethis year to tackle the narrative that plant-based meats are highly processed and unhealthy, he said:

We believe in the category and the space and were very positive, you wont hear us bad mouth other plant-based products or brands, but there are a lot of false narratives out there about whats in our products, so we think we have an obligation to talk about whats in our foods, so to understand that things like methyl cellulose [which isused in most plant-based meat products] are in many foods, things like ice cream and baked goods.

We want to make sure that consumers are well informed and to remind people that most foods we eat are processed.

Asked whether it was disingenuous to make a virtue of Beyond Meats all-natural non-GMO credentials [which distinguish it from rival Impossible Foods] given its commitment to science-based messaging and consumer education, he said:

Its not about what we believe, its what our consumers, our shoppers, believe, so were not saying theres anything bad about it [genetic engineering in food production].

Read more:
Beyond Meat rolls out frozen breakfast sausage patties, addresses pricing in plant-based meat sector - FoodNavigator-USA.com

New research from the University of NebraskaLincoln has led to the discovery of a novel gene that improves drought adaptation in wheat a breakthrough that could contribute to increased world food security.

In new research published in Plant Biotechnology Journal, Harkamal Walia, associate professor and Heuermann Chair of Agronomy and Horticulture at Nebraska, and colleagues describe a novel form of a gene obtained from wild wheat that has the potential to improve drought tolerance in cultivated wheat. Introducing this gene into cultivated wheat improved the plant root structure so that it continued to grow in search of water under dry soil conditions.

Wheat is the most widely grown crop in the world and, together with rice, provides more than 50% of the caloric intake of humans globally. Like other crops, wheat is exposed to a wide range of environmental limitations, such as high temperature, disease pressure and drought.

The scavenging nature of wheat root systems during times of drought may have been lost when wild wheats were adopted for agriculture by early humans or as cultivated wheat was bred for improved responsiveness to irrigation and fertilizers during the mid-1900s. This improved responsiveness was key to feeding a booming world population during the 1960s.

As todays producers strive for more crop per drop to feed a world population that is again in the midst of a boom and is expected to grow from about 7.5 billion today to more than 9.6 billion by 2050, it is evident that future crops will need greater drought resilience. The discovery by Walia and his colleagues could represent an important new genetic resource, enabling breeders to recapture this natural survival trait in cultivated wheat. UNL has secured a patent on the discovery via NUtech Ventures, enabling future commercialization of this technology.

The potential impact of the discovery grew substantially when the team found that adding the wild root gene also resulted in plants with larger grains in the absence of drought. Walia and his team were not expecting this, as introducing tolerance to a stress can sometimes result in lost productivity when the stress is absent.

This particular trait may have the opposite effect, which is a benefit in both conditions, Walia said. We are now working to understand the reason behind this surprising finding.

The genetic engineering of wheat plants was performed at Nebraskas Center for Biotechnology.

Walia is one of many researchers worldwide helping to develop a catalog of genes that will contribute to creating more robust plants for the future. Drought response is a complicated trait, Walia said, which involves many genes contributing to survival and productivity when water is limited. He hopes that research in this area will continue to discover new genetic resources that plant breeders and geneticists can use to develop more drought-tolerant crops.

From a genetic improvement perspective, it takes a community to make a crop more adaptive, Walia said. This finding is one piece of a very large puzzle.

The research was spearheaded by doctoral students Dante Placido and Jaspreet Sandhu in the Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. The work was supported by the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute.

Continue reading here:
UNL team links wild wheat gene to drought tolerance in cultivated wheat - Grand Island Independent

Dublin, March 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Cell Therapy - Technologies, Markets and Companies" report from Jain PharmaBiotech has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The cell-based markets was analyzed for 2018, and projected to 2028. The markets are analyzed according to therapeutic categories, technologies and geographical areas. The largest expansion will be in diseases of the central nervous system, cancer and cardiovascular disorders. Skin and soft tissue repair as well as diabetes mellitus will be other major markets.

The number of companies involved in cell therapy has increased remarkably during the past few years. More than 500 companies have been identified to be involved in cell therapy and 309 of these are profiled in part II of the report along with tabulation of 302 alliances. Of these companies, 170 are involved in stem cells.

Profiles of 72 academic institutions in the US involved in cell therapy are also included in part II along with their commercial collaborations. The text is supplemented with 67 Tables and 25 Figures. The bibliography contains 1,200 selected references, which are cited in the text.

This report contains information on the following:

The report describes and evaluates cell therapy technologies and methods, which have already started to play an important role in the practice of medicine. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is replacing the old fashioned bone marrow transplants. Role of cells in drug discovery is also described. Cell therapy is bound to become a part of medical practice.

Stem cells are discussed in detail in one chapter. Some light is thrown on the current controversy of embryonic sources of stem cells and comparison with adult sources. Other sources of stem cells such as the placenta, cord blood and fat removed by liposuction are also discussed. Stem cells can also be genetically modified prior to transplantation.

Cell therapy technologies overlap with those of gene therapy, cancer vaccines, drug delivery, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Pharmaceutical applications of stem cells including those in drug discovery are also described. Various types of cells used, methods of preparation and culture, encapsulation and genetic engineering of cells are discussed. Sources of cells, both human and animal (xenotransplantation) are discussed. Methods of delivery of cell therapy range from injections to surgical implantation using special devices.

Cell therapy has applications in a large number of disorders. The most important are diseases of the nervous system and cancer which are the topics for separate chapters. Other applications include cardiac disorders (myocardial infarction and heart failure), diabetes mellitus, diseases of bones and joints, genetic disorders, and wounds of the skin and soft tissues.

Regulatory and ethical issues involving cell therapy are important and are discussed. Current political debate on the use of stem cells from embryonic sources (hESCs) is also presented. Safety is an essential consideration of any new therapy and regulations for cell therapy are those for biological preparations.

Key Topics Covered

Part I: Technologies, Ethics & RegulationsExecutive Summary 1. Introduction to Cell Therapy2. Cell Therapy Technologies3. Stem Cells4. Clinical Applications of Cell Therapy5. Cell Therapy for Cardiovascular Disorders6. Cell Therapy for Cancer7. Cell Therapy for Neurological Disorders8. Ethical, Legal and Political Aspects of Cell therapy9. Safety and Regulatory Aspects of Cell Therapy

Part II: Markets, Companies & Academic Institutions10. Markets and Future Prospects for Cell Therapy11. Companies Involved in Cell Therapy12. Academic Institutions13. References

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/bzimne

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

See the rest here:
Cell Therapy Insights Report, 2018-2028: Markets, Technologies, Ethics, Regulations, Companies & Academic Institutions - Benzinga

Study lead author Laura Rivera Tarazona, a biomedical engineering doctoral student, worked with Dr. Taylor Ware (left) and Dr. Zachary Campbell on her research that incorporated plant DNA into yeast to give it light-responsive traits.

Combining the powers of the living and the inanimate, an interdisciplinary team from The University of Texas at Dallas has embedded genetically modified yeast into a synthetic gel to create a novel, shape-changing material designed to grow under specific biochemical or physical conditions.

This is definitely a case where the product is more than the sum of its parts, said Dr. Taylor Ware, assistant professor of bioengineering in the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science and corresponding author of a paper published in January in Science Advances, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences open-access journal.

The idea to use the reproductive growth of cells to drive shape change within an inanimate container began with an old, reliable standby: bakers yeast, or Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Yeast was the first eukaryotic organism to have its genome totally sequenced, Ware said. Wonderful tools exist already to modify it genetically. The cells have stiff cell walls, unlike mammalian cells, which make them better for pushing outward on the gel to change its shape.

By genetically modifying the yeast in different ways, the research team created composites that responded to various stimuli.

In proof-of-concept experiments, biomedical engineering doctoral student Laura Rivera Tarazona, lead author of the paper, incorporated plant DNA into yeast to give it light-responsive traits. When the resulting yeast-hydrogel composite was exposed to light, the entire object changed shape as the growing yeast pushed outward on the boundaries of the gel.

The research team also modified the yeast to respond to biochemical stimuli, including amino acids, which are building blocks of proteins.

This combination of animate with inanimate lends itself to interacting with the body in a particularly useful way using cellular mechanisms to drive shape change, Ware said. Given the flexibility of yeast, this composite could be designed to respond to any of countless conditions.

Dr. Zachary Campbell, assistant professor of biological sciences in the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and a co-author of the study, said the awesome power of yeast genetics made the project possible.

Weve had the ability to make yeast do amazing biological things for a long time, but its only in the past few years that we have had the ability to create strains where gene activity is precisely controlled by light, Campbell said.

Theres a beauty to taking something thats ordinarily so static and endowing it with this capability to transform into other things.

Dr. Zachary Campbell, assistant professor of biological sciences in the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

The researchers believe the shape-changing response has potential applications as a type of reporter both inside and outside the body.

Where I think this research eventually goes is indicating disease states via detection of proteins and other biomolecules, Ware said.

Ware said shape change could also be used to perform mechanical work to open a container or uncover an adhesive, for example.

Our results are in the very early stage, but the fact that were taking a series of molecular events and transducing them into something mechanical is already exciting in itself, Ware said.

Rivera Tarazona uses a microscope as one of the successful projects is displayed on the monitor in the background.

Campbell added that, although the physical transformations in the composite materials are very slow, capitalizing on genetic manipulations to drive minuscule devices could have additional applications, such as releasing drugs from a capsule in response to a precise biological trigger.

Theoretically, you could use these to detect anything you can detect in nature by combining an existing genetic circuit from another cell type with the yeast, he said. This allows access to a dazzling array of physiological cues.

Theres a beauty to taking something thats ordinarily so static and endowing it with this capability to transform into other things.

Other authors of the research included biomedical engineer Hyun Kim PhD19 and Vandita Bhat, a molecular biology doctoral student graduating this spring.

The work was supported by a grant (R01NS100788) from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of the National Institutes of Health, and is partially based on work supported by the National Science Foundation.

More:
Team Creates Shape-Changing Material That Pushes Biological Boundaries - University of Texas at Dallas

The year 2020 marks a milestone in the march of robots into popular culture: the 100th anniversary of the birth of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Asimov coined the word 'robotics', invented the much-quoted Three Laws governing robot behavior, and passed on many myths and misconceptions that affect the way we feel about robots today.

A compulsive writer and homebodypossibly, an agoraphobicAsimov hated to travel: ironically, for a writer who specialized in fantastic tales often set on distant worlds, he hadn't been in an airplane since being flown home from Hawaii by the US Army after being released from service just before a test blast of the atomic bomb on the Bikini Atoll. (Asimov once grimly observed that this stroke of luck probably saved his life by preventing him from getting leukemia, one of the side effects that afflicted many servicemen who were close to the blast.)

By 1956, Asimov had completed most of the stories that cemented his reputation as the grand master of science fiction, and set the ground rules for a new field of study called "robotics," a word he made up. Researchers like Marvin Minsky of MIT and William Shockley of Bell Labs had been doing pioneering work into Artificial Intelligence and Robotics since the early 1950s, but they were not well-known outside of the scientific and business communities. Asimov, on the other hand, was famous, his books so commercially successful that he quit his job as a tenured chemistry professor at Boston College to write full-time. Asimov's 1950 short story collection, I, Robot, put forward a vision of the robot as humanity's friend and protector, at a time when many humans were wondering if their own species could be trusted not to self-destruct.

Born in January 1920, or possibly October 1919the exact date was uncertain because birth records weren't kept in the little Russian village where he came fromAsimov emigrated to Brooklyn in 1922 with his parents. Making a go of life in America turned out to be tougher than they expected, until his father scraped together enough money to buy a candy store. That decision would have a seismic impact on Isaac's future, and on robotics research and the narratives we tell ourselves about human-robot relationships to this day.

As a kid, Isaac worked long hours in the store where he became interested in two attractions that pulled in customers: a slot machine that frequently needed to be dismantled for repairs; and pulp fiction magazines featuring death rays and alien worlds. Soon after the first rocket launches in the mid-1920s, scientists announced that space travel was feasible, opening the door to exciting tales of adventure in outer space. Atomic energythe source of the death rayswas also coming into public consciousness as a potential "super weapon." But both atomic bombs and space travel were still very much in the realm of fiction; few people actually believed they'd see either breakthrough within their lifetimes.

Advertisement:

The genre of the stories in the pulps wasn't new. Fantastical tales inspired by science and technology went back to the publication of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in 1818, which speculated about the use of a revolutionary new energy source, electricity, to reanimate life. Jules Verne, H. P. Lovecraft, H. G. Welles, and Edgar Rice Burroughs all wrote novels touching on everything from time travel, to atomic-powered vehicles, to what we now call genetic engineering. But the actual term, "science fiction," wasn't coined by any of them: that distinction goes to Hugo Gernsbeck, editor of the technical journal, Modern Electrics, whose name would eventually be given to the HUGO, the annual award for the best science fiction writing.13

Gernsbeck's interest in the genre started with a field that was still fairly new in his time: electrical engineering. Even in 1911, the nature of electricity was not fully understood, and random electrocutions were not uncommon; electricians weren't just tradesmen, but daredevils, taking their lives in their hands every time they wired a house or lit up a city street.14 Gernsbeck, perhaps gripped by the same restless derring-do as his readers, wasn't satisfied with writing articles about induction coils. In 1911, he penned a short story set in the twenty-third century and serialized it over several issues of Modern Electrics, a decision that must have baffled some of the electricians who made up his subscribers. At first, Gernsbeck called his mash-up of science and fiction "scientifiction," mercifully changing that mouthful to "science fiction." He went on to publish a string of popular magazines, including Science Wonder Stories, Wonder Stories, Science, and Astounding. (Gernsbeck's rich imagination didn't stretch far enough to come up with more original titles.)

Asimov's father stocked Gernsbeck's magazines in the candy store because they sold like hotcakes, but he considered them out-and-out junk. Young Isaac was forbidden to waste time reading about things that didn't exist and never would, like space travel and atomic weapons.

Despite (or possibly because of) his father's objections, Isaac began secretly reading every pulp science fiction magazine that appeared in the store, handling each one so carefully that Asimov Senior never knew they had been opened. Isaac finally managed to convince his father that one of Gernsbeck's magazines, Science Wonder Stories, had educational valueafter all, the word "science" was in the title, wasn't it?15

Isaac sold his first short story when he was still an eighteen-year-old high school student, naively showing up at the offices of Amazing Stories to personally deliver it to the editor, John W. Campbell. Campbell rejected the story (eventually published by a rival Gernsbeck publication, Astounding) but encouraged Isaac to send him more. Over time, Campbell published a slew of stories that established Isaac, while still a university student, as a handsomely paid writer of science fiction.

When you read those early stories today, Asimov's weaknesses as a writer are painfully glaring. With almost no experience of the world outside of his school, the candy store, and his Brooklyn neighborhood and no exposure to contemporary writers of his time like Hemingway or FitzgeraldIsaac fell back on the flat, stereotypical characters and clichd plots of pulp fiction. Isaac did have one big thing going for him, though: a science education.

By the early 1940s, Asimov was a graduate student in chemistry at Columbia University, as well as a member of the many science fiction fan clubs springing up all over Brooklyn whose members' obsession with the minutiae of fantastical worlds would be familiar to any ComicCon fan in a Klingon costume today. Asimov wrote stories that appealed to this newly emerging geeky readership, staying close enough to the boundaries of science to be plausible, while still instinctively understanding how to create wondrous fictional worlds.

The working relationship between Asimov and his editor, Campbell, turned into a highly profitable one for both publisher and author. But as Asimov improved his writing and tackled more complex themes, he ran into a roadblock: Campbell insisted that he would only publish human- centered stories. Aliens could appear as stock villains but humans always had to come out on top. Campbell didn't just believe that people were superior to aliens, but that some peoplewhite Anglo-Saxons were superior to everyone else. Still a relatively young writer and unwilling to walk away from his lucrative gig with Campbell, Asimov looked for ways to work around his editor's prejudices. The answer: write about robots. Asimov's mechanical beings were created by humans, in their own image; as sidekicks, helpers, proxies, and, eventually, replacements. Endowed with what Asimov dubbed "positronic brains," his imaginary robots were even more cleverly constructed than the slot machine in the candy store.

Never a hands-on guy himself, Asimov was nonetheless interested in how mechanisms worked. Whenever the store's one-armed bandit had to be serviced, Isaac would watch the repairman open the machine and expose its secrets. The slot machine helped him imagine the mechanical beings in his stories.

Although Asimov can be credited with kick-starting a generation's love affair with robots, he was far from their inventor. (Even I, Robot borrowed its title from a 1939 comic book of the same name written by a pair of brothers who called themselves Eando Binder, the name eventually bestowed on the beer-swilling, cigar-smoking robot star of the TV show, Futurama.) But in writing his very first robot story, Asimov was both jumping on a new obsession of the 1920s, and mining old, deep myths going back to ancient Jewish tales of the golem, which was a man made of mud and magically brought to life, as well as stories as diverse as Pygmalion, Pinocchio, and engineering wonders like the eighteenth century, chess-playing Mechanical Turk, and other automatons.

Robots have an ancient history and a surprisingly whimsical one. Automatons have been frog marching, spinet playing, and minuet dancing their way out of the human imagination for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but it wasn't until the machine age of the early twentieth century that robots appeared as thinking, reasoning substitute humans. The word robotCzech for "mechanical worker"wasn't coined in a patent office or on a technical blueprint, but as the title of a fantastical play by Karel Capek, Rossum's Universal Robots, which was first performed in 1920, the reputed year of Isaac Asimov's birth. In adopting robots as his main characters, and the challenges and ethics of human life in a robotic world as one of his central themes, Asimov found his voice as a writer. His robots are more sympathetic and three-dimensional than his human characters. In exploring the dynamics of human-robot partnershipsas Asimov would do particularly well in detective/robot "buddy" stories, such as his 1954 novel Caves of Steel he invented a subgenre within the broader world of science fiction.

Asimov's humanoid robots were governed by the Three Laws of Robotics. More whimsical than scientific, they established ground rules for an imaginary world where humans and mechanical beings coexisted. Eventually, the Three Laws were quoted by researchers in two academic fields that were still unnamed in the 1940s: artificial intelligence and robotics.

First published by Astounding magazine in 1942 as part of Asimov's fourth robot story "Runaround", the Three Laws stated that:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

According to Asimov's biographer Michael Wilson in Isaac Asimov: A Life of the Grand Master of Science Fiction (New York, Carrol & Graff, 2005), "Asimov was flattered that he had established a set of pseudoscientific laws. Despite the fact that in the early 1940s the science of robotics was a purely fictional thing, he somehow knew that one day they would provide the foundation for a real set of laws."

The Three Laws would continue to appear not only in the world of robot-driven books and filmslike Aliens (1986), where the laws are synopsized by the synthetic human Bishop when trying to reassure the robot-phobic heroine Ellen Ripleybut by some real-world roboticists and AI researchers, who are now considering how to develop a moral code for machines that may one day have to make independent, life-or-death decisions.

Read more from the original source:
Isaac Asimov, the candy store kid who dreamed up robots - Salon

HOUSTON A Houston-based genetic engineering company said it has a vaccine aimed at the deadly coronavirus outbreak, according to a report by the Houston Business Journal.

The genetic engineering firm, Greffex Inc. has one of its laboratories based in Aurora, Colorado.

RELATED: Coronavirus death toll hits 2,100 in mainland China

RELATED: Colorado man living in China posts brutally honest Instagram videos of coronavirus self-quarantine

John Price, president and CEO of Greffex Inc., told KHOU, our sister station in Houston, that Greffex's scientists completed the coronavirus vaccine this week.

The trick in making a vaccine is can you scale the vaccine that youve made to be able to make a certain number of doses, can you test the vaccine quickly and efficiently and then can you get it into patients and thats where we have an edge as well on the other companies that are out there," said Price. "And that has to do with speed and essential uniformity of how we make vaccines, so that drops the cost down.

Price said the vaccine will now move into a testing phase with the Food and Drug Administration.

The Houston Business Journal reported, in September 2019 Greffex received an $18.9 million contract from the National Institute of Health's National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to develop new treatments for infectious threats.

If the vaccine gets government approval, Price said his company plans to give it away for free to nations hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak.

SUGGESTED VIDEOS | Local stories from 9NEWS

More here:
Genetic engineering company says they have created a coronavirus vaccine - 9News.com KUSA