Archive for the ‘Crispr’ Category

The increasing popularity of organic food is driven largely by consumers hoping to avoid pesticide exposure. When the Soil Association, a UK-based organic advocacy group, asked consumers why they didnt buy conventional foods, 95 percent of them said they did so because of pesticides. Despite the fact that organic growers do indeed utilize pesticides some of which can be very harmful to human health and wildlife the organic food movement has done its utmost to promote the myth of chemical-free natural agriculture, contrasting it with the idea that conventional farmers rely on a bevy of toxic substances to grow their crops. Organic Consumers Association (OCA) International Director Ronnie Cummins summed up this false dichotomy in a 2014 article for EcoWatch:

Organic farming prohibits the use of toxic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones and climate-destabilizing chemical fertilizers . Consumers are concerned about purchasing foods with high nutritional value and as few as possible synthetic or non-organic ingredients. Organic foods are nutritionally dense compared to foods produced with toxic chemicals, chemical fertilizers and GMO seeds.

Although synthetic pesticides are generally not allowed in organic farming, natural substances that control pests are not only permitted but required, because bugs will eat organic and conventional crops without hesitation. Cummins doesnt include that important clarification, though the problem with his argument isnt so much the sleight of hand but that its at complete odds with reality.

As crop biotechnology continues to advance, conventional farmers are gaining access to new tools that drastically cut pesticide use. This downward trend in chemical dependency goes back to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in the 1990s, and will only accelerate as more gene-edited crops and animals reach the market in the near future. The organic industry, meanwhile, continues to sit out this sustainability revolution for ideological and economic reasons, which ultimately encourages pesticide use.

Mother Natures toxic chemicals

There is a common misconception that natural substances are inherently safer than the chemicals scientists synthesize in the lab, leading to the belief that synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture must pose an elevated threat to human health. The organic movement has found this misconception helpful in its crusade against modern farming techniques, even in the face of evidence that both synthetic and natural pesticides can be toxic. According to Charlotte Vallaeys, food and farm policy director at the Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic activist group:

There was just no way that truly independent scientists . would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals.

What the Cornucopia Institute seems less eager to discuss is the long list of USDA-approved substances that can be used in organic farming. Some of the products would surprise many organic food consumers, since these chemicals can be dangerous. Lime sulfur, for instance, is used to control fungi, bacteria and insects living in or dormant on the surface of bark of deciduous trees, which lose their leaves seasonally.

Lime sulfur solutions are highly alkaline and corrosive to living things; they can cause blindness through eye contact. Organic farmers growing apples and pears whose orchards are infected with fire blight can use peracetic acid to control infestation. Exposure to peracetic acid can cause irritation to the skin, eyes and respiratory system; high acute and long-term exposure can cause permanent lung damage. There have been cases of occupational asthma resulting from the use of peracetic acid. Boric acid powder can also be used in organic farming for pest control, as long as it does not come into direct contact with crops. It is poisonous if ingested and long-term exposure can cause kidney damage.

Copper sulfate can also be used in organic farming as a fungicide, and is extensively utilized in grape orchards. According to the EPA, DANGER must appear on the labels of all copper sulfate products that contain 99% active ingredient in crystalline form. Cornell Universitys Toxicology Network summary of copper sulfate poisoning explains why that is:

Some of the signs of poisoning, which occur after 1-12 grams of copper sulfate are swallowed, include a metallic taste in the mouth, burning pain in the chest and abdomen, intense nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, sweating and shockInjury to the brain, liver, kidneys and stomach and intestinal linings may also occur in copper sulfate poisoning. Copper sulfate can be corrosive to the skin and eyesCopper sulfate is very toxic to fishDirect application of copper sulfate to water may cause a significant decrease in populations of aquatic invertebrates, plants and fish.

The EU has deemed copper fungicides to be such a potential hazard to humans and the environment that it is phasing them out. In October 2018, the European Food Safety Authority released fresh data that re-affirmed the toxicity of copper compounds that are used in organic farming. In October 2018, the European Union (EU) noted:

Copper compounds, including copper sulfate, are authorized in the EU as bactericides and fungicides, even though it is a substance of particular concern to public health or the environment, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Copper compounds are candidates for substitution and their use is being phased out and replaced.

Biotechnology exposes a bigger problem

The organic food movement has a bigger problem than the obvious double standard it relies on to attack synthetic chemicals. Biotechnology has drastically cut pesticide use over the past 25 years. But since activists like OCAs Cummins also oppose crop biotech, they have twisted themselves in knots trying to justify two clearly contradictory positions.

For example, one of the most common insecticides used in organic farming is Bacilllus thuringiensis (Bt), a natural bacterium found in the soil. Yet when Bt is spliced into a seed to create genetically modified corn, soybean, cotton and brinjal (a type of eggplant), the organic movement vehemently objects, claiming that these insect-resistant crops are dangerous to human health and the environment. Both claims have been thoroughly debunked by years of research.

Instead of criticizing GM Bt crops, the organic movement should be applauding their cultivation, which has led to a substantial reduction in the use of pesticides. Farmers in India who grow Bt cotton, for example, have seen their use of pesticides decline by more than 60 percent. A June 2019 study on the introduction of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh similarly noted the crop provides essentially complete control of the eggplant fruit and shoot borer, dramatically reduces insecticide sprays, provides a six fold increase in grower profit, and does not affect non-target arthropod biodiversity. Overall, GM crops are responsible for a 37 percent decline in pesticide use worldwide, and the widespread adoption of Bt technology has been an enormous part of that development.

Other biotech innovations are poised to cut agricultural pesticide use even more. New gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR may enable researchers to manipulate the genetics of insect populations to provide a chemical-free pest control method. University of California, San Diego researchers explored one possible approach in a January 2019 study:

Using the CRISPR gene-editing tool, researchers have developed a new way to control and suppress populations of insects, potentially including those that ravage agricultural crops and transmit deadly diseases. The precision-guided sterile insect technique (PGSIT) alters key genes that control insect sex determination and fertility. When PGSIT eggs are introduced into targeted populations, only adult sterile males emerge resulting in a novel, environmentally friendly and relatively low-cost method of controlling pest populations in the future.

Editing the genome of insects that damage important crops and fortifying the natural defenses of plants could allow farmers to markedly reduce pesticide use. CRISPR-edited apples can be protected against fire blight disease, for instance, without the use of peracetic acid. The organic food movement should welcome such developments, but it continues to oppose them because of scientifically unwarranted concerns that crop biotechnology might be hazardous to human health and the environment.

Ideological considerations, like extreme distrust of corporations, partially explain why anti-GM activists continue to perpetuate unfounded fears of genetic modification and mislead the public about the use of pesticides in organic farming. But economics offers some insight as well, as the organic food movement needs to justify the high cost of organically grown food. It does so by disparaging conventionally grown and genetically engineered crops by raising non-existent health and environmental concerns.

According to former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is organic a value judgment about nutrition or quality. Such a fact is clear to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence. Molecular biologist Louis Hom offers an important explanation of why many in the organic movement are so reluctant to acknowledge the veracity of Glickmans uncontroversial statement:

For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that organic = chemical/pesticide-free. They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.

Steven E. Cerier is a freelance international economist and a frequent contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project

Read more:
Viewpoint: How organic industry opposition to CRISPR gene editing encourages pesticide use - Genetic Literacy Project

The race to engineer the next-generation banana is on. The Colombian government confirmed [in August] that a banana-killing fungus has invaded the Americas the source of much of the worlds banana supply. The invasion has given new urgency to efforts to create fruit that can withstand the scourge.

Scientists are using a mix of approaches to save the banana. A team in Australia has inserted a gene from wild bananas into the top commercial variety known as the Cavendish and are currently testing these modified bananas in field trials. Researchers are also turning to the powerful, precise gene-editing tool CRISPR to boost the Cavendishs resilience against the fungus, known as Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 (TR4).

In an attempt to make biotech bananas more palatable to regulators, [James Dale, a biotechnologist at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia] is . editing the Cavendishs genome with CRISPR to boost its resilience to TR4, instead of inserting foreign genes.

Specifically, hes trying to turn on a dormant gene in the Cavendish that confers resistance to TR4 the same gene that he identified in M. acuminate. But the work is still in its early stages. Itll be a couple of years before these get into the field for trials, Dale says.

Read full, original article: CRISPR might be the bananas only hope against a deadly fungus

The rest is here:
World's favorite banana faces extinction. Are GMOs, CRISPR the final hope? - Genetic Literacy Project

A research team from the University of Missouri School of Medicine has recently used CRISPR to edit a genetic mutation that contributes to Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). This rare and debilitating genetic disorder is characterized by loss of muscle mass and physical impairment. By using this powerful gene-editing technology, these MU School of Medicine researchers have successfully treated mouse models of the disease. This work was published this summer in the journal Molecular Therapy.

Those with DMD possess a specific mutation that hinders the production of the dystrophin protein, which contributes to the structural integrity of muscle tissue. In the absence of this protein, the muscle cells weaken and eventually die. Pediatric patients with the condition often lose their ability to walk and can even lose the function of muscles that are essential for respiration and heart contractions.

Research has shown that CRISPR can be used to edit out the mutation that causes the early death of muscle cells in an animal model, explained senior author Dongsheng Duan, PhD, Margaret Proctor Mulligan Professor in Medical Research in the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the MU School of Medicine. However, there is a major concern of relapse because these gene-edited muscle cells wear out over time. If we can correct the mutation in muscle stem cells, then cells regenerated from the edited stem cells will no longer carry the mutation. A one-time treatment of the muscle stem cells with CRISPR could result in continuous dystrophin expression in regenerated muscle cells.

Working alongside other researchers from MU, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Duke University, Duan aimed to genetically modify muscle stem cells in mice. These scientists first edited the gene using an adeno-associated virus known as AAV9. Being this specific viral strain was recently approved by the FDA in treating spinal muscular atrophy, the researchers saw it as a viable candidate in treating DMD.

We transplanted AAV9 treated muscle into an immune-deficient mouse, said lead author Michael Nance, an MD-PhD program student in Duans lab. The transplanted muscle died first then regenerated from its stem cells. If the stem cells were successfully edited, the regenerated muscle cells should also carry the edited gene.

Upon analyzing the regenerated muscle tissue, the researchers found that its cells contained the edited gene, supporting their reasoning. The team then tested whether the muscle stem cells in mice with DMD could be genetically edited using CRISPR. These findings also supported their hypothesis, with the stem cells in the diseased tissue sustaining these edits and the regenerated cells successfully producing dystrophin.

This finding suggests that CRISPR gene editing may provide a method for lifelong correction of the genetic mutation in DMD and potentially other muscle diseases, explained Duan. Our research shows that CRISPR can be used to effectively edit the stem cells responsible for muscle regeneration. The ability to treat the stem cells that are responsible for maintaining muscle growth may pave the way for a one-time treatment that can provide a source of gene-edited cells throughout a patients life.

Duan and colleagues hope that future research will help this stem cell CRISPR therapy become a revolutionary treatment for children with DMD.

More:
Editing Muscle Stem Cells with CRISPR Treats Mouse Model of Muscular Dystrophy - DocWire News

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C., Sept. 24, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Locus Biosciences today announced that it has been named by FierceBiotech as one of 2019's Fierce 15 biotechnology companies, designating it as one of the most promising private biotechnology companies in the industry.

"This year has seen unrivalled scientific talent in the early-stage life sciences world and it has been a pleasure for us at FierceBiotech to speak to all 15 winners and hear their passion, progress and panache," said Ben Adams, senior editor of FierceBiotech. "Each company brought something different, exciting and potentially life-changing for a myriad of patients around the world across a host of diseases and disorders, using cutting-edge science, top-notch teams and a drive to genuinely make the world a better place, despite the risks and challenges that, as ever in biotech, lay ahead."

Locus Biosciences develops CRISPR-engineered precision antibacterial products to address critical unmet medical needs in antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and microbiome-related disease. Locus is the world leader in CRISPR-engineered bacteriophage therapeutics, uniquely leveraging the powerful Type I CRISPR-Cas3 system to specifically destroy the DNA of target bacteria cells, quickly killing them. This DNA-shredding technology is the most potent mechanism of action known for driving cell death using CRISPR and is distinct from the Cas9 systems widely used in gene editing.

"We are proud to be named to the 2019 Fierce 15 list," said Paul Garofolo, CEO of Locus. "FierceBiotech has a phenomenal track record of identifying private biotechnology companies that are on the cusp of rapid growth and value creation, and we are pleased to be recognized along with the other promising companies on the list this year."

The Fierce 15 celebrates the spirit of being "fierce" championing innovation and creativity, even in the face of intense competition. Every year FierceBiotech evaluates hundreds of private companies from around the world for its annual Fierce 15 list, which is based on a variety of factors such as the strength of its technology, partnerships, venture backers and a competitive market position. This is FierceBiotech's 17th annual Fierce 15 selection.

About Locus Biosciences Locus Biosciences is an emerging biotechnology company developing CRISPR Cas3-engineered precision antibacterial products. Its novel approach leverages an adaptive immune system present in many bacteria called the CRISPR-Cas system to engineer bacteriophages that precisely kill target bacteria while leaving non-targeted beneficial bacteria unharmed. Locus is rapidly moving its lead programs into clinical development for infectious disease and microbiome indications. For more information about Locus visit https://www.locus-bio.com/.

About FierceBiotech FierceBiotechis the biotech industry's daily monitor, an email newsletter and web resource providing the latest biotech news, articles, and resources related to clinical trials, drug discovery, FDA approval, FDA regulation, patent news, pharma news, biotech company news and more. More than 150,000 top biotech professionals rely on FierceBiotech for an insider briefing on the day's top stories. Signup is free at http://www.fiercebiotech.com/signup.

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/locus-biosciences-selected-by-fiercebiotech-as-one-of-its-fierce-15-biotech-companies-of-2019-300924206.html

SOURCE Locus Biosciences

See the article here:
Locus Biosciences selected by FierceBiotech as one of its "Fierce 15" Biotech Companies of 2019 - P&T Community

Canadian researchers bring together microfluidic and genomic technologies for drug discovery in cancer and regenerative medicine

The project, which also involved electrical engineers, is aimed at searching the human genome for genes, and the associated protein products, that can be targeted by drugs to treat a variety of illnesses. This is normally a very lengthy task, but research leaders Shana Kelley and Jason Moffat of the University of Toronto reasoned that combining the techniques they were working on respectively, a magnetic sorting technique and gene-editing using CRISPR might speed the process up. As they report in a paper in Nature Biomedical Engineering, their hunch was correct.

Both researchers were working on a large multi-centre project called Medicine by Design, with Kelley, a pharmacist, leading a team that was building microfluidic devices which use tiny magnets incorporated into cells to sort large mixed populations of cells. Moffat, a cellular and biomedical research specialist, was using CRISPR, a powerful technique for identifying and manipulating specific genes in cells, to study how the bodys immune system is triggered to attack certain cells but not others. A conversation in a corridor led researchers to combine their research strands, resulting in what Kelley calls an engine for the discovery of new therapeutic targets in cells.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

The teams paper describes how they used CRISPR to reveal promising drug targets by switching off genes that produce proteins that help cancer to spread. Using techniques developed by Kelley, the researchers bound tiny magnetic particles to the target proteins which reside on the surface of the cells that produce them, and funnelled the entire population of cells into a device about half the size of a credit card, streaked with strips of magnetic material that capture the marked cells into collection channels corresponding to the amount of magnetic material on the surface, which corresponded to the concentration of the target protein.

To test the method, they focused on cancer immunotherapy, a technique which tricks the immune system into attacking mutated cancer cells (normally, these would be ignored, leading to growth and spread of the cancer). Using CRISPR, they identified a gene that produces a protein known as CD47, which signals immune cells not to attack cancer cells often hijack this process to escape detection. Previous research had indicated that blocking CD47 directly with drugs leads to harmful side effects, so just tricking the cell to produce less might be a more effective treatment. The CRISPR screen identified an enzyme that helps camouflage the protein from the immune system, and could be blocked with an off-the-shelf drug, and the microfluidic device successfully sorted cells with the gene producing the enzyme from a mixed population of cells.

As many as one billion cells can travel down this highway of magnetic guides at once and we can process that in one hour, says Kelley. Its a huge gamechanger for CRISPR screens. Using current sorting techniques, which employ fluorescent markers picked out by lasers, the same sorting procedure would take 20-30 hours, making drug discovery an expensive and arduous task.

Kelley and Moffat also hope the technique can be used in regenerative medicine, to identify genes that activate stem cells to transform into specific cell types, which would make it easier to harvest the right sort of cells for therapies.

More:
Magnetic sorting and genomic technique for drug discovery - The Engineer

Organic synthesis is going up against biochemistry for this years predictions of who will take home chemistrys most coveted award the chemistry Nobel prize. With just two weeks until the laureates are announced, Web of Sciences citation data analysis team has put forward cycloaddition reactions, Southern blot gene analysis, and protein and DNA sequencing as their chemistry Nobel champions.

Community polls, however, favour scientists such as lithium-ion battery icon John Goodenough, MOF maven Omar Yaghi and discoverer of the Crispr gene-editor Jennifer Doudna names that have repeatedly come up when discussing chemistrys most prestigious award.

Web of Science analysed 47 million papers in its database, selecting their candidates from the authors of the 0.01% of studies that have been cited more than 2000 times. Now in its 17th year, Web of Sciences analysis has successfully predicted 50 Nobel laureates (although not usually the year that they receive the prize), including Fraser Stoddart (2016 prize) and Martin Karplus (2013 prize). Twenty-nine citation laureates won their prize within two years of being listed.

Web of Sciences prediction for the chemistry Nobel this year are Rolf Huisgen and Morten Meldal for developing their eponymous cycloaddition reactions, Edwin Southern for his single gene analysis method the Southern blot, and Leroy Hood, Marvin Caruthers and Michael Hunkapiller for protein and DNA sequencing and synthesis.

Web of Sciences physics prize predictions include some chemistry themes, too. Suggestions include Tony Heinz, who uncovered the properties of 2D materials including graphene and molybdenum sulfide, John Perdews work on advancing density functional theory for electronic structure calculations and Artur Ekert for work on quantum computing.

For the physiology or medicine Nobel, Web of Science suggests Hans Clevers discovery of a biochemical signalling pathway that plays a role in stem cells and cancer, John Kapplers and Philippa Marracks research into the immune systems self-tolerance, and optogenetics using light to control living cells developed by Karl Deisseroth, Ernst Bamberg and Gero Miesenbck.

Meanwhile, by harnessing the wisdom of the crowd, a Chemistry Views polls most popular predictions for the next chemistry laureate are Krzysztof Matyjaszewski, the developer of atom transfer radical polymerisation, astrochemist Ewine van Dishoeck, who hunts interstellar molecules, and (again) MOF pioneer Omar Yaghi. Matyjaszewski and Yaghi were community favourites in last years poll.

Honorary society Sigma Xi is currently running a contest that pits Jennifer Doudnas Crispr against James Tours molecular electronics, while Allen Bards scanning electrochemical microscope is facing-off against Stuart Schreibers biochemical signal transduction. Carolyn Bertozzis bio-orthogonal chemistry is going head-to-head with Jean Frechets molecular dynamics simulations, while John Goodenoughs lithium-ion batteries will battle bioinorganic chemistry pioneered by Harry Gray and Stephen Lippard.

Several of these names have appeared in past chemistry Nobel predictions. Last year, Inside Science suggested Doudna alongside Crispr co-discoverer Emmanuelle Charpentier. They also put forward Barry Sharpless as a possible repeat winner. He won the chemistry prize in 2001 for asymmetric oxidation reactions but could win again for developing click chemistry reactions.

Goodenoughs name has become a staple of chemistry Nobel predictions. In 2017, scientist and blogger Ashutosh Jogalekar suggested Goodenough might win the prize together with Stanley Whittingham. Lithium-ion batteries also won Nature Chemistry editor Stuart Cantrills Twitter poll of Nobel hopefuls last year.

The winners of the chemistry Nobel prize will be announced on Wednesday 9 October and Chemistry World will be live blogging the event. The physiology or medicine prize will be awarded on Monday and physics on Tuesday.

See the original post here:
Inspired guesswork goes head-to-head with number crunching for Nobel predictions - Chemistry World

The new report has been added to Reportocean.coms offering. For more info click here @https://www.reportocean.com/industry-verticals/details?report_id=36235

This ready to use report offers you detailed insight into the global crispr technology industry with market size, in value terms, estimated at USD million/billion for the period. It also provides the projected growth rate for the next 56 years along with forecast market value. The study includes estimation of market size, detailed profile of products/services, SWOT of manufacturers/providers, their strategies, and recent developments in the industry. In brief the Global CRISPR Technology Market 2019 research report by Report Ocean offers industry data, trends, qualitative information, and competitive landscape, not easily accessible, and culled from multiple sources so that it acts as a ready recknor for you. The report is in-depth, authentic, exhaustive and very exclusive.

Takeaways from the Report:

You will learn about the market drivers for the projected period

You will get to know about the headwinds hampering the market growth

You will be exposed to the segment-region-wise analysis of major geographical areas, viz, North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the rest

You will know the market size at the country level

You will get detailed insight into the strategic and actual happenings of the key players in the crispr technology industry, including research and developments, collaboration, working partnership, and other acts, product launches, etc.

You will be provided details of various segments

You will also be enlightened about the value and supply chain analysis of the market

Parameters for the Study:

The exhaustive study has been prepared painstakingly by considering all possible parameters. Some of these were

Consumers options and preferences

Consumer spending dynamics and trends

Market driving trends

Projected opportunities

Perceived challenges and constraints

Technological environment and facilitators

Government regulations

Other developments

Research Methodology:

While preparing the study of global crispr technology market for the reference year, we took recourse to collect qualitative and quantitative information based on primary sources (nearly 80% weightage) through personal interactions, and secondary research, along with consultation with industry level professionals and experts. Historical trends and current market estimates were arrived at and analyzed to predict the likely direction in which the market will move in the next 56 years.

The report also studies the varying trends of diverse segments and subcategories, presented geographically, based on primary and secondary research. These are cross-checked by interviewing the key level decision-makers, such as CEOs, VPs, Directors, etc. of the relevant companies at the top and mid-size segments; this leads to gaining of more profound insights into the market and industry performance, which in turn authenticates and substantiates the findings.

Secondary research mainly focused on identifying, collecting, collating, and analyzing information needed for an extensive, market-oriented, commercial, and client-friendly study of the crispr technology market. This result also led to generating information about the major players, market classification, and segmentation according to the industry trends, geographic locations, and technological developments related to the market. Our team of field force and deck-based researchers gathered information from various credible sources such as annual reports of the companies, filings with regulatory agencies, journals, white paper, corporate presentations, company websites, paid database, and many more. In addition to sources like Hoovers, Factiva, Bloomberg, Report Linker, we used our in-house database to generate a very very trustworthy report.

We followed, concurrently, both the Bottom-Up approach and Top-Down approach. Under the former, we assessed the market size of individual markets by performing primaries and secondaries of major countries which hold around 7580% of the regional market share. Then we extrapolated the same to derive the projected size of any specific region such as Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, etc. Under the latter approach, first, we estimated the size of the global market and then broke it down at specific country level. After performing both the processes, we invoke gap analysis, where we identify the deviation/differences in market size at the country, regional, and global level. Then through having relook at data sources, data, and analytics we rework on the report so that no gap remained. Ultimately both the approaches should yield the same output

The report, in short, is very rigorously prepared and is as authentic and reliable as it can be.

Continue

View Full Report Detail and Table of Content athttps://www.reportocean.com/industry-verticals/details?report_id=36235

Request Free Sample Report athttps://www.reportocean.com/industry-verticals/sample-request?report_id=36235

Summary

Global CRISPR Technology Market valued approximately USD 449.6 million in 2017 is anticipated to grow with a healthy growth rate of more than 25 % over the forecast period 2018-2025. Increasing availability of government and private funding and growing adoption of CRISPR technology are some key trends that are responsible for the wide adoption of CRISPR Technology globally. As per the Congressional Research Service (US), CRISPR-related research funding by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grew from $5.1 million in FY2011 to $603 million in FY2016, such high funding in the CRISPR has set the scientific foundation for advanced gene editing technologies such as CRISPR-CAS 9. Moreover, between the periods of 2006-2016 (FY) as per National Institute of Health (NIH) approximately $981 million was funded by the NIH for CRISPR related researches. Further in 2017, as per the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the DARPA has announced to invest $65 million over the course of next four years till 2021 in order to make CRISPR Gene Editing Safer and to counter bioterrorism threats. According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the biopharmaceutical R&D expenditure in the United States grew in 2014 was ~$53.5 billion which grew up-to $58.8 billion in 2015. Similarly, according to the Gov.UK in 2017, UK government recently opened its doors to develop drug discovery by investing around $7.16 million that would help businesses to meet and understand the challenges involved in developing drugs. By use of CRISPR, several drugs can be developed which can enhance the effectiveness and quality of medicines and vaccines available in the market for various blood disorders and heart diseases. As a result, the adoption of CRISPR technology would increase thereby, aiding the growth of the market. However, high cost associated with CRISPR technology and presence of alternative technologies are the major factors that impede the growth of global CRISPR Technology market.

The leading Market players mainly include-

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Merck KGaA

GenScript

Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT)

Horizon Discovery Group

Agilent Technologies

Cellecta, Inc.

GeneCopoeia, Inc.

New England Biolabs

Origene Technologies, Inc.

On the basis of segmentation, the CRISPR technology market is segmented into product & services, application and e..continue..

Request Free Sample Report athttps://www.reportocean.com/industry-verticals/sample-request?report_id=36235

Note: The report historic years and forecast period can be customized on the request. Moreover, the scope of a published report can be modified as per the requirement, specific geography or country-based analysis can be provided as a part of customization

Follow us on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reportocean

Twitter: https://twitter.com/reportocean

LinkedIn: https://in.linkedin.com/company/reportocean

Contact: +1 888 212 3539 (US) +91-9997112116 (Outside US)Contact Person: Sandeep SinghEmail:sales@reportocean.com

More here:
Growth Dynamics on Global CRISPR Technology Market Detailed Insights on Upcoming Trends 2019 - ScoopJunction

Watching some recent stock price activity for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (:CRSP), we have seen shares trading near the $47.7 level. Investors have a wide range of tools at their disposal when undertaking stock research. Investors will often monitor the current stock price in relation to its 52-week high and low levels. The 52-week high is currently $52.56, and the 52-week low is presently $22.73. When the current stock price is trading close to either the 52-week high or 52-week low, investors may pay increased attention to see if there will be a breakthrough that level. Taking a look at some previous stock price activity, we can see that shares have moved 66.96% since the beginning of the year. Pulling the focus closer to the last 4 weeks, shares have seen a change of 2.12%. Over the past 5 trading days, the stock has moved -3.97%.Over the past 12 weeks, the stock has seen a change of -0.02%.

Investors may be searching high and low for the next breakout winner in the stock market. As companies continue to release quarterly earnings reports, investors will be looking for stocks that have the potential to move to the upside in the coming months. Tracking earnings can be a good way for investors to see how the company is stacking up to analyst estimates. Some investors prefer to track sell-side estimates very closely. Others prefer to do their own research and make their own best guesses on what the actual numbers will be. A solid earnings beat may help ease investor worries if the stock has been underperforming recently. On the flip side, a bad earnings miss may cause investors to take a much closer look at what the future prospects look like for the company.

Investors might be paying attention to what Wall Street analysts think about shares of CRISPR Therapeutics AG (:CRSP). Taking a peek at the current consensus broker rating, we can see that the ABR is 2.07. This average rating is provided by Zacks Research. This simplified numeric scale spans the range of one to five which translates brokerage firm Buy/Sell/Hold recommendations into an average broker rating. A low number in the 1-2 range typically indicates a Buy, 3 indicates a Hold and 4-5 represents a consensus Sell rating. In terms of the number of analysts that have the stock rated as a Buy or Strong Buy, we can see that the number is currently 9.

Shifting the focus to some earnings data, we have noted that the current quarter EPS consensus estimate for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (:CRSP) is -0.95. This EPS estimate consists of 6 Wall Street analysts taken into consideration by Zacks Research. For the previous reporting period, the company posted a quarterly EPS of -1.01. Sell-side analysts often provide their best researched estimates at what the company will report. These estimates hold a lot of weight on Wall Street and the investing community. Sometimes these analyst projections are spot on, and other times they are off. When a company reports actual earnings results, the surprise factor can cause a stock price to fluctuate. Investors will often pay added attention to a company that has beaten estimates by a large margin.

Looking at some analyst views on shares of CRISPR Therapeutics AG (:CRSP), we note that the consensus target price is resting at $67.94. This is the consensus target using estimates provided by the covering analysts polled. Sell-side analysts often produce target estimates for the companies that they track closely. Price target estimates can be calculated using various methods, and this may cause some analyst estimates to be drastically different than others. Many investors will track stock target prices, especially when analysts update the target price projections.

Investors have various approaches they can take when deciding what stocks to stuff the portfolio with. Some investors may choose to use fundamental analysis, and some may choose to use technical analysis. Others may employ a combination of the two approaches to make sure no stone is left unturned. Investors looking for bargains in the market may be on the lookout for the stock that offers the best value. This may involve finding stocks that have fallen out of favor with the overall investing community but still have low PE ratios and higher dividend yields. Whatever approach is used, investors may benefit greatly from making sure that all the homework is done, and all of the angles have been examined properly.

Read the original post:
Analyst Views in Focus on Shares of CRISPR Therapeutics AG (:CRSP) - Blackwell Bulletin

BERKELEY, Calif., Sept. 24, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a new CRISPR-Cas9 patent to the University of California (UC), University of Vienna, and Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, bringing new compositions and methods to the continuously expanding patent portfolio. U.S. Patent 10,421,980 covers compositions of certain DNA-targeting RNAs that contain RNA duplexes of defined lengths that hybridize with Cas9 and target a desired DNA sequence.

The patent also covers methods of targeting and binding a target DNA, modifying a target DNA, or modulating transcription from a target DNA wherein the method comprises contacting a target DNA with a complex that includes a Cas9 protein and a DNA-targeting RNA.

In September, several patents have been issued to UC, increasing its U.S. CRISPR-Cas9 portfolio to 15 patents. In the coming months, based on applications allowed by the USPTO, UC's portfolio will total 18 patents, covering compositions and methods for the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, including targeting and editing genes and modulating transcription in any setting, such as within plant, animal, and human cells.

"With every patent that issues, UC strengthens its position as the leader in CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property in the United States," said Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D., lead patent strategist on CRISPR-Cas9 matters for UC and a Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. "We are steadfast in our commitment to developing a comprehensive patent portfolio that protects the groundbreaking work of the Doudna-Charpentier team on CRISPR-Cas9."

The Doudna-Charpentier team that invented the CRISPR-Cas9 DNA-targeting technology included Jennifer Doudna and Martin Jinek at the University of California, Berkeley; Emmanuelle Charpentier (then of Umea University); and Krzysztof Chylinski at the University of Vienna. The compositions and methods covered by today's patent, as well as the other compositions and methods claimed in UC's previously issued patents and those set to issue, were included among the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology work disclosed first by the Doudna-Charpentier team in its May 25, 2012 priority patent application.

Additional CRISPR-Cas9 patents in this team's portfolio include 10,000,772; 10,113,167; 10,227,611; 10,266,850; 10,301,651; 10,308,961; 10,337,029; 10,351,878; 10,358,658; 10,358,659; 10,385,360; 10,400,253; 10,407,697; and 10,415,061. These patents are not a part of the PTAB's recently declared interference between 14 UC patent applications and multiple previously issued Broad Institute patents and one application, which jeopardizes essentially all of the Broad's CRISPR patents involving eukaryotic cells.

International patent offices have also recognized the pioneering innovations of the Doudna-Charpentier team, in addition to the 15 patents granted in the U.S. so far. The European Patent Office (representing more than 30 countries), as well as patent offices in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and other countries, have issued patents for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in all types of cells.

University of California has a long-standing commitment to develop and apply its patented technologies, including CRISPR-Cas9, for the betterment of humankind. Consistent with its open-licensing policies, UC allows nonprofit institutions, including academic institutions, to use the technology for non-commercial educational and research purposes.

In the case of CRISPR-Cas9, UC has also encouraged widespread commercialization of the technology through its exclusive license with Caribou Biosciences, Inc. of Berkeley, California. Caribou has sublicensed this patent family to numerous companies worldwide, including Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. for certain human therapeutic applications. Additionally, Dr. Charpentier has licensed the technology to CRISPR Therapeutics AG and ERS Genomics Limited.

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uspto-awards-15th-us-crispr-cas9-patent-to-university-of-california-300923678.html

SOURCE University of California Office of the President

Go here to see the original:
USPTO awards 15th U.S. CRISPR-Cas9 patent to University of California - P&T Community

Integration of CRISPR-case9 technology to accelerate the discovery of innovative antibiotics

DEINOVE (Euronext Growth Paris: ALDEI), a French biotechnology company that relies on a radical innovation approach to develop innovative antibiotics and bio-sourced active ingredients for cosmetics and nutrition, announces that it has expanded its technological platform with an advanced genetic tool, the CRISPR-cas9 system, to enhance its ability to optimize various microorganisms.

In the last few years, DEINOVE has set up a high throughput genetic engineering platform specifically dedicated to rare microorganisms and thus demonstrated its ability to adapt genetic tools to poorly described organisms. Thus, the exploitation of Deinococci as microbial plants has allowed the large-scale production of pure high value-added compounds such as carotenoids. It should be recalled that Deinococci are extremophilic microorganisms whose biological and molecular specificities have so far been little studied and therefore unexploited.

After developing a platform dedicated to the identification of novel antibiotic structures produced by rare bacteria (AGIR Program), DEINOVE strengthens its expertise in genetic engineering with the integration of a cutting-edge tool, the CRISPR-cas9 technology, known as molecular scissors, which has revolutionized genetic engineering in recent years.

The objective for DEINOVE is to be able to directly manipulate the strains producing antimicrobial activities or to transfer these activities into phylogenetically close frames. This has been successfully achieved by the Company which has made the Streptomyces chassis an effective producer of a pharmaceutical intermediate initially produced by Microbacterium arobescens (proof of concept DNB101/102).

Genome editing occurs at two levels. First, highlights the cluster of genes at the origin of the antibiotic activity of interest. To optimize the spectrum of activity and eliminate any potential cytotoxicity, the structure of a natural molecule can then be modified by directly, finely and precisely editing the genes responsible for this activity.

This technology opens up many opportunities in the identification and optimized production of new antibiotic structures.

"Our expertise in the genetic engineering of a variety of microorganisms, unusual for some, is unique, and the integration of CRISPR-cas9 extends the possibilities of our platform," says Georges GAUDRIAULT, Scientific Director of DEINOVE. "We continue to structure the various technological bricks of the AGIR platform to be able to drastically accelerate the identification and optimization of new antibiotic structures. This technology is an additional asset in our race against the clock in the face of rising antimicrobial resistance."

ABOUT DEINOVE

DEINOVE is a French biotechnology company, a leader in disruptive innovation, which aims to help meet the challenges of antibiotic resistance and the transition to a sustainable production model for the cosmetics and nutrition industries.

DEINOVE has developed a unique and comprehensive expertise in the field of rare bacteria that it can decipher, culture, and optimize to disclose unsuspected possibilities and induce them to produce biobased molecules with activities of interest on an industrial scale. To do so, DEINOVE has been building and documenting since its creation an unparalleled biodiversity bank that it exploits thanks to a unique technological platform in Europe.

DEINOVE is organized around two areas of expertise:

Within the Euromedecine science park located in Montpellier, DEINOVE employs 60 employees, mainly researchers, engineers, and technicians, and has filed more than 350 patent applications internationally. The Company has been listed on EURONEXT GROWTH since April 2010.

CONTACTS

Attachments

See the original post here:
Integration of CRISPR-case9 technology to accelerate the discovery of innovative antibiotics - Yahoo Finance

MONTPELLIER, France--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Regulatory News:

DEINOVE (Paris:ALDEI) (Euronext Growth Paris: ALDEI), a French biotechnology company that relies on a radical innovation approach to develop innovative antibiotics and bio-sourced active ingredients for cosmetics and nutrition, announces that it has expanded its technological platform with an advanced genetic tool, the CRISPR-cas9 system, to enhance its ability to optimize various microorganisms.

In the last few years, DEINOVE has set up a high throughput genetic engineering platform specifically dedicated to rare microorganisms and thus demonstrated its ability to adapt genetic tools to poorly described organisms. Thus, the exploitation of Deinococci as microbial plants has allowed the large-scale production of pure high value-added compounds such as carotenoids. It should be recalled that Deinococci are extremophilic microorganisms whose biological and molecular specificities have so far been little studied and therefore unexploited.

After developing a platform dedicated to the identification of novel antibiotic structures produced by rare bacteria (AGIR Program), DEINOVE strengthens its expertise in genetic engineering with the integration of a cutting-edge tool, the CRISPR-cas9 technology, known as molecular scissors, which has revolutionized genetic engineering in recent years.

The objective for DEINOVE is to be able to directly manipulate the strains producing antimicrobial activities or to transfer these activities into phylogenetically close frames. This has been successfully achieved by the Company which has made the Streptomyces chassis an effective producer of a pharmaceutical intermediate initially produced by Microbacterium arobescens (proof of concept DNB101/102).

Genome editing occurs at two levels. First, highlights the cluster of genes at the origin of the antibiotic activity of interest. To optimize the spectrum of activity and eliminate any potential cytotoxicity, the structure of a natural molecule can then be modified by directly, finely and precisely editing the genes responsible for this activity.

This technology opens up many opportunities in the identification and optimized production of new antibiotic structures.

"Our expertise in the genetic engineering of a variety of microorganisms, unusual for some, is unique, and the integration of CRISPR-cas9 extends the possibilities of our platform," says Georges GAUDRIAULT, Scientific Director of DEINOVE. "We continue to structure the various technological bricks of the AGIR platform to be able to drastically accelerate the identification and optimization of new antibiotic structures. This technology is an additional asset in our race against the clock in the face of rising antimicrobial resistance."

ABOUT DEINOVE

DEINOVE is a French biotechnology company, a leader in disruptive innovation, which aims to help meet the challenges of antibiotic resistance and the transition to a sustainable production model for the cosmetics and nutrition industries.

DEINOVE has developed a unique and comprehensive expertise in the field of rare bacteria that it can decipher, culture, and optimize to disclose unsuspected possibilities and induce them to produce biobased molecules with activities of interest on an industrial scale. To do so, DEINOVE has been building and documenting since its creation an unparalleled biodiversity bank that it exploits thanks to a unique technological platform in Europe.

DEINOVE is organized around two areas of expertise:

Within the Euromedecine science park located in Montpellier, DEINOVE employs 60 employees, mainly researchers, engineers, and technicians, and has filed more than 350 patent applications internationally. The Company has been listed on EURONEXT GROWTH since April 2010.

Visit http://www.deinove.com

See original here:
DEINOVE: Integration of CRISPR-case9 Technology to Accelerate the Discovery of Innovative Antibiotics - Business Wire

A study has shown that CRISPR can be used as a regenerative technique to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which could be developed as a therapeutic option for humans.

Researchers have successfully demonstrated in a mouse model that CRISPR can regenerate muscle suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). They believe that with more study, their method may be used to treat children with the condition.

The study was led by the University of Missouri School of Medicine, US in collaboration with other researchers. Previous research has shown that children with DMD have a gene mutation that interrupts the production of a protein known as dystrophin.

If we can correct the mutation in muscle stem cells, then cells regenerated from edited stem cells will no longer carry the mutation. A one-time treatment of the muscle stem cells with CRISPR could result in continuous dystrophin expression in regenerated muscle cells, said Dr Dongsheng Duan, Margaret Proctor Mulligan Professor in Medical Research in the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the MU School of Medicine and the senior author of the study.

The researchers first delivered the gene editing tools to immune-deficient mouse muscle through a viral vector known as AAV9. They observed that the transplanted muscle died first, then regenerated from its stem cells, which carried the edited gene.

Previous research has shown that children with DMD have a gene mutation that interrupts the production of a protein known as dystrophin

Next, they tested their method in a mouse model of DMD. The stem cells in the diseased muscle were edited and produced dystrophin.

This finding suggests that CRISPR gene editing may provide a method for lifelong correction of the genetic mutation in DMD and potentially other muscle diseases, Duan said. Our research shows that CRISPR can be used to effectively edit the stem cells responsible for muscle regeneration. The ability to treat the stem cells that are responsible for maintaining muscle growth may pave the way for a one-time treatment that can provide a source of gene-edited cells throughout a patients life.

The results were published in Molecular Therapy.

See the original post here:
CRISPR used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy in mice - Drug Target Review

The hubris of some scientists knows no bounds. Less than a year after He Jiankui, a Chinese biophysicist, drew scorn and censure for creating gene-edited twins, Denis Rebrikov, a Russian molecular biologist, boldly announced his plan to follow in Hes genome editing footsteps. Rebrikovs initial stated goal for his proposed research was to prevent the transmission of HIV from infected women to their offspring, though he later suggested other targets, including dwarfism, deafness, and blindness.

In 1998, Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi suggested that resistance to HIV infection was a genetic enhancement that might appeal to potential parents. Twenty years later, in November 2018, He revealed his use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology to disable a gene called CCR5 in an attempt to create children with resistance to HIV.

Hes research activities were known to a number of senior American scientists, all of whom elected to remain silent about his work. It was only after the twins birth that the world learned of this secret science. Matthew Porteus, one of the scientists who was complicit in the silence, summarized his promise of confidentiality to He this way:

advertisement

Youre a scientist talking to a scientist. Our culture is that you respect confidentiality and that when people reveal things in confidence to you, you respect that confidence. And I said, well, Im not going to publicly discuss what you just told me because that is for you to publicly discuss.

A groundswell of condemnation followed Hes public announcement of the twins birth. There was pointed criticism from Feng Zhang, one of the co-discoverers of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, and from David Baltimore, who co-chaired international summits of human genome editing in 2015 and 2018. Quoting from the first International Summit Statement, Zhang and Baltimore independently affirmed that the experiment was irresponsible given the lack of data confirming the safety and effectiveness of using CRISPR in humans, as well as the absence of broad societal consensus.

Members of the organizing committee for the 2018 International Summit on Human Genome Editing where He first presented some of the details of his research described the experiment as irresponsible and said it failed to meet international norms. The committee did not, however, reaffirm the position outlined in the 2015 Summit Statement that [i]t would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until: (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on an appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application. Instead, the committee concluded that heritable genome editing could be acceptable in the future and suggested that it was time to define a rigorous responsible translational pathway toward such trials.

This shift in orientation is particularly noteworthy when considering the following. In 2015, a researcher performed genome editing on non-viable human embryos that did not involve the transfer of edited embryos to a woman for reproduction. The first summit organizing committee determined that heritable genome editing research was irresponsible unless and until In 2018, He performed genome editing on viable human embryos and transferred these edited embryos to a woman who gave birth to gene-edited children, yet the second summit organizing committee asserted the need for a responsible pathway forward.

Several authors of the 2015 Summit Statement, myself included, disagreed with the position taken by the authors of the 2018 Summit Statement. Along with others, including two of the three CRISPR pioneers Emmanuelle Charpentier and Feng Zhang we issued a call in March 2019 to adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Jennifer Doudna, the other CRISPR pioneer, expressly declined to participate in this initiative.

We reiterated the importance of dialogue within and across nations, and the need for broad societal consensus on the appropriateness of altering the human genome for a particular purpose before any such research could proceed. The purpose of the proposed global moratorium was to provide time for careful study of the relevant technical and ethical issues to determine whether to pursue heritable human genome editing and, if that question were answered in the affirmative, to then determine how to proceed with making modifications to the human genome.

The whether of heritable human genome editing has not been resolved, and yet some scientists continue to race ahead with the how of it, essentially ignoring the myriad calls for public consultation. To be sure, other scientists are willing to heed the call, but would prefer to limit public consultation to public education.

I dont agree with this position. As I write in a new book, Altered Inheritance, we need to move the dial from public education (which typically is limited to talking at the public), to public engagement (which necessarily involves listening to the public), and then on to public empowerment (which is about shared decision-making).

To this end, we need slow science. Science needs time to think and to digest. Time is also needed to promote ethics literacy and to facilitate broad societal consensus where the goal is unity, not unanimity. Decision-making by consensus is about engaged, respectful dialogue and deliberation, where all participants recognize at the outset that knowledge is value laden; that we can and should learn from each other; and that no one should impose his or her will on others.

Metaphorically speaking, the human genome belongs to all of us. So we should all have a say in whether to proceed with making heritable changes to our shared genome. Decision-making by consensus, which begins with outreach and openness, is a means to this end. The goal is to create an environment in which all positions (not all persons) can be heard and understood, and in which there are reasonable opportunities for integrity-preserving compromises in pursuit of the common good. The underlying values are inclusivity, responsibility, self-discipline, respect, co-operation, struggle, and benevolence.

Scientists can meaningfully contribute to consensus building around genome editing. As individuals and as committee members, for example, they can effectively serve the common good by helping policymakers, legislators, and members of the public better align scientific information and opportunities with discrete values and interests.

I wrote Altered Inheritance as a call to action. It is a call for scientists to slow down, to reflect deeply on their science and their priorities, and to find meaningful ways to contribute to science policy in pursuit of the common good. It is also a call for all of us to take collective responsibility for the biological and social future of humankind as we think carefully about what kind of world we want to live in, and how genome editing technology might help us build that world.

Franoise Baylis is University Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and author of Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing (Harvard University Press, September 2019).

Link:
Genome editing needs a dose of slow science - STAT

As a growing population and climate change threaten food security, researchers around the world are working to overcome the challenges that threaten the dietary needs of humans and livestock. A pair of scientists is now making the case that the knowledge and tools exist to facilitate the next agricultural revolution we so desperately need.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Professor Zach Lippman, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, recently teamed up with Yuval Eshed, an expert in plant development at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, to sum up the current and future states of plant science and agriculture.

Their review, published in Science, cities examples from the last 50 years of biological research and highlights the major genetic mutations and modifications that have fueled past agricultural revolutions. Those include tuning a plants flowering signals to adjust yield, creating plants that can tolerate more fertilizer or different climates, and introducing hybrid seeds to enhance growth and resist disease.

Beneficial changes like these were first discovered by chance, but modern genomics has revealed that most of them are rooted in two core hormonal systems: Florigen, which controls flowering; and Gibberrellin, which influences stem height.

Lippman and Eshed suggest that in an age of fast and accurate gene editing, the next revolutions do not need to wait for chance discoveries. Instead, by introducing a wide variety of crops to changes in these core systems, the stage can be set to overcome any number of modern-day challenges.

Dwarfing and flower power revolutions

To explain their point, the scientists reviewed research that focused on key moments in agricultural history, such as the Green Revolution.

Before the 1960s, fertilizing for a large wheat yield would result in the plants growing too tall. Weighed down with their grainy bounty, the wheat stems would fold and rot away, resulting in yield losses. It was only after Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug began working with mutations that affect the Gibberellin system that wheat became the shorter and reliable crop we know today. Borlaugs dwarfing was also applied to rice, helping many fields weather storms that would have been catastrophic only years before. This reapplication of the same technique to a different plant hinted that a core system was in play.

More recent examples Lippman and Eshed mention include the changes undergone by cotton crops in China. There, growers turned the normally sprawling, southern plantation plant into a more compact, faster flowering bush better suited for Chinas northern climate. To do so, they took advantage of a mutation that affects Florigen, which promotes flowering, and its opposite, Antiflorigen.

This kind of change is related to Lippmans works. He often works with tomatoes and explained that an Antiflorigen mutation in tomato was also the catalyst that transformed the Mediterranean vine crop into the stout bushes grown in large-scale agricultural systems throughout the world today. Whats striking, Lippman said, is that cotton is quite unlike any tomato.

Theyre evolutionary very different in terms of the phylogeny of plants. And despite that, what makes a plant go from making leaves to making flowers is the same, he said. That core program is deeply conserved.

Fine-tuning a revolution

As the review details, this has defined what makes an agricultural revolution. A core system either Gibberellin, Florigen, or both is affected by a mutation, resulting in some helpful trait. In a moment of pure serendipity, the plants boasting this trait are then discovered by the right person.

It then takes many more years of painstaking breeding to tweak the intensity of that mutation until it affects the system just right for sustainable agriculture. Its like tuning an instrument to produce the perfect sound.

Lippman and Eshed note that CRISPR gene editing is speeding up that tuning process. However, they show that the best application of gene editing may not be to just tune preexisting revolutionary mutations, but instead, to identify or introduce new ones.

If past tuning has been creating genetic variation around those two core systems, maybe we can make more variety within those systems, he said. It would certainly mitigate the amount of effort required for doing that tuning, and has the potential for some surprises that could further boost crop productivity, or adapt crops faster to new conditions.

A future in chickpeas?

More of that genetic variety could also set the stage for new agricultural revolutions. By introducing genetic variation to those two core systems that define most revolutions, farmers might get to skip the serendipitous waiting game. Chickpea is one example.

Theres a lot more room for us to be able to create more genetic diversity that might increase productivity and improve adaptation survival in marginal grounds, like in drought conditions, Lippman said.

Drought resistance is just one benefit of under-utilized crops. Past revolutions have allowed crops to be more fruitful or to grow in entirely new hemispheres. Having a means to continue these revolutions with more crops and at a greater frequency would be a boon in a crowded, hungry, and urbanizing world.

Given that rare mutations of Florigen/Antiflorigen and Gibberellin/DELLA mutations spawned multiple revolutions in the past, it is highly likely that creating novel diversity in these two hormone systems will further unleash agricultural benefits, the scientists wrote.

Original article: The next agricultural revolution is here

More:
CRISPR gene editing poised to streamline next 'agricultural revolution,' plant scientists say - Genetic Literacy Project

Organic grower groups on Sept. 17 wrote they are strongly opposed to opening a formal dialogue about allowing gene-editing in organic agriculture.

A letter from the Organic Farmers Association (OFA), was signed by 79 organic farm organizations and sent to Secretary Sonny Perdue and other top officials and lawmakers.

Introducing any dialogue about any form of genetic engineering into organics would be a major distraction for the USDA NOP and the National Organic Standards Board, Kate Mendenhall, director of OFA, said in a press release. We have crucial issues in organic agriculture that need the Departments full attention, such as stopping organic import fraud, closing certification loopholes, enforcing our current organic standards equitably and uniformly, and updating obsolete database technology.

Gene editing and all other forms of genetic engineering are currently prohibited under the guidelines of organic certification. The letter came in response to an earlier statement by Department Undersecretary Greg Ibach concerning opening a dialogue about gene-editing in organic agriculture.

Read full, original article: Organic growers: Gene-editing dialogue a bad idea

The rest is here:
Organic Farmers Association rejects USDA offer to discuss benefits of CRISPR gene editing - Genetic Literacy Project

Geneticengineering. I realize that this topic has been beaten to death in popularculture, but I dont think the focus has been on the actual technologyreallyonly the flashy outcomes for lay people. I can understand the need to simplifyand sensationalize for entertainment, but decoupling the effects from the causeis, at best, ignorant and, at worst, misleading.

The reason that genetic engineering is populartoday is largely because of the discovery of CRISPR. But its important to notethat the field itself is not new; nearly all commercial forms of insulin arefrom genetically engineered bacteria.

Prior to Clustered Regularly InterspacedShort Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), technologies like Zinc Finger Nucleases(ZFNs) were somewhat random. While it was likely that the gene you wanted tomanipulate would be inserted into a specific location, it was unclear where inthe hosts DNA it would end up. Far more often than not, the gene would end upeither in the middle of another host gene (likely lethal) or end up in thejunkyard of the host genome, which is effectively useless. Both problemseffectively made genetic engineering on humans far too risky.

The introduction of CRISPR, however, hascompletely changed the field.

CRISPR works similarly to ZFNs, exceptthat it has a very specific targeting domain so that the genes almost alwaysend up in the location that you want them to. While there are still minor kinksto correct, the technique will likely be perfected within this decade. Whilethis technique is no doubt one of the finest inventions in the field ofbiology, even the person that discovered it, Dr. Jennifer Doudna, is callingfor the halting of research in the field until bioethics has a chance to catchup.

The terms designer babies and genedrive are very common buzzwords; however, they genuinely do present ethicalchallenges for us a species. For example, most people wouldnt have a problemusing CRISPR to eradicate debilitating genetic conditions or destroying theability of insect-carried diseases to infect people.

The problem arises when we begin toconsider what counts as pathology, there is an argument that variation fromsocietal, social or biological normality makes people unique. Surely somethinglike schizophrenia or leukemia is morally permissible to eradicate, but whatabout autism, homosexuality or intersexuality?Its a relatively short slippery slope before you end up at eugenics.

Another cause for concern is theecological impact of transgenics. Using the CRISPR based Gene Drive construct,you can force all offspring of a transgenic organism to carry your gene andtheir offspring, and then their offspring. This is ideal in a lab; however, ifa single individual is accidentally released into the environment, it could easilydamage genetic diversity, and permanently disturb the careful equilibrium of anecosystem.

There are instances in which not usingcheap, readily available technology like CRISPR to cure or prevent diseases maybe unethical. For example, the technology to destroy the means by which malariaspreads already exists. Is it really ethical to allow a disease that affectsover 200 million people a year (90% of whom are children) to exist? Are therelimits that we shouldnt cross? Until we have those discussions and draw thelines, research in genetic engineering is effectively playing with fire,analogous to research in nuclear fission during the Cold War.

Like a thermonuclear bomb, releasingCRISPR technology into the world, whether using it for humans or other animals,is not an action that we can reverse, and its results could be equallycatastrophic to life on earth.

These discussions arent entirelyhypothetical by the way; the first genetically modified human babies were bornin China last year.

To clarify, I am not against progress inCRISPR research. I am a huge fan of the technology and I believe it can be aninvaluable resource to improve the world. However, as a student in this field,I am concerned with the ramifications of this techology, enough that it givesme pause. The public discussion surrounding genetic engineering and legislationdesperately needs to catch up to the science.

See the rest here:
Genetic engineering and the end of the world - The Medium

The latest research study from MRInsights.biz with the title Global Gene Editing Tools Market 2019 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2024 defines describes and forecasts the Gene Editing Tools market on the basis of application area, types, manufacturers, and region. The report has included an evaluation of the effect of government guidelines and approaches available tasks in order to present the all-encompassing outline of the market future. The investigation of ongoing improvements in innovation, profiles of top industry players, and special model examination are incorporated in this report. Moderate and large scale factors along with explicit esteem chain investigation are further featured for the present market players and new participants.

With this report, you will be able to settle knowledgeable business choices by having full knowledge of the market and by investigating inside and out examination of geographical regions. Further, the report serves particular illustrations and SWOT examination of important market fragments. The market report provides an absolute view of product specification, innovation, product type, and production analysis, CAGR (%)considering major factors, such as revenue, cost, gross and gross margin.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.mrinsights.biz/report-detail/181562/request-sample

Global Gene Editing Tools Market: Segmentation (By Application, Type and Regions):

Furthermore, the research report features the market-segmentation in terms of application/end users with consumption (sales), products type with production, CAGR (%), and historical and projected market share. The market is divided into various important geographies such as North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia), South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia), Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

Companies which are transforming market are: Thermofisher Scientific, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, NHGRI, Intellia Therapeutics, Merck KGaA, Horizon,

Product segment analysis of the market covers: Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), Transcription Activator-Like Effector-based Nucleases (TALENs), CRISPR-Cas system

Applications of the market are: Sickle Cell Disease, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimers Disease, Obesity, Others

The Study Report Will Enhance Your Decision-Making Skills By Helping You To:

ACCESS FULL REPORT: https://www.mrinsights.biz/report/global-gene-editing-tools-market-2019-by-company-181562.html

In the next part of the global Gene Editing Tools market report, analytical analysis of the subject matter and adequate survey data makes the reports explicitly beneficial. Analysis of upstream raw materials, downstream demand and current market dynamics is also carried out. The conclusion part of this report offers the new project, key development areas, business overview, product/services specification, SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, return analysis, and development trends.In addition, supply, and consumption are studied along with the gap between them. Import and export statistics are also given in this part and finally trade and distribution analysis has been provided.

Customization of the Report:This report can be customized to meet the clients requirements. Please connect with our sales team ([emailprotected]), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs.

More here:
Global Gene Editing Tools Market 2019 Growth Analysis Thermofisher Scientific, CRISPR Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, NHGRI, Intellia Therapeutics -...

AMR has a newly done and published professional market study and research titled CRISPR Cas9 Market 2019-2025 with focusing industry Top key manufactures and Regions to help and make wise decisions to the client on their business strategies with it can be most useful to consultants, researchers, investors, business executive along with students, people.

With 152 number of study pages included in this market report, it provides or gives proper information which is written and composed to understand market terminologies.

It has multiple versions of licenses to purchase for Global and Regional.

In this report, we analyze the CRISPR/Cas9 industry from two aspects. One part is about its production and the other part is about its consumption. In terms of its production, we analyze the production, revenue, gross margin of its main manufacturers and the unit price that they offer in different regions from 2014 to 2019. In terms of its consumption, we analyze the consumption volume, consumption value, sale price, import and export in different regions from 2014 to 2019. We also make a prediction of its production and consumption in coming 2019-2024.

At the same time, we classify different CRISPR/Cas9 based on their definitions. Upstream raw materials, equipment and downstream consumers analysis is also carried out. What is more, the CRISPR/Cas9 industry development trends and marketing channels are analyzed.

Get to know more about The CRISPR Cas9 market at https://www.amplemarketreports.com/report/global-crispr-cas9-industry-874374.html

The research methodology used for CRISPR Cas9 market as n number of face-to-face or telephone interviews with the representative companies and leading players with small companies. The upstream operators, suppliers, distributors, importers, installers, wholesalers and consumers are all included in the interviews.

For the Quality of market research study, there are a number of Data validation done that provides Quantitative data such as market estimates, production and capacity of manufacturer, market forecasts and investment feasibility.

CRISPR Cas9 market report offers definite information about the principal business-giants challenging with several other in the global CRISPR Cas9 in terms of trade, demand, sales, revenue production, authentic products development, providing most excellent services, and also post-sale methods at the global level.

Key business-giants focused and analysis done in this report:

Caribou Biosciences, Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), CRISPR Therapeutics, Merck, Mirus Bio, Editas Medicine, Takara Bio, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Horizon Discovery Group, Intellia Therapeutics, Agilent Technologies, Cellecta, GenScript, GeneCopoeia, Synthego

Without delay get the Sample report pages for The CRISPR Cas9 market in your email : https://www.amplemarketreports.com/sample-request/global-crispr-cas9-industry-874374.html

Key Regions focused and analysis done in this report:

This market study provides in-depth extensive analysis for regional segments that focuses on Global Outlook, Manufacturing processes, Classifications, Market definitions, Cost structures, Development policies, and plans. The data and facts being well manifested in this report utilizing number of charts, graphs, diagrams, and more by Current Trends, Dynamics, and Business Statistics with Extent Scope.

North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa, Latin America

Market size by Product

Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Academic Institutes, Research and Development Institutes

Market size by End User

Genome Editing, Genetic engineering, gRNA Database/Gene Librar, CRISPR Plasmid, Human Stem Cells, Genetically Modified Organisms/Crops, Cell Line Engineering

Key Questions and Answers for CRISPR Cas9 market

AMR can provide all-round market research services for clients according to their requirements including Industry Research, Product market research, competitor research, channel research, and consumer research, etc. With evidence-based research methods, professional design, solid implementation, and professional research reports.

Check out discount on CRISPR Cas9 market report at: https://www.amplemarketreports.com/enquiry-before-buy/global-crispr-cas9-industry-874374.html

With the given market data, AMR offers customizations according to specific needs on Local, Regional and Global Markets.

Write to us at [emailprotected], or connect with us via +1-530-868-6979.

About Us

Ample Market Research provides comprehensive market research services and solutions across various industry verticals and helps businesses perform exceptionally well. Our end goal is to provide quality market research and consulting services to customers and add maximum value to businesses worldwide. We desire to delivery reports that have the perfect concoction of useful data. Our mission is to capture every aspect of the market and offer businesses a document that makes solid grounds for crucial decision making.

Contact Address:

William James

Media & Marketing Manager

Call: +1 (530) 868 6979

Email: [emailprotected]

https://www.amplemarketreports.com

Post Views: 116

Read more:
CRISPR Cas9 Market Outlook -Industry Growth Factors, Market Revenue and More - Stock Market Pioneer

The hubris of some scientists knows no bounds. Less than a year after He Jiankui, a Chinese biophysicist, drew scorn and censure for creating gene-edited twins, Denis Rebrikov, a Russian molecular biologist, boldly announced his plan to follow in Hes genome editing footsteps. Rebrikovs initial stated goal for his proposed research was to prevent the transmission of HIV from infected women to their offspring, though he later suggested other targets, including dwarfism, deafness, and blindness.

In 1998, Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi suggested that resistance to HIV infection was a genetic enhancement that might appeal to potential parents. Twenty years later, in November 2018, He revealed his use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology to disable a gene called CCR5 in an attempt to create children with resistance to HIV.

Hes research activities were known to a number of senior American scientists, all of whom elected to remain silent about his work. It was only after the twins birth that the world learned of this secret science. Matthew Porteus, one of the scientists who was complicit in the silence, summarized his promise of confidentiality to He this way:

Youre a scientist talking to a scientist. Our culture is that you respect confidentiality and that when people reveal things in confidence to you, you respect that confidence. And I said, well, Im not going to publicly discuss what you just told me because that is for you to publicly discuss.

Read more: He Jiankui tried to protect CRISPR babies against HIV. But his attempted fix shortens lives, study shows

A groundswell of condemnation followed Hes public announcement of the twins birth. There was pointed criticism from Feng Zhang, one of the co-discoverers of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, and from David Baltimore, who co-chaired international summits of human genome editing in 2015 and 2018. Quoting from the first International Summit Statement, Zhang and Baltimore independently affirmed that the experiment was irresponsible given the lack of data confirming the safety and effectiveness of using CRISPR in humans, as well as the absence of broad societal consensus.

Members of the organizing committee for the 2018 International Summit on Human Genome Editing where He first presented some of the details of his research described the experiment as irresponsible and said it failed to meet international norms. The committee did not, however, reaffirm the position outlined in the 2015 Summit Statement that [i]t would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until: (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on an appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application. Instead, the committee concluded that heritable genome editing could be acceptable in the future and suggested that it was time to define a rigorous responsible translational pathway toward such trials.

Story continues

This shift in orientation is particularly noteworthy when considering the following. In 2015, a researcher performed genome editing on non-viable human embryos that did not involve the transfer of edited embryos to a woman for reproduction. The first summit organizing committee determined that heritable genome editing research was irresponsible unless and until In 2018, He performed genome editing on viable human embryos and transferred these edited embryos to a woman who gave birth to gene-edited children, yet the second summit organizing committee asserted the need for a responsible pathway forward.

Several authors of the 2015 Summit Statement, myself included, disagreed with the position taken by the authors of the 2018 Summit Statement. Along with others, including two of the three CRISPR pioneers Emmanuelle Charpentier and Feng Zhang we issued a call in March 2019 to adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Jennifer Doudna, the other CRISPR pioneer, expressly declined to participate in this initiative.

Read more: The CRISPR shocker: How genome-editing scientist He Jiankui rose from obscurity to stun the world

We reiterated the importance of dialogue within and across nations, and the need for broad societal consensus on the appropriateness of altering the human genome for a particular purpose before any such research could proceed. The purpose of the proposed global moratorium was to provide time for careful study of the relevant technical and ethical issues to determine whether to pursue heritable human genome editing and, if that question were answered in the affirmative, to then determine how to proceed with making modifications to the human genome.

The whether of heritable human genome editing has not been resolved, and yet some scientists continue to race ahead with the how of it, essentially ignoring the myriad calls for public consultation. To be sure, other scientists are willing to heed the call, but would prefer to limit public consultation to public education.

I dont agree with this position. As I write in a new book, Altered Inheritance, we need to move the dial from public education (which typically is limited to talking at the public), to public engagement (which necessarily involves listening to the public), and then on to public empowerment (which is about shared decision-making).

To this end, we need slow science. Science needs time to think and to digest. Time is also needed to promote ethics literacy and to facilitate broad societal consensus where the goal is unity, not unanimity. Decision-making by consensus is about engaged, respectful dialogue and deliberation, where all participants recognize at the outset that knowledge is value laden; that we can and should learn from each other; and that no one should impose his or her will on others.

Read more: Could editing the DNA of embryos with CRISPR help save people who are already alive?

Metaphorically speaking, the human genome belongs to all of us. So we should all have a say in whether to proceed with making heritable changes to our shared genome. Decision-making by consensus, which begins with outreach and openness, is a means to this end. The goal is to create an environment in which all positions (not all persons) can be heard and understood, and in which there are reasonable opportunities for integrity-preserving compromises in pursuit of the common good. The underlying values are inclusivity, responsibility, self-discipline, respect, co-operation, struggle, and benevolence.

Scientists can meaningfully contribute to consensus building around genome editing. As individuals and as committee members, for example, they can effectively serve the common good by helping policymakers, legislators, and members of the public better align scientific information and opportunities with discrete values and interests.

I wrote Altered Inheritance as a call to action. It is a call for scientists to slow down, to reflect deeply on their science and their priorities, and to find meaningful ways to contribute to science policy in pursuit of the common good. It is also a call for all of us to take collective responsibility for the biological and social future of humankind as we think carefully about what kind of world we want to live in, and how genome editing technology might help us build that world.

Franoise Baylis is University Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and author of Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing (Harvard University Press, September 2019).

Read more:
Opinion: Before heritable genome editing, we need slow science and dialogue within and across nations - Yahoo News

The Global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market Research Report Forecast 2019-2028: The research study has been prepared with the use of in-depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market. The report offers a complete and intelligent analysis of the competition, segmentation, dynamics, and geographical advancement of the Global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market. It takes into account the CAGR, value, volume, revenue, production, consumption, sales, Manufacturing cost, prices, and other key factors related to the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market.

The report helps the companies to better understand the CRISPR and Cas Genesmarket trends and to grasp opportunities and articulate critical business strategies. Also includes company profiles of market top companies like (contact information, product details, gross capacity, price, cost and more) are covered. this study of top companies in the market have been identified through secondary research, and their shares have been determined through primary and secondary research. and All percentage shares split, and breakdowns have been determined using secondary sources and verified primary sources.

For Better Understanding Go With this Free Sample ReportEnabled with Respective Tables and Figureshttps://marketresearch.biz/report/crispr-and-cas-genes-market/request-sample

Key Players of the Global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market:

Addgene Inc, AstraZeneca Plc., Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc, Caribou Biosciences Inc, Cellectis S.A., Cibus Global Ltd, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine Inc, eGenesis Bio, GE Healthcare, GenScript Corporation

Market Segmentation:

Segmentation on the basis of product:

Vector-based CasDNA-free CasSegmentation on the basis of application:

Genome EngineeringDisease ModelsFunctional GenomicsKnockdown/ActivationSegmentation on the basis of end user:

Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic & Government Research InstitutesContract Research Organizations

Market Segment by Regions, regional analysis covers 2019-2028:

United States, Canada, and Mexico: North America

Germany, France, UK, Russia, and Italy: Europe

China, Japan, Korea, India, and Southeast Asia: Asia-Pacific

Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, etc.: South America

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa: Middle East and Africa

Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask Our Industry Expertshttps://marketresearch.biz/report/crispr-and-cas-genes-market/#inquiry

Table of Content:

Market Overview: The report begins with this section where product overview and highlights of product and application segments of the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market are provided. Highlights of the segmentation study include price, revenue, sales, sales growth rate, and market share by product.

Competition by Company: Here, the competition in the Worldwide CRISPR and Cas Genes Market is analyzed, By price, revenue, sales, and market share by company, market rate, competitive situations Landscape, and latest trends, merger, expansion, acquisition, and market shares of top companies.

Company Profiles and Sales Data: As the name suggests, this section gives the sales data of key players of the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market as well as some useful information on their business. It talks about the gross margin, price, revenue, products, and their specifications, type, applications, competitors, manufacturing base, and the main business of key players operating in the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market.

Market Status and Outlook by Region: In this section, the report discusses about gross margin, sales, revenue, production, market share, CAGR, and market size by region. Here, the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market is deeply analyzed on the basis of regions and countries such as North America, Europe, China, India, Japan, and the MEA.

Application or End User: This section of the research study shows how different end-user/application segments contribute to the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market.

Market Forecast: Here, the report offers a complete forecast of the global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market by product, application, and region. It also offers global sales and revenue forecast for all years of the forecast period.

Research Findings and Conclusion: This is one of the last sections of the report where the findings of the analysts and the conclusion of the research study are provided.

Appendix: Here, we have provided a disclaimer, our data sources, data triangulation, research programs, market breakdown and design, and our research approach.

Inquire Here For More Details On this Report or Customizations As Per Your Needhttps://marketresearch.biz/report/crispr-and-cas-genes-market/#request-for-customization

Get in touch with Us:

Mr. Benni Johnson (inquiry@marketresearch.biz)

MarketResearch.Biz (Powered By Prudour Pvt. Ltd.)

420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 300

New York City, NY 10170,

United States

Website:https://marketresearch.biz

More:
Global CRISPR and Cas Genes Market 2019 | Detailed Overview of the Market with Current and Future Industry Challenges and Opportunities - Stock Market...

DARPA Safe Genes concept

WASHINGTON: If you talk with senior defense officials there is one threat they will acknowledge is at the top of their list but they rarely discuss in public biological weapons. NowDARPA wants to develop defenses against biologically engineered threats before they are ever unleashed, the agencys director made clear this morning. That includes proactively editing troops DNA to produce a wide array of antibodies and biochemically blocking hostile attempts to edit DNA.

Our focus is about the protection aspect and the restoration, versus enhancement, Steven Walker said when I asked him about human augmentation during a CSIS conference. All these technologies, theyre dual use. You can use them for good; you can use them for evil and DARPA is about using them for good, to protect our warfighters.

Steven Walker

Super Immunity

That doesnt mean the US military has forsworn the genetic editing of human beings. To the contrary, Walker is very interested in ways to enhance the immune system, effectively turning the body into its own pharmaceutical factory.

Can you actually protect a soldier on the battlefield from chemical weapons and biological weapons by controlling their genome, [by] having the genome produce proteins that would protect the soldier from the inside out? he asked.

Well, why not just brew the necessary vaccines, anti-viral treatments, and anti-toxins in a normal factory and issue them as needed to the troops? Thats how weve dealt with naturally occurring diseases. And DARPA is working on that too, Walker said, with a program to build a vaccine in 60 days or less for 20,000 people for a virus youve never seen before.

The problem is that developing, producing, stockpiling, and dispensing one treatment at a time even in just 60 days may not work fast enough against future bioweapons. As soon as you develop a defense against one form of artificial plague, the enemy can use gene-editing tools to create a different version, one whose biochemical structure is just different enough that the old antibodies dont recognize it anymore.

Many diseases naturally mutate this way all the time. Thats why you can get a series of shots in childhood that protect you against measles or chicken pox for the rest of your life, but you need a new flu shot every year to stop the latest strain and no ones figured out how to stop the common cold. The so-called Spanish Flu of 1918-19 killed more people than World War I; imagine that as a weapon.

To have a shot available for every case that might be out there is becoming more and more intractable, because [of] synthetic biology and the ability of folks anywhere in the world to make something thats slightly different, Walker said. You cant stockpile enough of the vaccine or the antivirus capability to protect the population against that in the future.

Schematic of how CASPR Cas9 gene editing works

Undoing the Edit

DARPA is also looking at neutralizing or even reversing the effects of CRISPR Cas9 itself, the enzyme that made todays breakthroughs in gene-editing possible in the first place. (Its worth noting that China is now a leading country in gene editing science and its technology.)

How do we reverse it [genetic editing] if it gets out into the wild and gets out of control? Thats what the Safe Genes program is all about, Walker said. Weve actually made a lot of progress there in being able to control gene edits.

Walker didnt go into specifics, but theres plenty of non-military work in this area as well. Its even led by some of the pioneers of gene editing themselves, who understandably would like a way to undo the effects if one of their experiments goes wrong.

The irony of gene editing is that the crucial tool wasnt invented from scratch in the lab: It was found in nature. Many bacteria use CRISPR a whole complex of DNA sequences as a natural defense against invading viruses, allowing them to recognize the viral DNA as a foreign body and then use the Cas9 protein to cut it apart, killing the virus. (Though technically viruses arent living things in the first place). Scientists repurposed CRISPR Cas9 to snip apart and reorganize genes.

It turns out that, over millions of years of evolution, some viruses have developed an immunity to CRISP Cas9. They use so-called Anti-CRSPR proteins that shut down the enzyme so it cant start slicing DNA which would stop gene editing dead.

Lisa Porter

Benign Biotech

There are many more benign applications for biotechnology, said Walkers boss, Lisa Porter, the deputy under secretary of defense for research & engineering.

When we think biotech in DoD, we think chem/bio defense, and thats an element of the problem but theres also a lot of opportunity space that people dont necessarily realize unless they talk to the biologists, Porter told the CSIS conference. [So] we will be focusing, not just on the traditional tenets of biotech that we always do, but well be expanding into, what are the opportunities for new materials, new applications?

One biotech project she offered as an example is developing new materials to rapidly lay down new runways. Thats a matter of intense interest to the Air Force, which is increasingly worried its big central bases are easy targets for long-range missiles and wants new ways to either repair them or create alternative sites in a hurry.

What about human augmentation (boosted humans)? That gets a lot of concern and media attention, Porter said and quite rightly: You read about what China is doing and we should be concerned, because they dont have the same set of moral and ethical norms that we have in our country. (DARPA is careful to note in many of the web pages outlining genetic and related work that they work closely with recognized ethicists to ensure they are not crossing lines that should not be crossed.)

Porter, like Walker, did not mention any American plans to biologically enhance our own troops. But there are DARPA efforts that could, in the fast-changing world of biotech, lead to smarter, faster healing and stronger humans. Or try to stop what other countries have done to their troops.

Originally posted here:
DoD On Biotech: Build Sound Defenses First Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary - Breaking Defense

Tracking nucleic acids in living cells

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a powerful molecular technique for detecting nucleic acids in cells. However, it requires cell fixation and denaturation. Wang et al. found that CRISPR-Cas9 protects guide RNAs from degradation in cells only when bound to target DNA. Taking advantage of this target-dependent stability switch, they developed a labeling technique, named CRISPR LiveFISH, to detect DNA and RNA using fluorophore-conjugated guide RNAs with Cas9 and Cas13, respectively. CRISPR LiveFISH improves the signal-to-noise ratio, is compatible with living cells, and allows tracking real-time dynamics of genome editing, chromosome translocation, and transcription.

Science, this issue p. 1301

We report a robust, versatile approach called CRISPR live-cell fluorescent in situ hybridization (LiveFISH) using fluorescent oligonucleotides for genome tracking in a broad range of cell types, including primary cells. An intrinsic stability switch of CRISPR guide RNAs enables LiveFISH to accurately detect chromosomal disorders such as Patau syndrome in prenatal amniotic fluid cells and track multiple loci in human T lymphocytes. In addition, LiveFISH tracks the real-time movement of DNA double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9mediated editing and consequent chromosome translocations. Finally, by combining Cas9 and Cas13 systems, LiveFISH allows for simultaneous visualization of genomic DNA and RNA transcripts in living cells. The LiveFISH approach enables real-time live imaging of DNA and RNA during genome editing, transcription, and rearrangements in single cells.

Read the original:
CRISPR-mediated live imaging of genome editing and transcription - Science Magazine

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today awarded the University of California (UC), University of Vienna and Emmanuelle Charpentier a patent for CRISPR-Cas9 that, along with two others awarded this month, brings the teams comprehensive portfolio of gene-editing patents to 14.

Schematic representation of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The Cas9 enzyme (orange) cuts the DNA (blue) in the location selected by the RNA (red). Image courtesy of Carlos Clarivan/Science Photo Library/NTB Scanpix

The newest patent, U.S. 10,415,061, covers compositions comprising single-molecule DNA-targeting RNAs or nucleic acids encoding single-molecule DNA-targeting RNAs, as well as methods of targeting and binding a target DNA, modifying a target DNA or modulating transcription from a target DNA with a complex that comprises a Cas9 protein and single-molecule DNA-targeting RNA.

On Sept. 10, the USPTO issued to the UC team U.S. patent 10,407,697 covering single-molecule guide RNAs or nucleic acid molecules encoding the guide RNAs. And on Sept. 3, the patent office issued U.S. patent 10,400,253, which covers compositions of single-molecule, DNA-targeting RNA (single-guide RNA, or sgRNA) and a Cas9 protein or nucleic acid encoding the Cas9 protein.

Another patent is set to issue next Tuesday, Sept. 24, bringing the total U.S. patent portfolio to 15. Three other patent applications have been allowed by the USPTO and are set to issue as patents in the coming months, which will raise the total to 18. These patents and applications span various compositions and methods for the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, including targeting and editing genes and modulating transcription, and covering the technology in any setting, such as within plant, animal and human cells. The methods and compositions covered in UCs CRISPR-Cas9 portfolio come together to comprise the widest-ranging patent portfolio for the gene-editing technology.

This month, we have seen exponential growth of UCs U.S. CRISPR-Cas9 portfolio, said Eldora Ellison, Ph.D., lead patent strategist on CRISPR-Cas9 matters for UC and a director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. We remain committed to expanding our robust portfolio to include additional methods and compositions for CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing so that the range of applications can be fully utilized for the benefit of humanity.

The team that invented the CRISPR-Cas9 DNA-targeting technology included Doudna and Martin Jinek at UC Berkeley; Charpentier, then at Umea University in Sweden and now director of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Germany; and Krzysztof Chylinski of the University of Vienna. The methods covered by todays patent, as well as the other methods claimed in UCs previously issued patents and those set to issue, were included among the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology work disclosed first by the Doudna-Charpentier team in its May 25, 2012, priority patent application.

The 14 CRISPR-Cas9 patents in this teams portfolio are 10,000,772; 10,113,167; 10,227,611; 10,266,850; 10,301,651; 10,308,961; 10,337,029; 10,351,878; 10,358,658; 10,358,659; 10,385,360; 10,400,253; 10,407,697; and 10,415,061. These patents are not a part of the PTABs recently declared interference between 14 UC patent applications and multiple previously issued Broad Institute patents and one application, which jeopardizes essentially all of the Broads CRISPR patents involving eukaryotic cells.

International patent offices have also recognized the pioneering innovations of the Doudna-Charpentier team, in addition to the 14 patents granted in the U.S. so far. The European Patent Office (representing more than 30 countries), as well as patent offices in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and other countries, have issued patents for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in all types of cells.

University of California has a long-standing commitment to develop and apply its patented technologies, including CRISPR-Cas9, for the betterment of humankind. Consistent with its open-licensing policies, UC allows nonprofit institutions, including academic institutions, to use the technology for non-commercial educational and research purposes.

In the case of CRISPR-Cas9, UC has also encouraged widespread commercialization of the technology through its exclusive license with Caribou Biosciences, Inc. of Berkeley, California. Caribou has sublicensed this patent family to numerous companies worldwide, including Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. for certain human therapeutic applications. Additionally, Dr. Charpentier has licensed the technology to CRISPR Therapeutics AG and ERS Genomics Limited.

Go here to read the rest:
CRISPR portfolio now at 14 and counting - UC Berkeley

Its been an alarming year for the worlds outlook on biodiversity. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) put the world on notice that around 1 million species are facing extinction (PDF). A study published in August concluded that it would take New Zealand 50 million years to recover the diversity of bird species it has lost since human colonization. And, while headlines about an insect apocalypse may have been hyperbolic, insect biodiversity is decreasing, and its a problem.

As evidenced in the IPBES report, current conservation efforts have not been sufficient to stem biodiversity loss, so innovative solutions might be necessary to support the web of life that supports human existence. In 2012, scientists first described the gene editing capabilities of CRISPR, a molecular tool that can be used to make targeted, precise changes to the DNA of plants, animals and microbes.

Since then, scientists have proposed myriad ways to use the technology. But could it be a boon to biodiversity? Can it help researchers understand and preserve corals and their ecosystems? What about applications to diversify agriculture to shore up food security? Or to combat invasive species plaguing ecosystems around the world?

While many scientists are eager to discuss the possibilities of using CRISPR to preserve biodiversity, they are also cautious. The effects of human interventions are not always predictable, and once a gene-edited species is released into the wild, controlling any negative effects will be difficult. Toni Piaggio, a research scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Wildlife Research Center, says researchers should "never entirely sip the Kool-Aid" when it comes to CRISPR. Instead, she says, they should "spend a lot of research time and intellectual energy" questioning themselves and their work.

While many scientists are eager to discuss the possibilities of using CRISPR to preserve biodiversity, they are also cautious.

Diversity for food security

But as millennia passed, domestication also decreased the genetic diversity within the plants we grow and eat. To understand why, imagine an ancient human 10,000 years ago, tired of smashing teosinte with rocks to get a few measly kernels out of their hard casings. If that person saw a plant with naked kernels exposed and available to eat without rock smashing they might select seeds from that plant to grow the next year. That works out great for the person, but the genetic diversity in the rest of the field is lost to future generations.

The same forces are at play today. When each tomato plant, for example, looks the same, grows at the same rate and produces pounds upon pounds of tomatoes, farming is easier and the food supply is more predictable if everything goes as usual.

Problem is, farming doesnt always follow usual, expected patterns. And climate change is increasing variability and unpredictability in agriculture. Many crops, as a result of their low genetic diversity, are not particularly well suited to cope with emerging climate patterns, leaving them susceptible to challenges such as drought, flooding or salty soils. So, says Lzaro Peres, a professor of plant physiology at the University of So Paulo, relying on a limited number of crop species to produce the worlds food is risky.

Peres and other researchers are trying to infuse agriculture with the genetic diversity of wild species. His research team started with a wild tomato and used CRISPR to edit a handful of key genes. Its goal was to make the versions of the genes in wild tomato look like the versions of the genes in domesticated tomato. In doing so, the wild tomato species gained some beneficial characteristics common to domesticated species. Through this process, de novo domestication, Peres and colleagues produced a tomato with more fruit, bigger fruit and more lycopene than wild tomatoes and that are genetically diverse from conventional domesticated tomatoes.

Does a change in plant size or color affect which insects are attracted to it? How does that affect the predators of those insects?

But, looking beyond a single crop into the ecosystem within which it exists is important, says Yolanda Chen, an associate professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Vermont. Chen studies the impact plant domestication can have on insect populations. She says that researchers need to consider how genes "operate within a broader community context" and not just in a single plant. Does a change in plant size or color affect which insects are attracted to it? How does that affect the predators of those insects?

Peres is mindful of the potential effects on agricultural ecosystems. Domesticating a wild tomato and growing it at scale could impact nuanced ecological relationships. Still, he says, he "sees mainly positive things" about the potential impacts of his work. "And one of the things is food security, because it is quite dangerous to depend on very few species for our food, feed and fiber."

Chen says that she thinks gene editing for de novo domestication is "less risky" than other genetic approaches, such as those that introduce entire new genes into a plant species. In de novo domestication, the edited versions of genes already exist in related domesticated tomato plants.

It likely will be a while before a new species of tomato developed to increase the genetic diversity of our food is available at the local grocery store. Peres says the work he and his group have published so far was a proof of concept; in other words, they showed that de novo domestication is feasible, but have no plan to commercialize that tomato. Theyve since turned their attention to a species of wild tomato from the Galpagos Islands that grows especially well in salty soils and is resistant to a white fly that can cause severe crop damage. If they are able to de novo domesticate this tomato, it could be used as an important crop for farmers dealing with salty, coastal soils.

In the end, Chen and Peres are both concerned about climate change, agriculture and biodiversity. They approach solutions to these concerns from different research perspectives, but both see diversity on the genetic and species levels in agricultural ecosystems as an important aspect of a food system that can withstand the challenges of climate change. In the future, domesticating new plant species potentially with gene editing might give farmers more options for growing diverse crops well-suited to specific climates.

Coral conservation

In 1770, British explorer Captain James Cook ran his ship, Endeavor, aground on the "insane labyrinth" that would become known as the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Queensland, Australia. While Cook was credited with "discovering" the reef, coral reefs had been important to indigenous people for centuries before.

A few hundred years later, pollution and warming water have resulted in huge coral bleaching events around the world. While corals can survive bleaching, the stress does lead to increased mortality. Thats bad news for the marine species that inhabit corals. When corals are lost, reef ecosystems suffer, throwing the relationships between the thousands of species including fish, invertebrates, plants and turtles that live there out of balance.

Current conservation efforts for the worlds corals have been insufficient to curb bleaching events and sustain the valuable ecosystems corals support, according to the IPBES report. So there is a certain urgency to finding new approaches to conservation. A 2019 report by biologists laid out different conservation approaches and evaluated their potential risks and benefits. And with the 2018 announcement that scientists have used CRISPR to edit genes in coral, gene editing is seen as a potential strategy. Maybe.

Current conservation efforts for the worlds corals have been insufficient to curb bleaching events and sustain the valuable ecosystems corals support.

Marie Strader, now an assistant research professor at Auburn University, was a lead researcher as a graduate student on the international team of scientists that produced the work. The scientists edited three types of genes in a vibrantly colored coral called Acropora millepora. The goal of the editing was to "break" or mutate the genes, and in some larvae, it did.

As this proof-of-concept study was successful meaning they were able to edit the coral genes they targeted at least some of the time other researchers can use their methods as a blueprint for editing other genes in Acropora millepora and editing other coral species. For starters, Strader says, theyll likely look at genes involved in the coral life cycle and temperature sensitivity. Understanding those processes, Strader says, can "translate into conservation efforts down the line."

For example, researchers can use CRISPR in the lab to help them understand which genes are important for tolerance to warm waters. If they edit a gene in the lab and the resulting coral can better tolerate warm waters, according to Strader, the scientists could look at natural coral populations for those that naturally have that genetic mutation. Armed with that understanding, researchers might be more successful at conservation efforts such as breeding corals to help them keep their cool as the heat turns up.

If they edit a gene and the resulting coral can better tolerate warm waters, the scientists could look at natural coral populations for those that naturally have that genetic mutation.

For one thing, there are still plenty of technical obstacles. In Straders work, individual edited corals ended up with a mix of edited and unedited copies of the genes. To realize the full effect of a gene edit and to pass it down to future generations, each cell of the coral ideally should have the same edit. And other details, such as making sure CRISPR edits only the targeted gene or genes, "need to be worked out before it would be a viable option for conservation purposes," Strader says.

Furthermore, says John Bruno, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, conservation efforts need to protect not just corals but also the thousands of other species that rely on them. According to Bruno, gene editing 10 or 20 species of corals to tolerate warm water just isnt enough. As "nobodys going to CRISPR all billion species that are in the ocean," he says, conservation needs to focus on the whole ecosystem and not just a few species. "The solution is rather obvious, just radically mitigate greenhouse gas emissions," he says acknowledging thats no easy feat.

Running interference

The situation with corals is "dire," according to Bruno. But even in coral species that have seen precipitous declines, often still many potentially on the order of millions of individuals are left, he says.

Back on shore, some animal populations are much smaller and easily could slip out of existence under the thumb of invasive species. In New Zealand, native birds evolved without mammalian predators. Many are large and flightless, so when mammals such as rats, possums and stoats arrived with humans, the birds were easy targets. According to one study, these invasive animals are responsible for the loss of an estimated 26.6 million chicks and eggs of native bird species each year.

Gene drives, which have become more plausible with the advent of gene editing, could offer a more humane way of managing invasive populations and protecting the species they endanger.

Gene drives, which have become more plausible with the advent of gene editing, could offer a more humane way of managing invasive populations and protecting the species they endanger.

"So many things have been done with the best possible intention, and we find that theres just been unforeseen consequences," says Helen Taylor, a conservation geneticist and honorary research fellow at the University of Otago. She points out that while possums are pests in New Zealand, they are an important species in Australia. If a possum with the New Zealand gene drive somehow were released in Australia, the effects could be devastating.

Maud Quinzin, a conservation geneticist and senior postdoctoral associate, recently began working in MITs Sculpting Evolution Lab with Kevin Esvelt, the scientist who first proposed CRISPR as a tool to create gene drives. Quinzin is using her understanding of ecosystem dynamics to help the Sculpting Evolution Lab think about the complex rippling effects of human interference in ecosystems.

Its important to look at the science from all angles, she says. "Developing gene-editing tools requires scientists with very different expertise sharing ideas and progress from early on in the process." For example, if an invasive rat species is eradicated from an island, will other species even other invasive species become more populous? "You have to think about the dynamic in that ecosystem," she says. Since suggesting that CRISPR could be used for gene drives, Esvelt himself has been vocal about his concerns.

Still, Quinzin has been on the front lines of conservation biology, watching populations of valued species go extinct, and shewants communities to be presented with all options for conservation. For scientists to present those options, though, they really need to understand the places where they might work, Quinzin says. That understanding comes not just from researchers, but also from the people who live in those places. "It is really important that you respect the values and the knowledge in a place," Quinzin says, including "not only the scientific information but also the indigenous or local knowledge." By engaging with local communities as technology develops, Quinzin says, researchers can focus on developing technology in ways that align with a communitys cultural, social, political and environmental values.

Moving forward

In the short term, agriculture might be the most likely use of CRISPR to protect biodiversity. In fact, the first gene-edited crop hit the market in the United States in early 2019. Individual countries are still figuring out how to regulate edited plants, with a big distinction being made between plants that could have emerged through natural mutations and plants containing larger edits, such as those containing new DNA.

At the very least, the work of scientists such as Peres could expand the genetic diversity of our crop plants, adding more options to the table as farmers, scientists and other stakeholders work toward a food-secure world. And having options is important. No single solution can save biodiversity everywhere. And carelessly applied solutions can cause more problems.

Scientists do seem to be proceeding with caution. At least some coral researchers decline to consider using CRISPR in the wild. Scientists studying gene drives are vocally pointing out the limitations of the technology and extolling the role nonscientists must play in the decisions to use or not use CRISPR for conservation purposes.

"I think we have a really big not just opportunity, but an obligation to get it out there in the public eye as much as possible," Piaggio says. And if scientists dont get public buy-in, they shouldnt use the technology, she says. "I think we have to be OK with that."

Quinzin says that she and other scientists in her group want guidance from the public. At the same time, she notes that CRISPR "could be such an amazing tool if we are respectful [and] responsible and use it properly."

There are no perfect or universal solutions to the biodiversity crisis the world is facing. And the causes cannot be forgotten in pursuit of an antidote. Thats why it will take scientists and conservationists with diverse approaches working in different areas to make a difference.

This article was originally published on Ensia.

Continue reading here:
Can the gene editing technology CRISPR help reduce biodiversity loss worldwide? - GreenBiz

A gene-editing technique that has shown promise as a potential cure for sickle-cell disease is now being tested in humans. But if it works, will the people who need it even be able to get it? Now that a cure may be in sight, this is an urgent question, says Vence Bonham, a senior advisor to the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Sickle-cell disease (SCD) is a genetic blood disorder that affects millions of people in the world. It causes the production of abnormal red blood cells and can lead to intense pain, strokes, and organ and tissue damage.

From a scientific perspective, its an exciting time for people who suffer from the disease, Bonham said today at MIT Technology Reviews EmTech conference. Researchers are testing a technique that uses the precise gene-editing tool CRISPR to modify a single gene associated with the disease.

Justin Saglio

But from a sociological standpoint, argued Bonham, the work is just beginning. SCD is more common in certain ethnic groups, particularly people of African descent. And while there are around 100,000 people with the disease in the US, the vast majority live in sub-Saharan Africa and India, Bonham said.

He and colleagues recently conducted a study intended to explore the attitudes and beliefs toward the promising technique held among people with SCD, their family members, and their physicians. Many of the people Bonham and his colleagues spoke with expressed skepticism that a potential CRISPR-based cure would be affordable and accessible to those who need it. Although they did find renewed hope, they also observed cautionary, apprehensive undertones to this hope, which they concluded stem in part from decades of medical disenfranchisement of the SCD community.

Sign up for The Download your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

According to one physician interviewed for the study, there is a danger that other rare diseases that tend to affect people with more resources might get more attention and, potentially, funding. As a result, there is a concern that the SCD population could get left in the dust. This population is already skeptical, since they have been left in the dust with so many other things, the physician added.

Besides a cure itself, we also need better and cheaper ways to expand the benefits of this new technology, Bonham said. The potential is great, but we must ask the question: Who will benefit?

Continue reading here:
CRISPR could help us cure sickle-cell disease. But patients are wary. - MIT Technology Review