The first baby bison of the season was born on April 28. Photo: Michael Pfaff, Fermilab

On April 28, baby bison season officially began. The first calf of the year was born in the late morning, and mother and baby are doing well.

Fermilab is expecting between 12 and 14 new calves this spring.

Fermilabs first director, Robert Wilson, established the bison herd in 1969 as a symbol of the history of the Midwestern prairie and the laboratorys pioneering research at the frontiers of particle physics.

And thanks to the science of genetic testing, Fermilab has confirmed that the laboratorys herd shows no evidence of cattle gene mixing. Farmers during the early settlement era would breed bison with cattle in an attempt to create more tame bison or more hardy cattle.

A herd of bison is a natural fit for a laboratory surrounded by nature. Fermilab hosts nearly 1,000 acres of reconstructed tallgrass prairie, as well as remnant oak savannas, marshes and forests.

To learn more about Fermilabs bison herd, please visit the section onwildlife at Fermilab on our website.

The entire Fermilab site in Batavia is closed to the general public at this time, so visits to view the bison are not currently possible. Updates will be posted on the Visit Fermilab webpage. Learn more about Fermilabs science and people by following Fermilabs social media pages @Fermilab.

The Fermilab site has been designated a National Environmental Research Park by the U.S. Department of Energy. The labs environmental stewardship efforts are supported by the Department of Energy Office of Science as well as Fermilab Natural Areas.

Fermilab is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit science.energy.gov.

Go here to see the original:
First baby bison of the year born at Fermilab - Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Representational Image

Sunshine and summer may ebb the spread of the coronavirus, and BCG vaccine (already given to all Indians) also may offer partial immunity, says Ravi Godse, Director of Discharge Planning, UPMC Shadyside Pennsylvania, the US. Godse recommended the use of plasma therapy for serious patients in an email interview with IANS.

Here are the excerpts fro the interview:

Recently, the White House said the spread of coronavirus may ebb during summer months. May and June will have peak summers in most parts of the country, do you think high temperatures will help in containing the outbreak?

Viral illnesses tend to go away in the summer months. This trend is more distinct in countries like America where there are distinct weather patterns with brutally cold winters (in most states) and warm summers. While social activity in the summer often involves outdoor spaces, winter activities tend to be more congested and indoors.

In the summer, the humidity can go up as well, meaning more water drops in the air. If the air is saturated with water and somebody sneezes virus droplets into such air, it is likely that the droplets will fall to the ground quicker, making them less infectious. So the short answer is yes, summer/sunshine could be better. We know what we know, but we don't know what we don't know.

Recently, the health minister said the efforts to contain the outbreak, has saved India from going into Stage 3 or community transmission stage, and many senior officials said the COVID-19 disease is under control. With 20,177, active cases in the country, do you think things are under control?

India is a big and populous country and will likely behave similar to America (though India has fewer foreign travelers). In America, San Francisco is very different from Indianapolis; New York is different from Las Vegas. Similarly, Agartala is different from Mumbai and Chennai is different from Shimla. So India will behave as if individual states are different nations.

Some people think that India is 4 weeks behind America in the peak. But India's lockdown (March 24) started eight days after that of America (March 16), so India might have had a 3-week head-start on social distancing, and that will help.

It is possible that the BCG vaccine (already given to all Indians) may offer partial immunity. Weather might help. Many people think that the sturdy genes of our population, hardened through experience with infectious illnesses, may afford a more robust cross immunity. This might be more wishful thinking, however, it does seem like India will avert the disastrous peak that other countries experienced. If the cases pick up, then the rest of the world (especially America, which would be far beyond its own peak) would rush to India's help. I don't think that the people of America will soon forget India's selfless and helpful actions regarding hydroxychloroquine.

What is your reaction on plasma therapy?

Use plasma for serious patients. Start collecting the plasma today, if we need it in 3 weeks. Rather than troubling the recovered patients for the plasma, we can try and see if the antibody titer of the healthy asymptotic patients is better (They did better than the patients who ended up in the hospital).

If no relapses occur and there is no drastic increase in the number of cases in July, would it be good enough to declare a major success against COVID-19?

Relapse can be talked in the context of happening in a recovered patient or in the community.

When a patient gets infected, he or she first develops IgM, then IgG antibodies. In some viral illnesses (say chicken pox) the protection could be lifelong. We don't know how long the IgG protection for COVID-19 will last in recovered patients. If it is durable, then relapses should not occur. Even if there is an overall increase in the number of cases of really sick people, the increase would happen gradually over a longer duration, ensuring that the health systems are not overwhelmed and the demand for heath care is spread out. If that happens, we can declare a major success.

We have limited experience on this viral infection. Under these circumstances, can we say people will develop lasting antibodies to protect them from this infection?

We will only know by testing. The antibody testing will be a tool, and it needs to be employed regardless of the cost. If people who have IgG against the virus are shown to be immune from future/recurrent disease, then those people can be used to open the nation and restart the economy. Remember, the vaccine is also coming, which will try and artificially induce lasting antibodies. The challenge could be the fact that novel coronavirus is an RNA virus and can mutate, but remember, not all change is bad: it could become milder or less infectious.

There are many uncertainties with COVID-19one big uncertainty is whether people can be reinfected with the virus. Anecdotal evidence appears to suggest they can. What is the time period within which we could get a vaccine? And after this vaccine, can we say, war has been won against coronavirus?

For us to know that people are getting re-infected, we need to reliably know that they were infected in the first place. What if the first test the person took was a false positive? There is enough scope for confusion. If a person tests positive for a genetic test, then tests negative, and then tests positive again, and you include the possibility of error in any of the 3 tests that the person took, you really won't know. And we are talking only about molecular/genetic tests (that directly measure the virus) so far. What happens to error when we introduce the antibody test (that measures the body's response to a virus)?

My thinking is simple, if a patient is mildly symptomatic, he/she does not need the test. Assume the disease is there and behave accordingly. A good 90 per cent of people diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely be okay, 5 per cent will be very sick and get better, and 5 per cent may die. But remember, if for every diagnosed patient, there are 1000 asymptomatic patients walking about, then the case rate is high, but the mortality rate should also be divided by 1000 and would be 0.005 per cent.

A vaccine will likely come and sooner than we think. There are multiple drugs that are being tried to cut the severity of the illness.

In the US, pediatricians say 80 per cent of the kids are likely to have coronavirus, but they are so asymptomatic one would not come to know. What is your view in the Indian context, are children vulnerable here too?

Yes. However, we should note that the US is not genetically homogenous. It is not a race, per say. It is a teeming nation of nations, packed with people from various gene pools, like Walt Whitman said. India is more homogenous. But my belief is that Indian kids will behave more like American kids.

Also, I saw reports that suggest 80 percent people in Mumbai might be asymptomatic. Then, kids will be behaving like adults in more ways than one!

What are your suggestions on tackling COVID-19?

Isolate and quarantine mildly symptomatic patients. Try and use experimental drugs to keep moderately symptomatic patients from getting serious. Keep waiting for the vaccine, hoping for it is early and effective, and preparing for it being neither. Find the most accurate antibody test and use it by the thousands. Confirm by genetic testing on random samples to see if these people are getting reinfected. If they are not, release these antibody positive patients into the work force and open the economy and life itself. Finally, the discussion regarding opening up needs to start now. It needs to effectively communicate the goals, how they will be achieved, with firm dates, with the capacity to adjust without panicking, if the cases pick up after the lockdown is lifted.

See the rest here:
Indians May Be Partially Immune to COVID-19 Due to BCG Vaccine, Says US-Based Expert - The Weather Channel

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Ah, spring! The dogwoods are in bloom. What a glorious time it is to be in Virginia.

Except for one thing.

The powers that be have decided to upend everything we once held dear deciding they can just change even the most basic facts willy-nilly simply to satisfy their own agendas. The General Assembly? Oh, heavens no. Were not talking about that. Were talking Congress. Not that Congress, though. This one: The International Botanical Congress.

See you didnt even know there was such a thing, did you? And yet this obscure body of unelected elitists has decided to reach out from its ivory tower and undermine the very foundations of Virginia law. OK, these are scientists botanists, to be precise so what some call elitism others might call merit and expertise. You could have been a scientist, too, if you hadnt sloughed off their science fair project back in seventh grade. And by ivory tower we really mean laboratories and the great outdoors. Anyway, never mind about all that. The point here is that International Botanical Congress has decided to reclassify a whole lot of plants and change their scientific names including, yes, our beloved state tree and state flower, the dogwood.

By state law, its the Cornus florida. But the International Botanical Congress without a single public opinion poll, without a single town hall meeting on CNN, without even so much as an appearance on Fox and Friends has unilaterally renamed it Benthamidia florida.

Does this mean we even have an official state tree and state flower anymore? Is this a loophole that some slick-talking lawyer backed by some well-heeled special interest group can use to make the case that we are now treeless and flowerless and we should elevate some other flora instead? Cry havoc and let slip the dog(wood)s of war!

Umm, no. So much for our alarmist warnings. Maybe we should save those for that other Congress in Washington. The International Botanical Congress actually made this change nine years ago at its 2011 meeting in Melbourne, Australia. Yes, were a little late in bringing you this breaking news. If you wanted on-the-spot coverage, please tell our corporate masters they should have approved our travel request. Your subscription price pays for reporters to watchdog city councils and school boards and the state Legislature but apparently doesnt cover junkets to Down Under for editorial writers who have a bur under their cushy, ergonomically appropriate chair. Yes, were outraged, too. Oh, that bur in question would be an Arctium minus.

But back to our main point: Why did the International Botanical Congress make what the National Center for Biotechnology Information calls sweeping changes to the way scientists name new plants, algae, and fungi? The short answer this will suffice for a family newspaper but not a term paper is that genetic testing has shown that some plants arent related to others the way we once thought they were. Remember when your cousin gave everyone in the family those 23andMe genetic tests for Christmas, and it turns out there were some family secrets that would have been better kept secret? Yeah, sort of like that, only with plants. Hey, we dont judge. But, by golly, the botanists sure do. At the 2011 convention in Melbourne, they reclassified a bunch of plants. This was not without controversy. The debate over the genus Acacia became known as the wattle wars a sometimes acrimonious dispute between American, African and Australian scientists over which continents species would still be considered Acacia when the genus was subdivided into five different ones. The Australians won. The website Scientific Gems tells us that Wikipedia ran a campaign against the official decision for several years yet another reason why you shouldnt be quoting Wikipedia in your homework.

Jordan Metzgar, curator of the Massey Herbarium at Virginia Tech, was at the Melbourne conference to present his research on boreal ferns. As for our beloved dogwood, he tells us what we want to hear: I believe Cornus florida is still appropriate to use.

How can that be? Heres how: Unlike the Congress in Washington, the International Botanical Congress doesnt pass actual laws. Instead it makes suggestions. Its all kind of decentralized, Metzgar says. Connecticut College published an official revision of which names it would use, adopting the new ones. However, many scientists still use the Cornus florida name when referring to dogwoods including the website Flora of Virginia and the Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora. If Connecticut wants to call the dogwood Benthamidia florida, well, just think of it the way the North and South called the same Civil War battle by different names. What was the Battle of Bull Run in the northern press was the Battle of Manassas in the South. Maybe someday the consensus will shift and well start using Benthamidia as the genus name for our flowering dogwood, but that day hasnt come yet, Metzgar says. To paraphrase other disputes, that will happen when you pry the dogwood out of our cold, dead fingers.

We Virginians love our dogwood, whatever the botanists call it in Latin. We have the Charlottesville Dogwood Festival and the Vinton Dogwood Festival (or at least did, just not this year). Richmond has an outdoor amphitheater called Dogwood Dell. One of our official state songs (yes, we now have more than one) name-checks dogwoods. Sweet Virginia Breeze by Steve Bassett and Robbin Thompson credits the Almighty Himself: Because he must have been thinking about me / when He planted that very first dogwood tree. We love dogwoods so much we make it do double duty as both our state flower and our state tree. The only other state to do this is Mississippi with the magnolia.

To be sure, others love the dogwood, too. Its also the state tree in Missouri, although we made it ours first, and Missouri doesnt love the dogwood enough to make it the state flower, as well. The hawthorn lobby is apparently strong there. Curiously, the dogwood is the state flower in North Carolina, but the pine is the state tree. See? We love you more.

Theres history behind the dogwood, too. The famous cherry trees that Japan gave the U.S. in 1912 that now bloom so brightly in Washington? The U.S. gave Japan 40 dogwoods in return. Alas, all but one died. Perhaps they were simply homesick. Thats what we think anyway. Thats our story, and were sticking to it. In Cornus florida we trust.

Read the rest here:
Their View: Cry havoc and let slip the dog(wood)s of war - Bristol Herald Courier

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Food Pathogen Detection Technology Markets, 2020-2030: COVID-19 Impact and Recovery" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global food pathogen detection technology market is expected to decline from $10.9 billion in 2019 to $10.3 billion in 2020 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of -5%. The decline is mainly due to the focus on COVID-19 outbreak and its treatment across the globe, while government imposes restrictions on other sectors to operate their processes in full capacity.

The market growth is expected to increase post COVID-19 due to an increased focus on hygiene and good manufacturing practices and manufacturers complying with food safety norms. The market is expected to recover and reach $13.1 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 4.8%.

Increase in the outbreak of foodborne illness across the world contributed to the growth of the food pathogen detection technology market. According to a report published by WHO in 2018, almost every tenth person falls ill due to pathogens every year and 33 million of healthy life are lost due to foodborne diseases. Diarrhoea is the most common disease caused by contaminated food and almost 550 million people (including 220 million children under 5 years of age) are affected by diarrhoeal diseases. The upsurge in the occurrence of foodborne diseases among the global population increased the demand for food pathogen detection technology driving the market's growth.

Lack of food control infrastructure in developing countries is a major restraint on the food pathogen detection technology market. Food control infrastructure in many developing countries is generally inadequate due to limited resources and poor management. Food control laboratories are often not well equipped and do not have trained staff. Food control systems also face poorly developed compliance guidelines in many developing countries.

Genetic testing technology is being increasingly used for the rapid, sensitive, reliable detection of pathogens on the food. Genetic testing techniques identify the problem even when the pathogens are just formed or are in tiny concentration. For instance, in 2018, LexaGene Holdings Inc., a US-based research and biotechnology company, launched the LX6 analyzer. The LX6 is an automated pathogen detection platform based on genetic testing technology that is used to detect pathogens in food and water in less time and low cost. LX6 has the capability to check for 22 different contaminants in water and food including 2 species of vibrio, 3 species of salmonella, 4 species of shigella, and 2 species of e. coli. The companies in the food pathogen detection technology are investing in the development of new technologies such as genetic technology to enable fast and efficient detection of pathogens.

In February 2019, bioMerieux acquired Invisible Sentinel, a US-based food testing firm for a deal amount of $75 million. The deal is expected to bring innovative solutions to ensure food and beverage quality and to strengthen bioMerieux's position in food pathogen testing and spoilage organism detection. Invisible Sentinel is a US-based firm involved in providing DNA contamination tools for the food, beer, and wine industries.

The food pathogen detection technology market has been geographically segmented into North America, Western Europe, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, South America and Middle East & Africa. Asia-Pacific is expected to grow fastest in the forecast period.

Major players in the food pathogen detection technology market are SGS, Bureau Veritas, Intertek Group, Eurofins Scientific, Silliker, IFP Institut Fr Produktqualitt GmbH, ALS Limited, Asurequality, Microbac Laboratories, and Genetic ID NA.

Key Topics Covered

1. Executive Summary

2. Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market Characteristics

3. Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market Size And Growth

3.1. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Historic Market, 2015-2019, $ Billion

3.1.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.1.2. Restraints On The Market

3.2. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Forecast Market, 2019-2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

3.2.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.2.2. Restraints On the Market

4. Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market Segmentation

4.1. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market, Segmentation By Technology, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.2. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market, Segmentation By Food Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.3. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market, Segmentation By Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5. Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market Regional And Country Analysis

5.1. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market, Split By Region, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5.2. Global Food Pathogen Detection Technology Market, Split By Country, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/kbpc1w

Visit link:
Food Pathogen Detection Technology Markets, 2020-2030: COVID-19 Impact and Recovery - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Business Wire

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

WATERTOWN, Mass., April 28, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Selecta Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SELB), a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on unlocking the full potential of biologic therapies based on its immune tolerance platform, ImmTOR, today announced the appointment of Dr. Goran Ando to its Board of Directors, replacing Amir Nashat, effective April 24, 2020. Amir will continue to serve in an advisory capacity to Selecta.

The addition of Dr. Ando to our Board means that Selecta now has another proven leader with a successful track record in product development and commercialization, said Carrie S. Cox, Chairman of the Board, Selecta Biosciences. This addition to our team puts us in a position of strength for the next evolution of ImmTOR initiating the Phase 3 clinical trial of SEL-212, bringing our gene therapy program into the clinic, and applying the platform in other areas of significant unmet need. I would also like to recognize Amir Nashat for his long-term commitment to our organization and the important role he played in advancing Selectas scientific platform. From an early stage, Amir recognized the potential of ImmTOR for patients with serious diseases, and I want to thank him for helping put Selecta in the position it is in today.

The opportunity to work alongside the Selecta team to advance the ImmTOR platform is of undeniable interest to me, said Dr. Ando. The ability to re-dose patients with AAV gene therapy may be pivotal in improving outcomes, while Selectas late-stage asset in chronic refractory gout could provide patients with this debilitating disease a much-needed alternative. I look forward to being part of the effort to increase the applicability of the ImmTOR platform for the benefit of patients.

Dr. Ando brings more than 37 years of experience as a respected global pharmaceutical leader. He currently serves as the Chairman of the Board for Eyepoint Pharma, and holds seats on the Boards of Parexel, Tessa Therapeutics, and EUSA Pharma. He is also the retired Chairman of the Board of Novo Nordisk A/S. Dr. Ando began his pharmaceutical industry career as Medical Director of Pfizer AB, progressing to Director, Clinical Research with Pfizer International in the U.S. He went on to hold various senior positions at leading global healthcare and pharmaceutical businesses, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline. He was the VP, Medical and Scientific Affairs at Bristol-Myers Squibb before taking the role of President of the Astra Research Centre in Sweden. In 1989, Dr. Ando joined GlaxoSmithKline, where he held various senior appointments, including Research & Development Director for Glaxo Group Research. He later joined Pharmacia AB as Executive Vice President, and ascended to Deputy CEO in 1995, moving to the U.S. in 1997 to lead R&D with additional responsibilities for manufacturing, information technology, business development and M&A. During his eight-year tenure as Head of R&D at Pharmacia/Pharmacia & Upjohn, 17 new drugs were approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration prior to Pharmacias acquisition by Pfizer for $60 billion. He then served as the Chief Executive Officer of Cell Tech Group PLC, one of the most successful European biotech companies, until it was acquired by UCB Pharma for $3 billion in 2005. He has been a Senior Adviser to leading specialist healthcare investment group Essex Woodlands since 2007. Dr. Ando received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Uppsala University in Sweden and Doctor of Medicine degree from Linkping University in Sweden.

About Selecta Biosciences, Inc.Selecta Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on unlocking the full potential of biologic therapies based on its immune tolerance (ImmTOR) platform. Selecta plans to combine ImmTOR with a range of biologic therapies for rare and serious diseases that require new treatment options due to high immunogenicity. The companys current proprietary pipeline includes ImmTOR-powered therapeutic enzyme and gene therapy product candidates. SEL-212, the companys lead product candidate, is being developed to treat chronic refractory gout patients and resolve their debilitating symptoms, including flares and gouty arthritis. Selectas proprietary gene therapy product candidates are in preclinical development for certain rare inborn errors of metabolism and incorporate ImmTOR with the goal of addressing barriers to repeat administration. Selecta is based in Watertown, Massachusetts. For more information, please visit http://selectabio.com.

Forward-Looking StatementsAny statements in this press release about the future expectations, plans and prospects of Selecta Biosciences, Inc. (the company), including without limitation, statements regarding the progress of the clinical development of SEL-212, expectations surrounding the enrollment and design of the Phase 2 head-to-head (COMPARE) clinical trial comparing SEL-212 and Krystexxa, timing of related data readouts and the ability of the COMPARE results to inform the planned Phase 3 clinical trial of SEL-212, the anticipated timing of the planned Phase 3 clinical trial, whether the head-to-head trial with Krystexxa will demonstrate superiority, the unique proprietary technology platform of the company and the unique proprietary platform of its partners, the potential of ImmTOR to enable re-dosing of AAV gene therapy, the potential of SEL-212 to fulfill unmet needs in chronic refractory gout patients including sustained SUA reduction, reduced flares, and once monthly dosing, the companys commercial plans, the ability of the companys ImmTOR platform, including SEL-212, to unlock the full potential of biologic therapies, the potential of SEL-212 to treat chronic refractory gout patients and resolve their debilitating symptoms, the potential treatment applications for product candidates utilizing the ImmTOR platform in areas such as enzyme therapy and gene therapy, the ability of the ImmTOR platform to enhance transgene expression, the ability of the Company and AskBio to develop gene therapy products using ImmTOR and AskBios core technology, the novelty of treatment paradigms that the Company and AskBio are able to develop, the potential of any therapies developed by the Company and AskBio to fulfill unmet medical needs, AskBios ability to make milestone payments, AskBios ability to develop and commercialize a drug product containing ImmTOR for the treatment of Pompe disease, the companys plan to apply its ImmTOR technology platform to a range of biologics for rare and serious diseases, the potential of the companys two gene therapy product candidates to enable repeat administration, the Companys ability to re-dose patients and the potential of ImmTOR to allow for re-dosing, the potential of the ImmTOR technology platform generally and the companys ability to grow its strategic partnerships, the Companys plans to present at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting, the sufficiency of the companys cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, and other statements containing the words anticipate, believe, continue, could, estimate, expect, hypothesize, intend, may, plan, potential, predict, project, should, target, would, and similar expressions, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including, but not limited to, the following: the uncertainties inherent in the initiation, completion and cost of clinical trials including their uncertain outcomes, whether or not the COVID-19 outbreak will impact the companys ability to initiate a Phase 3 clinical trial for SEL-212 or to initiate a clinical trial in any of its gene therapy programs, the availability and timing of data from ongoing and future clinical trials and the results of such trials, whether preliminary results from a particular clinical trial will be predictive of the final results of that trial or whether results of early clinical trials will be indicative of the results of later clinical trials, the unproven approach of the companys ImmTOR technology, potential delays in enrollment of patients, whether due to the COVID-19 outbreak or for other reasons, other issues surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak which may cause the company to discontinue or pause its ongoing or planned clinical trials, undesirable side effects of the companys product candidates, its reliance on third parties to manufacture its product candidates and to conduct its clinical trials who could be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak or could otherwise materially fail to perform, the companys inability to maintain its existing or future collaborations, licenses or contractual relationships, its inability to protect its proprietary technology and intellectual property, managements ability to perform as expected, potential delays in regulatory approvals, the availability of funding sufficient for its foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements, the companys recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt regarding its ability to continue as a going concern, substantial fluctuation in the price of its common stock, the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the companys operations, including its supply chain, clinical and financial operations, and other important factors discussed in the Risk Factors section of the companys most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in other filings that the company makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, any forward-looking statements included in this press release represent the companys views only as of the date of its publication and should not be relied upon as representing its views as of any subsequent date. The company specifically disclaims any intention to update any forward-looking statements included in this press release.

For Media:Joshua R. MansbachSolebury Trout+1-646-378-2964jmansbach@soleburytrout.com

For Investors:Lee M. SternSolebury Trout+1-646-378-2922lstern@soleburytrout.com

See original here:
Selecta Biosciences Appoints Dr. Goran Ando to its Board of DirectorsGlobal pharmaceutical and biotech industry veteran brings significant clinical...

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Wall Street expects a year-over-year decline in earnings on higher revenues when CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) reports results for the quarter ended March 2020. While this widely-known consensus outlook is important in gauging the company's earnings picture, a powerful factor that could impact its near-term stock price is how the actual results compare to these estimates.

The earnings report might help the stock move higher if these key numbers are better than expectations. On the other hand, if they miss, the stock may move lower.

While the sustainability of the immediate price change and future earnings expectations will mostly depend on management's discussion of business conditions on the earnings call, it's worth handicapping the probability of a positive EPS surprise.

Zacks Consensus Estimate

This company is expected to post quarterly loss of $1.09 per share in its upcoming report, which represents a year-over-year change of -17.2%.

Revenues are expected to be $6.35 million, up 1824.2% from the year-ago quarter.

Estimate Revisions Trend

The consensus EPS estimate for the quarter has remained unchanged over the last 30 days. This is essentially a reflection of how the covering analysts have collectively reassessed their initial estimates over this period.

Investors should keep in mind that the direction of estimate revisions by each of the covering analysts may not always get reflected in the aggregate change.

Price, Consensus and EPS Surprise

Earnings Whisper

Estimate revisions ahead of a company's earnings release offer clues to the business conditions for the period whose results are coming out. This insight is at the core of our proprietary surprise prediction model -- the Zacks Earnings ESP (Expected Surprise Prediction).

The Zacks Earnings ESP compares the Most Accurate Estimate to the Zacks Consensus Estimate for the quarter; the Most Accurate Estimate is a more recent version of the Zacks Consensus EPS estimate. The idea here is that analysts revising their estimates right before an earnings release have the latest information, which could potentially be more accurate than what they and others contributing to the consensus had predicted earlier.

Thus, a positive or negative Earnings ESP reading theoretically indicates the likely deviation of the actual earnings from the consensus estimate. However, the model's predictive power is significant for positive ESP readings only.

A positive Earnings ESP is a strong predictor of an earnings beat, particularly when combined with a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold). Our research shows that stocks with this combination produce a positive surprise nearly 70% of the time, and a solid Zacks Rank actually increases the predictive power of Earnings ESP.

Please note that a negative Earnings ESP reading is not indicative of an earnings miss. Our research shows that it is difficult to predict an earnings beat with any degree of confidence for stocks with negative Earnings ESP readings and/or Zacks Rank of 4 (Sell) or 5 (Strong Sell).

How Have the Numbers Shaped Up for CRISPR Therapeutics AG?

For CRISPR Therapeutics AG, the Most Accurate Estimate is the same as the Zacks Consensus Estimate, suggesting that there are no recent analyst views which differ from what have been considered to derive the consensus estimate. This has resulted in an Earnings ESP of 0%.

Story continues

On the other hand, the stock currently carries a Zacks Rank of #2.

So, this combination makes it difficult to conclusively predict that CRISPR Therapeutics AG will beat the consensus EPS estimate.

Does Earnings Surprise History Hold Any Clue?

Analysts often consider to what extent a company has been able to match consensus estimates in the past while calculating their estimates for its future earnings. So, it's worth taking a look at the surprise history for gauging its influence on the upcoming number.

For the last reported quarter, it was expected that CRISPR Therapeutics AG would post earnings of $0.04 per share when it actually produced earnings of $0.51, delivering a surprise of +1,175%.

Over the last four quarters, the company has beaten consensus EPS estimates two times.

Bottom Line

An earnings beat or miss may not be the sole basis for a stock moving higher or lower. Many stocks end up losing ground despite an earnings beat due to other factors that disappoint investors. Similarly, unforeseen catalysts help a number of stocks gain despite an earnings miss.

That said, betting on stocks that are expected to beat earnings expectations does increase the odds of success. This is why it's worth checking a company's Earnings ESP and Zacks Rank ahead of its quarterly release. Make sure to utilize our Earnings ESP Filter to uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they've reported.

CRISPR Therapeutics AG doesn't appear a compelling earnings-beat candidate. However, investors should pay attention to other factors too for betting on this stock or staying away from it ahead of its earnings release.

Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free reportCRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) : Free Stock Analysis ReportTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.

More here:
Analysts Estimate CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) to Report a Decline in Earnings: What to Look Out for - Yahoo Finance

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

If we take the advice of health experts, we wont be attempting a return to normal life in the US until we get better at identifying people infected with the novel coronavirus. That need is driving researchers across the nation to look for ways to expand our toolbox of testing options. And now a new test, developed using CRISPR gene editing technology, has been added to the mix.

About 5.4 million tests have been done in the US, according to the COVID Tracking Project, in a population of 328.2 million. That might sound like enough to keep ahead of an infectious disease that has only killed in five figures, but such an assumption grossly oversimplifies the situation.

Controlling the pandemic in the US is going to require a daunting number of diagnostic tests not just for the sick, but to verify when theyre better (two tests 24 hours apart for hospital discharge), in contact tracing to limit spread, and in the many individuals whove been infected but have few or no symptoms.

In a few countries, the use of diagnostic testing on a massive scale has been a cornerstone of successful containment strategies, write Matthew P. Cheng, MDCM. McGill University Health Centre and colleagues in a recent article in Annals of Internal Medicine. The US isnt on that list and has been struggling to catch up.

Simply put, we need faster, cheaper and more accurate tests than what we currently have. If they can be administered at home or in informal settings, all the better. Among the potential solutions for this challenge are efforts to turn everyones favorite gene editing tool, CRISPR, against the coronavirus. If successful, we could see a shift in access to tests. Imagine being able to use a nasal swab that delivers a yes or no verdict on coronavirus infection in under 40 minutes essentially like a home pregnancy test.

A CRISPR-based diagnostic is in the sights of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco Medical School and Mammoth Biosciences, which recently revealed plans for an inexpensive, compact test.

I can run it now myself at home, said Dr. Charles Chiu, professor of laboratory medicine at UCSF and co-lead developer of the new test, in an interview with NPR. Still, he acknowledged the test, which is being submitted for FDA approval, isnt yet simple enough for the average person to operate. He expressed confidence that a home-based test for nonexperts is within reach.

What we really want to develop is something like a handheld, pocket-sized device using disposable cartridges, he told NPR.

So, where would such CRISPR-based tests fit within the universe of coronavirus diagnostics? Theres little reason to think they would replace other testing options. Rather, think of them as offering another option for hospitals, clinics, doctors, and even consumers. That said, lets take a look at where we are in testing.

Diagnostic tests use a version of the polymerase chain reaction (real-time reverse transcriptase PCR) to amplify pieces of the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Dr. Deborah Birx, Coronavirus Response Coordinator, suggested that antigen-based tests be added to increase the supply, but these detect protein antigens on the viral surface, not the genetic material, and may be less likely to indicate infectious virus. For influenza diagnostic testing antigen tests are less accurate than the PCR-based tests.

PCR is simple in concept, but not always easy to carry out. It requires raising and lowering the temperature repeatedly as nucleic acid sequences are copied. Reagents may run out, and it requires specialized equipment. A PCR-based test that could diagnose infection in a few hours often takes more than a day because the sample must be sent to a lab.

False negatives can occur if viral RNA in a sample degrades during shipping, or if not enough collects on the swab. If either happens and a patient worsens, another test is required. But if the virus descends into the lungs, not enough may remain in the throat for a test to pick it up, even though the patient is actually sicker.

And so some people with obvious symptoms of COVID-19 must have two or three tests before a result is positive.

But PCR-based tests are what we have. Regulations shifted into emergency mode to bolster supplies.

On February 4, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) greenlighted the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Center for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) PCR test, making it available to to state and local public health labs and the Department of Defense. The EUA enables rapid roll-out of a still-experimental test. Even though PCR has been used in clinical diagnostics for decades, the virus is new and therefore so is the test.

A PCR-based diagnostic for COVID-19 amplifies RNA sequences unique to the novel virus, as well as gene parts common to other coronaviruses and a control sequence (encoding an enzyme, RNase), to make sure the test is working.

But at the end of January, bits of viral RNA in the CDC facility tainted some of the first test kits, so that they could yield false positive results, delaying their use.

On February 28, FDA took further action, announcing that clinically-licensed labs can use in-house developed tests while awaiting the EUA. These labs are CLIA-compliant,which means that they satisfy the standards of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments set by the federal government.

So places like Meridian Health, the Cleveland Clinic, Stanford Medicine, and many others began to do part of the PCR work-up, so that they didnt have to outsource samples. It was a little like people addicted to going to Starbucks learning how to make their own brew at home maintaining standards but taking on more of the task. (In fact, a study was just published on how to make the healthiest at-home brew.)

Michelle N. Gong, MD, Chief of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, said on a JAMA Network webinaron March 23 that bringing the testing in-house immediately escalated testing.

We started with sending samples to the Department of Health, but it became increasingly clear that it was not going to be adequate. It took days. Our hospitals epidemiologist worked to bring testing onsite and that has changed the game. The ability to test onsite and turn it around fast made it much more efficient to get patients what they need.

The FDAs list of diagnostics granted EUA status continues to grow. The last time I checked it had 62 entries.

On March 27, the EUA granted Abbott Labs use of a test that they had under development that detects two viral genes (N and RdRp), one of them different from the CDCs recipe. According to the company, the test can deliver positive results in 5 minutes and negative results in 13 minutes.

The Abbott test runs on an existing platform, ID NOW, and uses a gene amplification technology that doesnt require the temperature shifts of PCR. The test is done in a lightweight box about the size of a toaster thats already used in doctors offices, urgent care facilities, and emergency departments to rapidly diagnose influenza, strep, and respiratory syncytial virus.

But the companys initial forecast of providing 50,000 tests a day, starting soon, may need to await further validation. A researcher at the Cleveland Clinic, Gary Procop, MD, tested five products on 239 patient samples known to be positive for COVID-19. Abbotts test missed 15 percent.

The World Health Organization (WHO)also provided many tests early on and continues to do so.

On April 21, FDA re-deployed the Emergency Use Authorization of LabCorpsPCR-based test for use in a home-kit that the company provides. Its being rolled out for health care workers first; consumer tests may follow in a few weeks.

Another way to boost test kit supplies is to harness the gene editing tool CRISPR. It may be faster and simpler than PCR.

The team from Mammoth Biosciences and UCSF reported on CRISPRCas12-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in April 16s Nature Biotechnology. Company co-founder is Jennifer Doudna, PhD, co-inventor of CRISPR.

Mammoths visual readout strip works at the bedside, is fast, and in trials so far, picks up 100% of negatives and 95% of positives although much more extensive evaluation is needed. The report considers findings in 36 patients with COVID-19 and 42 people with other respiratory illnesses.

On February 15 Mammoth unveiled the protocol for their point of care test in a white paper that describes it as useful in areas at greatest risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection, including airports, emergency departments, and local community hospitals, particularly in low-resource countries.

We need faster, more accessible and scalable diagnostics. The point-of-care testing space is ripe for disruption and CRISPR diagnostics have the potential to bring reliable testing to the most vulnerable environments, said Mammoths Chief Technology Officer Janice Chen, PhD.

The test uses the companys DETECTR technology; that stands for DNA Endonuclease-Targeted CRISPR Trans Reporter. The platform had already been in the works for human papillomavirus, described in a April 27, 2018 report in Science.

The company started revamping its system for the novel coronavirus as soon as cases were reported from Wuhan, and within two weeks was testing it on the first patient samples. Because CRISPR can be programmed to detect any DNA or RNA sequence, we reconfigured our DETECTR platform within days to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus from one of the first confirmed cases in the U.S., said Dr. Chen.

The system collapses the two steps of PCR-based tests into one: copying viral RNA into DNA and amplifying it fast, without temperature shifts. The test snips off a reporter molecule that generates the stain on the paper read-out strip, and uses the Cas12enzyme, which makes more precise cuts than conventional Cas9.

The test zeroes in on three gene pieces:

It picks up 70 to 300 DNA pieces of genetic material per microliter of fluid from a nose or throat swab. A microliter is one-millionth of a liter.

SHERLOCK, for Specific High Sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter Unlocking, is a testing platform coming from work on Zika virus disease and Dengue fever published in 2018 in Science. Sherlock Biosciences provides the test and Cepheid.com provides their GeneXpert Systems cartridge device. The approach licenses work from the Broad Institute, home of another CRISPR founder, Feng Zhang, PhD.

The system can identify any genetic target, and therefore any infectious disease. The test for COVID-19 may reach the market as a dip stick, paper strip, or even an electrochemical readout that can be read with a mobile phone, according to company information.

The system zeroes in on genome pieces unique to SARS-CoV-2 that encode the spike (S) protein and apolyprotein that commandeers the host cell. (My blog post from the start of the pandemic, COVID-19 Vaccine Will Close in on the Spikes, explains the genetic make-up of the virus.)

It uses powerful Cas12 and Cas13 enzymes and can reportedly detect down to the single molecule level. Its fast, accurate, and works directly on body fluids. And with 23,000 GeneXpert Systems already at health care facilities, popping in a COVID test may be the best idea yet.

To biologists and many others it was clear from the start that fighting this pandemic would require far more testing than for just the people who show up at health care facilities with symptoms. An epidemic is a population phenomenon that must be addressed at that level. It is comforting to know that regulations were in place to allow implementation of variations on the testing theme, and that the companies that have long expected a viral pandemic are collaborating to rapidly adapt existing tests, tools and technologies to put the pandemic of 2020 behind us.

Ricki Lewis is the GLPs senior contributing writer focusing on gene therapy and gene editing. She has a PhD in genetics and is a genetic counselor, science writer and author of The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It, the only popular book about gene therapy. BIO. Follow her at her website or Twitter @rickilewis

Read this article:
'At home' coronavirus test? How CRISPR could change the way we search for COVID-19 - Genetic Literacy Project

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

27 April 2020

Genome-edited human stem cells from diabetic patientshavebeen shown to successfully reverse diabetes in mice.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, used CRISPR/Cas9 to correct a genetic defect in human stem cells and then converted them into cells capable of producing insulin. When these edited insulin-producing cells were implanted into diabetic mice, they were able to effectively control blood sugar levels for six months.

'We're excited about the fact that we were able to combine these two technologies - growing beta cells from induced pluripotent stemcells and using CRISPR to correct genetic defects,' said corresponding author Dr Jeffrey Millman. 'This is the first time CRISPR has been used to fix a patient's diabetes-causing genetic defect and successfully reverse diabetes.'

The human cells used were from a patient with a rare genetic type of diabetes called Wolfram syndrome, which develops during childhood and typically requires affected patients to inject insulin multiple times each day.

'For this study, we used cells from a patient with Wolfram syndrome because, conceptually, we knew it would be easier to correct a defect caused by a single gene. But we see this as a stepping-stone toward applying gene therapy to a broader population of patients with diabetes,' said Dr Millman.

The same team previously developed a new technique to more efficiently convert human stem cells into insulin-producing cells, allowing them to 'functionally cure' diabetes in mice for the first time (see BioNews1037). In the current study, they went one step further, adding the genome editing step to make cells from a diabetic personproduce insulin.

'We basically were able to use these cells to cure the problem, making normal beta cells by correcting this mutation,' said Dr Fumihiko Urano, who co-led the study. 'In fact, we found that corrected beta cells were indistinguishable from beta cells made from the stem cells of healthy people without diabetes,' added Dr Millman.

'It's also possible that by correcting the genetic defects in these cells, we may correct other problems Wolfram syndrome patients experience, such as visual impairment and neurodegeneration' said Dr Urano.

The study was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

View original post here:
Diabetes reversed in mice using CRISPR and stem cell therapy - BioNews

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

There is widespread agreement that the only way to safely reopen the economy is through a massive increase in testing. The US needs to test millions of people per day to effectively track and then contain the covid-19 pandemic.

This is a tall order. The country tested only around 210,000 people per day last week, and the pace is not increasing fast enough to get to millions quickly.

The urgency to do better is overwhelmingly bipartisan, with the most recent legislation adding $25 billion for testing a few days ago. Fears are growing, however, that testing might not scale in time to make a difference. As Senators Lamar Alexander and Roy Blunt wrote last week, We have been talking with experts across the government and the private sector to find anyone who believes that current technology can produce the tens of millions of tests necessary to put this virus behind us. Unfortunately, we have yet to find anyone to do so.

We believe that it can be done. The scientific community has the technological capabilities today to test everyone who needs it and enable people to come back to work safely.

To be clearthe senators are right that simply scaling up current practices for covid testing is insufficient. However, with a bit of innovation, the US can meet the need without inventing entirely new technologies. The necessary scale can be achieved by deploying the fruits of the last decade of innovation in biology, including the dizzying advances in DNA sequencing, genetic engineering, industrial automation, and advanced computation.

We speak from experience. We have worked with and helped engender many of these technologies across academia and industry. Scaling them for widespread testing will require investment, infrastructure, and determination, but nothing technologically or logistically infeasible.

Tests for mass screening may have different requirements and characteristics from the tests run in clinical labs today that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. So what might a solution look like?

It must be scalable, meaning tens or hundreds of thousands of tests per day per facility, or at-home tests. It must be sensitive to early stages of infection, detecting the actual virus rather than immunity to it. And it must be less bound by health insurance and regulatory constraints, to allow fast and broad testing, contact tracing, and isolation. These differences do not mean lower standards. In fact, screening at this scale will require stringent requirements for safety, accuracy, and reliability.

The life sciences community is rising to the challenge. We are repurposing our labs to advance new centralized and at-home methods that solve the bottlenecks preventing testing from reaching global scale. This community is moving fast, with shared purpose and a commitment to open collaboration. As a result of these efforts, several promising avenues are emerging.

Some rely on DNA sequencing tools that have improved a million-fold since the completion of the Human Genome Project nearly 20 years ago. Not only can these tools now read trillions of base pairs of human DNA every day, but they can be readily repurposed to test for the presence of coronavirus at mass scale, using instruments that already exist across the country. Some methods, such as SHERLOCK and DETECTR, harness CRISPR DNA and RNA recognition tools to enable rapid, distributed testing in doctors offices and at other sites. Other efforts are removing critical bottlenecks, such as sample purification, to make the existing approaches more scalable.

There are additional possibilities, and the US needs to place bets on several of them at the same time. Some of those bets might fail, but the severity of the moment requires that we try. Chances are, we will need more than one of them.

As important as the diagnostic technology itself is the need to fuel innovation at all stages of the testing process, including sample collection, regulation, logistics, manufacturing, distribution, scale-up, data infrastructure, and billing. These are solvable problems. The solutions may sometimes differ from current clinical testing conventions, but these are not conventional times.

Maybe cotton swabs or saliva can be used for collection rather than traditional nasopharyngeal swabs, which are in critically short supply. Maybe mass screening tests dont have to have the tested persons name and date on every collection tube but could instead include a bar code that you snap a picture of with your phone. Maybe these tests can be self-administered at home or work rather than conducted by trained professionals in clinical settings. Maybe samples from low-risk, asymptomatic people can be pooled together for initial testing and further screened only in the event of a positive result. This would allow many more samples to be analyzed at once.

State or federal regulatory agencies could make these adjustments to conventional practices more easily if they were willing to treat mass screening for bringing people back to work differently from the testing used in clinical settings. In addition, mass screening efforts will require unconventional partnerships with private companies, nonprofits, universities, and government agencies to support the logistics, collection, manufacturing, scale-up, and data infrastructure to make such a system possible. All this can be done, and some of it is already starting to be donebut we must not lose hope.

The United States capabilities in the life sciences and information technology are unmatched in the world. The time is now to rapidly build a massively scaled screening program that will save lives while allowing us to reopen our economy and keep it open. This can be done, but it will require urgency and determination to make multiple, simultaneous bets on infrastructure, regulation, and technology, as well as collaboration to put it all together.

We have united before to face far greater challenges as a nation, and we can do so again.

Sri Kosuri is cofounder and CEO of Octant and an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at UCLA. Feng Zhang is the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MITs McGovern Institute, a core member of the Broad Institute, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, and cofounder of Sherlock Biosciences. Jason Kelly is cofounder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks. Jay Shendure is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator at the University of Washington School of Medicine and scientific director of the Brotman Baty Institute.

Originally posted here:
The US already has the technology to test millions of people a day - MIT Technology Review

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

The ARK Genomic Revolution Multi-Sector Fund (CBOE: ARKG) is already trouncing basic biotechnology and healthcare ETFs and historical data suggest that even if a recession lingers, ARKG could prove durable.

SVB Leerink analyst Geoffrey Porges recently pointed out in a note to clients that biotechnology and pharmaceutical benchmarks topped the broader market during the 2001 recession, the global financial crisis, and during the current economic malaise.

On average, the biotechnology Indexes declined -1% during the three economic downturns, compared with the pharmaceutical indexs -10% and the S&P 500 indexs -20%, reports Josh Nathan-Kazis for Barrons.

ARKG is a credible long-term investment. Over the past three years, the fund is up nearly 105% or more than triple the returns of the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index over the same span. During that period, the ARK fund more than doubled the aforementioned S&P 500 Health Care Index

Some predictable catalysts explain ARKGs potential durability in a recession.

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

The ARK Investment teams process tries to focus on innovation and takes advantage of market inefficiencies. For example, the market easily can be distracted by short-term price movements, losing focus on the long-term effect of disruptive technologies.

Genomic sequencing is changing the way biological information is collected, processed, and applied. ARKG is focused on the disruptive innovations that are increasing precision, restructuring health care, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and enhancing the quality of life, according to ARK Invest.

The ARK Investment teams process tries to focus on innovation and takes advantage of market inefficiencies. For example, the market easily can be distracted by short-term price movements, losing focus on the long-term effect of disruptive technologies.

Related:Big Growth Awaits a Golden Genomics ETF

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

ARKG also offers some of the best CRISPR exposure of any ETF on the market. CRISPR-based innovations to accelerate given the technologys ease of use, cost-efficacy, a growing body of research surrounding its safety and AI-powered CRISPR nuclease selection tools. CRISPR could also be utilized to address some of the most prominent healthcare problems, which opens up a significant investment opportunity in monogenic diseases.

For more on disruptive technologies, visit our Disruptive Technology Channel.

The opinions and forecasts expressed herein are solely those of Tom Lydon, and may not actually come to pass. Information on this site should not be used or construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any product.

See the original post here:
This Biotechnology ETF Could Be the Place to Be in a Recession - ETF Trends

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

The Global CRISPR Technology Market report vastly covers profiles of the companies who have made it big in this particular field along with their sales data and other data. It also suggests the business models, innovations, growth and every information about the big manufacturers that will be present the future market estimates. The Global CRISPR Technology Market report offers a holistic view of the industry along with the several factors which are driving the Global CRISPR Technology Market. It also shows the possible restraining factors which may hinder the growth of the Global CRISPR Technology Market. The Global CRISPR Technology Market study offers a complete analysis of the market size, segmentation, and market share.

This study covers following key players:

Thermo Fisher ScientificMerck KGaAGenScriptIntegrated DNA Technologies (IDT)Horizon Discovery GroupAgilent TechnologiesCellecta, Inc.GeneCopoeia, Inc.New England BiolabsOrigene Technologies, Inc.Synthego CorporationToolgen, Inc.

Request a sample of this report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/request-sample/4459840

The CRISPR Technology Market study is major compilation of significant information with respect to the competitor details of this market. The data offered in this report is gathered based on the deep market understanding on latest industry news, trends, as well as opportunities. This study offers a separate analysis of the major trends in the existing market, mandates and regulations, micro & macroeconomic indicators is also comprised in this report. By doing so, the study estimated the attractiveness of every major segment during the prediction period.

This analysis report similarly presents the information about present on goings, past results and learnings and in future CRISPR Technology business strategies that have been followed by the key players, company extent, reasons of development and time period, share and estimate analysis having a place with the predicted circumstances and situations that may occur. This analysis report similarly reduces the present, past and in future CRISPR Technology business strategies.

Access Complete Report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/reports/index/global-crispr-technology-market-professional-survey-2020-by-manufacturers-regions-types-and-applications-forecast-to-2024

Market segment by Type, the product can be split into

EnzymesKitsgRNALibrariesDesign Tools

Market segment by Application, split into

BiomedicalAgricultural

The CRISPR Technology Market study is major compilation of significant information with respect to the competitor details of this market. The Global CRISPR Technology Market report contains market volume with an accurate estimation offered in the report. Likewise, the information is also inclusive of the several regions where the Global CRISPR Technology Market has successfully gained the position. The Global CRISPR Technology Market report focuses on the major economies, major continents and countries.

The research includes historic data and forecasts which makes the reports a precious supply for the people who are planning to enter into the Global CRISPR Technology Market, executives who look after promotions, consultants of various fields, sales managers, product managers, and many other people considering for significant industry data, willingly accessible documents with deep information on statistics and data presentations through pie charts and graphs which are easy to learn and conclude.

For Enquiry before buying report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/enquiry-before-buying/4459840

About Us :

Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a single point aid for all your market research requirements. We have vast database of reports from the leading publishers and authors across the globe. We specialize in delivering customized reports as per the requirements of our clients. We have complete information about our publishers and hence are sure about the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialization. This helps our clients to map their needs and we produce the perfect required market research study for our clients.

Contact Us :

Hector CostelloSenior Manager Client Engagements4144N Central Expressway,Suite 600, Dallas,Texas 75204, U.S.A.Phone No.: USA: +1 (972)-362-8199 | IND: +91 895 659 5155

Continue reading here:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Professional Survey 2020 by Manufacturers, Regions, Types and Applications, Forecast to 2024 - Latest Herald

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

AUSTIN, Texas Astrophysicist Katherine Freese, astronomer John Kormendy and evolutionary biologist Mark Kirkpatrick of The University of Texas at Austin have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. They join 120 new members recognized by the academy this year for distinguished and continuing achievements in original scientific research.

The National Academy of Sciences is the countrys most prestigious scientific organization, and election to membership in the academy is one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist in the United States.

I am exceedingly proud of these extraordinary colleagues and scientific leaders, said Paul Goldbart, dean of UT Austins College of Natural Sciences. Professors Freese, Kirkpatrick and Kormendy exemplify the excellence that we are fortunate to have in Natural Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin.

Freese, who holds the Jeff and Gail Kodosky Endowed Chair in Physics, works on a wide range of topics in theoretical cosmology and astroparticle physics. She has been working to identify the dark matter and dark energy that permeate the universe as well as to build a successful model for the early universe immediately after the Big Bang. She is author of the book The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter, published in June 2014. She received her Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago in 1984. She received an NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award (1990), a Simons Foundation Fellowship in Theoretical Physics (2012) and the Lilienfeld Prize from the American Physical Society (2019). Read a Q&A here.

Kirkpatrick is the T.S. Painter Centennial Professor in Genetics in the Department of Integrative Biology. Among his many accomplishments, he has helped explain how mating preferences drive the evolution of male traits and how sex chromosomes originate and evolve. He was previously elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2008) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2016). He received a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Washington in 1983. He is a member of the universitys Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, and Biodiversity Center.

Mark has long been known as one of the leaders in theoretical population genetics, that is, the formal and fundamental framework for understanding the evolutionary process, said Nancy Moran, a professor of integrative biology at UT Austin and fellow member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is continually contributing new insights into how organisms and their genes and genomes evolve. Hes also co-author on the most authoritative textbook in evolutionary biology, another indication of his breadth and of the high regard in which he is held in the field.

Kormendy is the Curtis T. Vaughan, Jr. Centennial Chair Emeritus in Astronomy. He studies the structure and dynamics of stars, gas and dark matter in galaxies, including supermassive black holes in galaxy centers and cosmological dark matter in galaxy halos. He received a Ph.D. in astronomy from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. He has been awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (1970), the Muhlmann Prize of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1988), a Humboldt Research Award of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany (2006), and External Membership in the Max-Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching-by-Munich, Germany (2012). Read more about his research here.

The election of these three brings the number of current faculty members from UT Austins College of Natural Sciences elected to the academy to 16.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit institution established under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It recognizes achievement in science by election to membership and with the National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Medicine and National Research Council provides science, technology and health policy advice to the federal government and other organizations.

View a list of other members of the National Academies in the College of Natural Sciences.

Go here to read the rest:
Three UT Austin Faculty Elected to National Academy of Sciences - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

All over the world in China, Italy, the United States and Australia many more men than women are dying from COVID-19.

Why? Is it genes, hormones, the immune system or behaviour that makes men more susceptible to the disease?

I see it as an interaction of all of these factors and it isnt unique to the SARS-Cov-2 virus the different response of men and women is typical of many diseases in many mammals.

In Italy and China deaths of men are more than double those of women. In New York city men constitute about 61% of patients who die. Australia is shaping up to have similar results, though here its mostly in the 70-79 and 80-89 age groups.

The number of COVID-19 deaths in Australia (last updated April 19, 2020).

Image: Australian Government, Department of Health

One major variable in severity of COVID-19 is age. But this cant explain the sex bias seen globally because the increased male fatality rate is the same in each age group from 30 to 90+. Women also live on average six years longer than men, so there are more elderly women than men in the vulnerable population.

The other major factor is the presence of chronic diseases, particularly heart disease, diabetes and cancer. These are all more common in men than women, which might account for some of the bias.

But then we must ask why men are more vulnerable to the diseases that put them at greater risk of COVID-19.

Men and women are biologically different

Men and women differ in their sex chromosomes and the genes that lie on them. Women have two copies of a mid-sized chromosome (called the X). Men have only a single X chromosome and a small Y chromosome that contains few genes.

One of these Y genes (SRY) directs the embryo to become male by kick-starting the development of testes in an XY embryo. The testes make male hormones and the hormones make the baby develop as a boy.

In the absence of SRY an ovary forms and makes female hormones.

Its the hormones that control most of the obvious visible differences between men and women genitals and breasts, hair and body type and have a large influence on behaviour.

The Y chromosome and hormones

The Y chromosome contains hardly any genes other than SRY but it is full of repetitive sequences (junk DNA).

Perhaps a toxic Y could lose its regulation during ageing. This might hasten ageing in men and render them more susceptible to the virus.

But a bigger problem for men is the male hormones unleashed by SRY action. Testosterone levels are implicated in many diseases, particularly heart disease, and may affect lifespan.

Men are also disadvantaged by their low levels of estrogen, which protects women from many diseases, including heart disease.

Male hormones also influence behaviour. Testosterone levels have been credited with major differences between men and women in risky behaviours such as smoking and drinking too much alcohol, as well as reluctance to heed health advice and to seek medical help.

The extreme differences in smoking rate between men and women in China (almost half the men smoke and only 2% of women) may help to account for their very high ratio of male deaths (more than double female). Not only is smoking a severe risk factor for any respiratory disease, but it also causes lung cancer, a further risk factor.

Smoking rates are lower and not as sex-biased in many other countries, so risky behaviour cant by itself explain the sex difference in COVID-19 deaths. Maybe sex chromosomes have other effects.

Two X chromosomes are better than one

The X chromosome bears more than 1,000 genes with functions in all sorts of things including routine metabolism, blood clotting and brain development.

The presence of two X chromosomes in XX females provides a buffer if a gene on one X is mutated.

XY males lack this X chromosome backup. Thats why boys suffer from many sex-linked diseases such as haemophilia (poor blood clotting).

The number of X chromosomes also has big effects on many metabolic characters that are separable from sex hormone effects, as studies of mice reveal.

Females not only have a double dose of many X genes, but they may also have the benefit of two different versions of each gene.

This X effect goes far to explain why males die at a higher rate than females at every age from birth.

And another man problem is the immune system.

Weve known for a long time that women have a stronger immune system than men. This is not all good, because it makes women more susceptible to autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis.

But it gives women an advantage when it comes to susceptibility to viruses, as many studies in mice and humans show. This helps to explain why men are more susceptible to many viruses, including SARS and MERS.

There are at least 60 immune response genes on the X chromosome, and it seems that a higher dose and having two different versions of these gives women a broader spectrum of defences.

Sex differences in diseases the big picture

Sex differences in the frequency, severity and treatment efficacy for many diseases were pointed out long ago. COVID-19 is part of a larger pattern in which males lose out at every age.

This isnt just humans it is true of most mammals.

Are sex differences in disease susceptibility simply the by-catch of genetic and hormone differences? Or were they, like many other traits, selected differently in males and females because of differences in life strategy?

Its suggested that male mammals spread their genes by winning competitions for mates, hence hormone control of risky behaviour is a plus for men.

Its also suggested female mammals are selected for traits that enhance their ability to care for young, hence their stronger immune system. This made sense for most mammals through the ages.

So the sex bias in COVID-19 deaths is part of a much larger picture and a very much older picture of sex differences in genes, chromosomes and hormones that lead to very different responses to all sorts of disease, including COVID-19.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with our Terms of Use.

Written by

Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics, La Trobe University,

This article is published in collaboration with The Conversation.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Read the rest here:
Why is it that more men die from coronavirus than women? - World Economic Forum

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

One Australian study has reached a climax in deciding who experiences the best orgasm. I need a cigarette.

We dont need a formal study to know that the arousal process differs significantly for men and women but when it comes to the actual orgasm, whose experience is better? This age-old question is on everybodys lips at the moment, so we peeled back the cover on some global research from AsapSCIENCEto see if we could arouse a definitive answer as to Who has a better orgasm males or females?

What we immediately learned from our deep dive into the Big O was that there are many similarities in how those fireworks actually feel for men and women. For example, researchers asked college students of both genders to explain how an orgasm feels. After removing any words that specifically referred to genitalia, they were left with an orgy of very similar words, suggesting that males and females feel a very similar experience during their apogee. This may be because irrespective of whether you stand or sit to pee, an identical physiological process occurs in both genders in order for that climax to occur.

Another similarity is the ability of both men and women to enjoy multiple orgasms. Due to these little beauts typically lacking a refractory period, they have long been identified as womens only business; however, in recent times it has been discovered that men can also enjoy in these repeated pleasures. Historically, male orgasms were thought only to occur simultaneously with ejaculation, but research has confirmed that before or after ejaculation, men are capable of non-ejaculatory orgasms.

AsapSCIENCE also identified that post-O, both men and women experience a distinct feeling of drowsiness, which is attributed to a surge in the hormone called prolactin.

Now, interestingly, if you have a busy schedule planned post-coitus, then you may like to consider finishing yourself off because science has shown that four times the amount of that drowsy-inducing hormone is released after intercourse, compared to the amount released after an orgasm achieved via masturbation.

By now youre forgiven for thinking that perhaps males and females do have a similar experience when it comes to climactic fervour. However, lets now take a quick perve at the differences.

A national Australian study exploring heterosexual sex found that women tend to experience orgasms less often than men (69% versus 95% of all sexual encounters), but when they do get there, the actual climax itself goes for longer (20+ seconds for females versus 3 to 10 seconds for males).

Interestingly, the type of sex youre engaging in was also found to contribute to your climactic experience. For example, one study revealed that while the rate of orgasm among straight and gay men was similar, the rate of orgasm for women varied significantly by sexual orientation.

Straight women reportedly have around 12% fewer orgasms than gay women; 25% of who indicated they climaxed in 100% of instances. Whats more, 50% of gay women suggested they orgasmed in more than 75% of their sexual encounters. And if thats not enough to make you admire the tribe, lesbians were found to engage in sex for an average duration of 30 to 45 minutes, compared to a meagre 15 to 30 minutes of sexual activity by straight women.

Whether women will or wont get there was also found to be influenced by genetics, with one study involving twins suggesting that the genetic makeup of women can predict one-third of the likelihood of whether or not she will climax during sex.

Of course, when you think about it, men and women are physiologically designed to have similar experiences, and the orgasm is no exception. Being part of your partners orgasm typically enhances your own climactic experience, and this is no coincidence. We need to be able to understand and relate to each other, in order for emotional connections to occur.

So there you have it; the bare naked facts, all laid out. But who has the upper hand in the orgasm stakes?

From an evolutionary perspective, we are all designed to enjoy the moment, and physiologically speaking, the process to ensure an orgasm occurs is identical in both men and women.

The bottom line is, that while differences definitely exist for males and females during those OMG moments, these discrepancies are most likely due to individual factors such as psychology, anatomy and physiology. The best thing you can do to ensure your endings are always as happy as they can possibly be, is to know how best to please yourself, and then let your partner in on the secrets.

Read the original:
The Big O: Who has it better? - The Big Smoke Australia

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Dr Winnie Njenga, a dermatologist at Kiambu Level 5 Hospital, answers some of the most frequently asked questions around skincare. Pick up skin protection tips, discover some of the common skin problems and learn what suspicious growths might mean.After I turned 30, I developed acne. I have never had to deal with that before. What can I do? How does one deal with adult acne?Adult acne is an interplay of factors, such as your skin type, inflammation and the hormonal milieu. Your dermatologist can assess your risk factors and advise on the best way forward. Remember treatment will vary from person to person. You also need to have your skincare and hair products assessed.I have skin tags; many of them. And I dont like them. Is there anything I can do to slow down their development? Many people develop skin tags. They can be removed by your dermatologist. I would recommend that you practice a healthy lifestyle with a good diet and regular exercise as obesity can make this worse.What are the most common skin problems you deal with?

For More of This and Other Stories, Grab Your Copy of the Standard Newspaper. Read Now

Do not miss out on the latest news. Join the Standard Digital Telegram channel HERE.

More here:
Ask a doctor: Is there a treatment that reverses balding? - The Standard

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

SEATTLE, April 23, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- According to Coherent Market Insights, the global human immunoglobulin (pH4) for intravenous injection (COVID-19) market is estimated to be valued at US$ 43,205.8 million in 2020, and is expected to exhibit a CAGR of 12.7% during the forecast period (2020-2027).

Key Trends:

Key trends in the market include viral disease outbreaks, the increasing prevalence of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and demand for immune globulin products in the market.

According to the American Cancer Society around 60,530 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the U.S in 2020 out of which 21,040 new cases will be of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Similarly, according to the Cancer Research UK, around 3,500 new cases of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were diagnosed in the U.K in 2017.

Request for Sample PDF copy @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/3790

Moreover, the growing demand for immune globulin (IG) products is expected to drive the human immunoglobulin (ph4) for intravenous injection (COVID-19) market growth. For instance, on August 12, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that demand for immune globulin products has increased in recent years and there is a shortage of Immune Globulin (Subcutaneous) (IGSC) and Immune Globulin (Intravenous) (IGIV) products in the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working closely with manufacturers such as Asceniv, Bivigam, Octagam, Panzyga, Privigen and others of various immune globulin (intravenous) (IGIV) products to help mitigate the supply situation for IG products.

Key Market Takeaways:

Key players operating in market are

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Baxter International Inc., CSL Behring, Bayer AG, Grifols, S.A., Octapharma AG, Shanghai RAAS Blood Products Co., Ltd., Hualan Biological Engineering Inc., China Biologic Products, Inc., Sichuan Yuanda Shuyang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Boya Bio-Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., ADMA Biologics, Inc., and Sinopharm Group Co., Ltd.

Buy this Research Report @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/buy-now/3790

Market Segmentation:

Related Topics:

HEALTHCARE CONTRACT RESEARCH OUTSOURCING MARKET

Healthcare Contract Research Outsourcing is conducted by pharmaceutical and medical device sectors for development of new drugs and medical devices. Clinical trials form the key part of pharmaceutical drug and medical device development and in the current scenario clinical trials are conducted across multiple locations in various geographies. Increasing cost and time required for drug development is expected to propel growth of the global healthcare contract research outsourcing market over the forecast period.

Read more @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/healthcare-contract-research-outsourcing-market-3788

ANDROGEN REPLACEMENT THERAPY MARKET

Androgen replacement therapy (ART), often referred to as testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), is a form of hormone therapy, in which androgens, often testosterone, are replaced. ART is often prescribed to counter the effects of male hypogonadism. It typically involves the administration of testosterone through injections, skin creams, patches, gels, or subcutaneous pellets. Testosterone replacement therapy is a promising technology for improving symptoms of hypogonadism and to raise the testosterone level.

Read more @ https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/androgen-replacement-therapy-market-3787

Read the original:
Global Human Immunoglobulin (pH4) for Intravenous Injection (COVID-19) Market to Surpass US$ 99,772.2 Million by 2027 - CMI - GlobeNewswire

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

In 2018, Adidas stunned the world with its first-ever 3D printed shoeAlphaedge 4D. Gillette introduced theRazor Makerplatform, which uses Formlabs Form 2 3D printers to provide unique and highly personalized razors to their customers. And Lufthansa is investing in 3D printed aircraft parts.

If we take a look at our surroundings, we can see the vast potential that 3D printing technology can create. However, 3D printing technology has an impact in unexpected industries. Not only can a 3D printer create that new shoe or that exciting prototype, but it can also have incredible potential in dietary supplements, medicine and environmental sustainability.

As the founder of the $100 million Longevity Vision Fund, which is dedicated to accelerating life extension breakthroughs, here's why I believe 3D supplement printing may be the next trend in longevity.

Applications In Dietary Supplements

The world of fitness, health and wellness is aggressively pursuing the ability to mass-personify. You can see examples of this on Instagram, which is filled with countless health, fitness and wellness apps promising customized, unique-to-you products, services and meal plans. One standard product is health supplements. And 3D printing has a unique role in providing personalized supplements.

Health supplement firms are finding methods to customize supplements and hyper-target consumers' specific dietary needs and timing of the release. For example, if you are doing an intermittent fast and you plan on skipping breakfast and sleeping early, then you might want a vitamin that delivers caffeine and nutrients in the morning and relaxation and sleep-promoting herbs at night.

Multiply Labs is one of the health care supplement pioneers in the U.S that offers just that.

The company "prints" your personalized supplements, which are promised to time-release the necessary nutrients based on your needs and routines. The time-release component is achieved by 3D-printing a capsule with varying thickness. The theory is that if part of the tablet is thin, it will release the compound within 30 minutes. If it's thick, it releases in two hours, thereby achieving the desired time-specified release of nutrients.

Another company offering similar hyper-targeted health supplements isNourish3d. Nourish3d provides a subscription option of vegan, sugar-free, made-to-order "stacks." The stacks look and taste like gummies and can be customized to your lifestyle and goals.

For example, busy, stressed business professionals can choose "The High Flyer Stack" to improve concentration, relieve stress and reduce nausea. (Maybe from all of those meetings?) Vegans can take advantage of "The Plant-Based Power Stack," which contains vitamins and superfoods to help enhance their diet.

Applications In Medicine

If we can print targeted and time-specific supplements, then it's not a big leap to soon be able to do so with pharmaceutical medicine as well.

Similar to the health supplements, doctors will be able to prescribe and provide specific, customized and potentially time-controlled dosages specific to each patient's body components.

The time-release innovation can also significantly impact the management of chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.

In the United States, one out of every three adults has high blood pressure. Patients with high blood pressure face complicated and difficult therapy regimens. This is because patients are sometimes prescribed multiple high blood pressure medications with different dosages, side effects and methods to lower blood pressure. The complexity in drug and drug regimen leads to poor adherence, which is associatedwith increased risks of coronary and cerebrovascular events.

While an estimated 33% of adults in the United States have high blood pressure, 10% of the entire U.S. population is diagnosed with diabetes. For patients with diabetes, drug regimes can be highly individualized and complex. For example, one study found that Type 2 diabetes patients were prescribed 8.6 pills per dayon average. Similar to nonadherence with blood pressure medication,at least 45%of Type 2 diabetes patients fail to achieve glycemic control due to inadequate medical adherence.

If we can offer one simple 3D-printed medication that combines different dosages, we can significantly improve nonadherence.

Environmental Impact

One underlying consequence of both health supplements and medicine capsules is enormous environmental damage. On-demand 3D printing of supplements and drugs could help cut down on financial and ecological waste from medicines that have spoiled, been over-prescribed, discontinued or expired.

For example, back in 2008, an Associated Press investigation revealed that "U.S. hospitals and long-term care facilities annually flush millions of pounds of unused pharmaceuticals down the drain, pumping contaminants into drinking water." At the same time, individual cancer drug vials contain larger doses than patients need. Once a patient uses the necessary amount, the rest of the medication is discarded. This has led to an estimated $3 billion of unused cancer drugs being thrown away each year.

3D printed cancer drugs can customize the exact amount of dosage the patient might need or combine multiple dosages into one pill. This cuts down on the unused and discarded medications.

In summary, not only can we 3D print shoes, razors and even aircraft doors, but we can also print personalized vitamins and hyper-targeted medication in a way that is good for our environment.

Link:
Is 3D Supplement Printing The Next Trend In Longevity? - Forbes

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

A file photo of an F-16C Block 50 of the 480th FS. (Image credit: Author).

On Apr. 23, 2020, the F-16C tail number #91-0343 assigned to the 480th Fighter Squadron of the 52nd Fighter Wing, based at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, became the first Block 50 Viper (as the Fighting Falcon is nicknamed within the fighter pilot community) in Europe to achieve 10,000 FH (Flight Hours), Stars and Stripes reported.

Tail 343 is the second F-16 in USAF inventory to achieve the 10K FH mark: the first the tail number #90-0808, a Block 50 F-16C flying with the 14th FS/35th FW out of Misawa AB, in Japan, that achieved the 10,000 flight hours on Jun. 10, 2019. Interestingly, the F-16 at Misawa hit first the milestone but it took 26 years and 11 months to reach 10,000 hours two months longer than the Spangdahlem jet.

Whatever, its worth remembering that the Block 50s were initially designed for a service life of 8,000 FH. However, thanks to the F-16 Service Life Extension Program, SLEP, launched in 2017, 350 will receive structural modifications that will raise their service life from 8,000 to 12,000 hours: whats needed to keep the Viper in service until 2045 -2048. There would also be room for a further extension as one test article, put through simulated was put through a simulated service life of more than 27,000 hours!

The SLEP combines a dozen structural modifications into one repeatable package from bulkheads to wings and canopy with all the stateside modifications completed at Hill AFB. The work on each airframe takes about 9 months at a cost of $2.4 million.

As a side note, some of our readers will probably remember what happened to the USAF Viper Demo Team F-16C at RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo), at RAF Fairford, UK, on Jul. 21, 2019: the airframe 96-0080 suffered delamination (i.e. separation along a plane parallel to a surface, as in the separation of a coating from a substrate or the layers of a coating from each other or, in the case of a concrete slab, a horizontal splitting, cracking, or separation near the upper surface) of the right H-stab few minutes into the display forcing Maj. Garret Schmitz, pilot and commander of the Demo Team, to stop his routine and declared an emergency. Back then, someone wondered whether the Demo Team aircraft, by accident on loan from the 480th FS Warhawks from Spangdahlem, had undergone SLEP modifications already. However, SLEP does not affect the tail stabilizers (or H-stabs) that, as all the other core flight control surfaces, are replaced when needed.

Go here to see the original:
F-16C At Spangdahlem AB Becomes Second Viper in USAF Inventory To Hit 10,000 Flight Hours - The Aviationist

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Futuristic Reports, The growth and development of Global Oral Probiotics Market Report 2020 by Players, Regions, Type, and Application, forecast to 2026 provides industry analysis and forecast from 2020-2026. Global Oral Probiotics Market analysis delivers important insights and provides a competitive and useful advantage to the pursuers. Oral Probiotics processes, economic growth is analyzed as well. The data chart is also backed up by using statistical tools.

Simultaneously, we classify different Oral Probiotics markets based on their definitions. Downstream consumers and upstream materials scrutiny are also carried out. Each segment includes an in-depth explanation of the factors that are useful to drive and restrain it.

Key Players Mentioned in the study are Oragenics, Life Extension, TheraBreath, Lallemand, Bluestone Pharma, Jarrow Formulas, Now Foods, BioGaia, ProBiora Health, Hyperbiotics, Bifodan

For Better Understanding, Download FREE Sample Copy of Oral Probiotics Market Report @ https://www.futuristicreports.com/request-sample/53001

Key Issues Addressed by Oral Probiotics Market: It is very significant to have Oral Probiotics segmentation analysis to figure out the essential factors of growth and development of the market in a particular sector. The Oral Probiotics report offers well summarized and reliable information about every segment of growth, development, production, demand, types, application of the specific product which will be useful for players to focus and highlight on.

Businesses Segmentation of Oral Probiotics Market:

On the basis on the applications, this report focuses on the status and Oral Probiotics outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, and growth rate for each application, including-

Child Adult

On the basis of types/products, this Oral Probiotics report displays the revenue (Million USD), product price, market share, and growth rate of each type, split into-

Powder Chewable tablets Others

Grab Best Discount on Oral Probiotics Market Research Report [Single User | Multi User | Corporate Users] @ https://www.futuristicreports.com/check-discount/53001

NOTE: Our team is studying Covid-19 impact analysis on various industry verticals and Country Level impact for a better analysis of markets and industries. The 2020 latest edition of this report is entitled to provide additional commentary on latest scenario, economic slowdown and COVID-19 impact on overall industry. Further it will also provide qualitative information about when industry could come back on track and what possible measures industry players are taking to deal with current situation.

OR

You just drop an Email to:[emailprotected] us if you are looking for any Economical shift towards the New Normal on any Country or Industry Verticals.

Oral Probiotics Market Regional Analysis Includes:

Asia-Pacific (Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia) Europe (Turkey, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.) North America (the United States, Mexico, and Canada.) South America (Brazil etc.) The Middle East and Africa (GCC Countries and Egypt.)

Oral Probiotics Insights that Study is going to provide:

Gain perceptive study of this current Oral Probiotics sector and also possess a comprehension of the industry; Describe the Oral Probiotics advancements, key issues, and methods to moderate the advancement threats; Competitors In this chapter, leading players are studied with respect to their company profile, product portfolio, capacity, price, cost, and revenue. A separate chapter on Oral Probiotics market structure to gain insights on Leaders confrontational towards market [Merger and Acquisition / Recent Investment and Key Developments] Patent Analysis** Number of patents filed in recent years.

Table of Content:

Global Oral Probiotics Market Size, Status and Forecast 20261. Market Introduction and Market Overview2. Industry Chain Analysis3. Oral Probiotics Market, by Type4. Oral Probiotics Market, by Application5. Production, Value ($) by Regions6. Production, Consumption, Export, Import by Regions (2016-2020)7. Market Status and SWOT Analysis by Regions (Sales Point)8. Competitive Landscape9. Analysis and Forecast by Type and Application10. Channel Analysis11. New Project Feasibility Analysis12. Market Forecast 2020-202613. Conclusion

Enquire More Before Buying @ https://www.futuristicreports.com/send-an-enquiry/53001

For More Information Kindly Contact:

Futuristic ReportsTel: +1-408-520-9037Media Release:https://www.futuristicreports.com/press-releases

Follow us on Blogger @https://futuristicreports.blogspot.com/

Read the original post:
Oral Probiotics Market 2020 Future Growth Prospects and Trends | Oragenics, Life Extension, TheraBreath and Others - Cole of Duty

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

27 April 2020

The effect on jobs globally as a result of COVID-19 has been uneven to say the least. While some industries and organisations are booming and hiring thousands, others are being hit hard. The nuclear industry employment situation could be best described as behaving like a nuclear power plant - continuing reliably without creating much attention while competently adapting to the needs of the current situation, writes Callum Thomas, CEO of Thomas Thor Associates.

One of the benefits of safety being at the heart of the culture in the nuclear industry is that consideration for the health and well-being of workers is already the primary objective. Nuclear sites - operating, under construction or in decommissioning - have long established emergency preparedness procedures and continue to run smoothly. The main change has been a rapid transition to home working for the workforce, for all those other than essential workers on operating sites and construction projects. This has presented the same challenges that other industries have faced around providing the necessary equipment, access and security for people to work effectively from home. Non-essential projects and workstreams have been slowed down or put on hold in order to minimise unnecessary social contact. Although the number of permanent lay-offs is limited in the short-term, there are a significant number of workers from operating and construction sites deemed non-essential that are not doing their usual jobs right now.

The nuclear industry has not been at the forefront of remote working practices up until now but has adapted quickly in recent weeks. Every day I am speaking with people across the industry worldwide who are pleasantly surprised about how effectively they can carry out their jobs remotely. The other major feedback theme is around efficiency. The evaluation of activities to ascertain whether they are essential and the review of working practices to ensure social distancing rules are met have led to significant efficiency gains. Construction sites are continuing to meet milestones with fewer workers on site, and the number of meetings we are all physically attending has been drastically curtailed (although we are rapidly replacing them with video calls!).

The result is that there have not been large-scale reductions in workforce across the nuclear industry, and there are few industries in a better position to adapt to the new social-distancing workplace environment that will become the norm as we come out of this crisis. While this current picture is one of adaption and steadiness, the view of the future is far more radical.

Choruses of governments are basing COVID-19 policy and action on the advice of leading scientists. Imagine if our global response to climate change was formed on the same basis. Scientists are already loudly warning about the consequences of not acting now to slow down climate change. Maybe the COVID-19 crisis will mark a turning point in how seriously the scientific evidence will define and prioritise policy and action. We have an opportunity to apply the value of hindsight gained from the COVID-19 crisis to the climate change crisis, which has potentially far greater consequences but is playing out at a speed that seems to prevent us from seeing it as an emergency.

There are four priorities that will be paramount for countries after the COVID-19 crisis - economic recovery, job creation, energy security and addressing climate change. Nuclear energy provides a solution to all four of these priorities.

Creating jobs to boost the economy and build essential national infrastructure in the form of nuclear power plants and used fuel solutions that support energy security and reduce carbon emissions would contribute perfectly to the solution. It will take a while for this action to filter down to large-scale job creation.

Energy policy changes and unlocking of funding sources for new nuclear plants and used fuel facilities in the short term will lead to some new jobs being created in the coming years for work related to modernisation and plant life extension, and then on a larger scale over the next 5-10 years as new nuclear facilities start to be built. These will be highly skilled jobs delivering long-term projects and supporting facilities with long lifetimes, creating a competent workforce that will bring down the cost of future construction of new nuclear.

Commitment to invest in nuclear from governments and developers will provide the signal for investment throughout the supply chain in construction and manufacturing capabilities as well as skills development. This will lead to more high-value jobs, although the supply chain will need to see really firm commitment to give them the confidence to invest.

An immediate action for the nuclear industry that will have long-term workforce benefits is to collectively work on the employer brand of the industry. Never has job security been so important in the eyes of workers. The nuclear industry is offering long-term career opportunities working with cutting edge technologies to create solutions to climate change and environmental remediation. It also has a primary focus on safety and well-being, an extraordinarily collaborative and supportive working environment and an increasing culture of flexible working. This is a narrative that has not yet made it to the mainstream, but it could with the right communication effort.

Creating a workforce that is representative of the communities in which the nuclear industry serves is a core objective and organisations such as Women in Nuclear and EqualEngineers are doing great work to support this. We are increasingly appreciating the benefits of diversity in our teams and organisations, not just in the form of characteristics such as gender, age and ethnicity, but also cognitive diversity and diversity of experience. What better way to provide a boost to diversity to the global nuclear workforce than to bring people from different industries?

Hand picking individuals who have been responsible for on-time and on-budget delivery of projects, or the safe and efficient operation of complex facilities, will be essential if we are to achieve the Harmony Goal of 25% electricity generated by nuclear by 2050 and develop effective used fuel solutions. We are also seeing the effects of the stagnation of the nuclear industry in many parts of the world in the 1990s, which has led to gaps in succession for senior leadership roles. These gaps can be filled by bringing people from outside the sector.

The short-term effects of the COVID-19 crisis have not led to significant permanent job losses and have stimulated some positive responses from the nuclear industry, such as an accelerated transition to remote and flexible working and efficiency improvements at sites kept running by essential workers. The longer-term effects could well be radical. Governments could work out that Economic recovery + Job creation + Energy security + Climate change action = Investment in nuclear power plants and used fuel facilities. If the nuclear industry can effectively engage with stakeholders in the clean energy future to communicate the career opportunities available, then the workforce will grow and diversify while solving some of the world's biggest challenges.

Callum Thomas

Continued here:
Viewpoint: The impact of COVID-19 on nuclear jobs : Perspectives - World Nuclear News

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

US President Donald Trump with his first Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, in 2017. Mattis oversaw the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. Photo credit: US Defense Department via Flickr.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of nuclear policy in determining a US presidential candidates fitness to be commander-in-chief. Such priorities are evident in the Bulletins recently published special issue dedicated to discussing nuclear weapons policy ahead of the 2020 election. Nuclear issues played a prominent role in the 2016 election, but despite some anomalies, they have hardly factored into the 2020 campaign. This is almost certain to change even as priority is given to the COVID-19 pandemic response. Nevertheless, very few recent polls (with one notable exception) have attempted to identify preferences among the US population for President Donald Trumps nuclear policies.

To fill this gap, we worked with the firm YouGov in late 2018 after the release of the Trump administrations Nuclear Posture Review to conduct a nationally representative survey of 1,000 Americans. Previous surveys have illuminated US public attitudes on nuclear energy, extending the New START treaty, and even hypothetical nuclear retaliatory scenarios. It isnt clear, however, how Americans view the core elements of the Trump administrations nuclear policy: its Nuclear Posture Review and its overall strategies toward Iran and North Korea. We report our study results publicly for the first time here, offering insights for policymakers and presidential candidates as they weigh their positions on nuclear issues.

Nuclear Posture Review. The study highlights how the US public as a whole and various demographic groups view Trumps positions on nuclear weapons. To begin, we asked respondents to indicate whether they supported, opposed, or were unsure about key parts of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.

Of course, many elements of the Trump administrations nuclear posture are continuations of longstanding US policy that have been preserved by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Our survey questions did not indicate the current US administrations policy on different parts of the Nuclear Posture Review. So the results convey the respondents natural preferences for the policies themselves, not for the current occupant of the White House. Such data should prove useful to politicians staking out campaign stances on nuclear weapons that would have broad public appeal.

Our findings reveal that Americans overall express fairly low support for the administrations nuclear weapons policies, though indecision also runs high among the public. Further, the table of group preferences indicateswith a few surprising exceptionsthat males, Republicans, and older Americans are the most likely groups to back President Trump on nuclear issues. Even so, support is relatively modest among Trumps base, and several elements of the Nuclear Posture Review do not receive majority or even plurality support from Republicans.

Figure 1. Public Opinion on the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review

Figure 2. Group Support Levels for 2018 Nuclear Posture Review

Deterrence and nuclear retaliation. The Nuclear Posture Review continues the policy of extending a nuclear umbrella to over thirty allies and partners with approximately 1,750 deployed US warheads. Around 150 of these weapons are B61 tactical nuclear gravity bombs deployed in Europe. These policies of extended deterrence continue, despite Trump questioning the logic of the nuclear umbrella on many occasions. Similarly, our results indicate a skeptical public.

Only 34 percent of Americans support the longstanding policy of providing the nuclear umbrella in principle, and that number drops to 27.9 percent for nuclear deployments in Europe. It is no wonder that some experts have speculated that countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea may soon consider building the bomb. Yet, even with Trumps rhetoric against these assurances, men and Republicans remain the most supportive of the nuclear umbrella and forward-deployed B61 nuclear bombs. Women, Democrats, and Independents respond less favorably. Additionally, Americans who came of age during the Cold War are more favorable toward these policies than their Millennial and Generation Z counterparts.

We also estimate that fewer than 20 percent of Americans support possible US first use of nuclear weapons. By contrast, disapproval stands at 63.5 percent. Somewhat unpredictably, we found that only 13.2 percent of Republicans approve of the US using nuclear weapons first, compared to 22.2 percent of Democrats and 22.7 percent of Independents. And despite being the age bracket most supportive of extended deterrence, respondents age 55 and older are least likely to back a first-use declaratory policy. The public is also broadly unsupportive of using nuclear weapons in response to cyberattacks. Greater Republican supportrepresenting a minority of Republicans nonethelessfor this policy than for nuclear first use more generally is slightly puzzling given its inconsistency.

Still, our counterintuitive findings regarding Republicans and Americans age 55 and older raise an interesting question: Why might groups that tend to support extended deterrence strongly oppose first use of nuclear weapons? We speculate that two factors may account for this puzzle, although further investigation is warranted to definitively answer the question. First, older voters are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats, so these results may be related. Research shows that Americans who were alive during the peaks of the USSoviet arms race are less likely to support nuclear use than younger generations. Second, it is possible that many individuals who have faith in the credibility and mechanics of deterrence simply find a first-strike declaratory policy unnecessary.

Regardless, a majority of every demographic group of Americanswhether by gender, political party, age, race, education, income, or region of residenceoppose a first-use doctrine. Public opinion may accordingly present opportunities for presidential candidates to favor a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.

Modernization, development, and testing. On the whole, the public doesnt support the Nuclear Posture Reviews continuation of Obama administration efforts to modernize the nuclear stockpile and complex. The Congressional Budget Office notes this 30-year plan will cost $1.2 trillion by 2046. This may amount to $1.7 trillion after adjusting for inflation, or up to 6 percent of defense spending. Public opposition stands at 47.8 percent, with 31.3 percent approving and 20.9 percent undecided. But there are clear divisions along partisan and age lines. A slim majority of Republicans endorse the modernization strategy while a stronger majority of Democrats object. Since just 17.6 percent of Americans ages 1834 approve of such spending on nuclear weapons, it remains to be seen whether the modernization plan remains politically viable in coming decades.

However, even if the public is lukewarm about nuclear spending in principle, it is unclear to what extent voters understand the modernization program. Its projects include wide-ranging warhead and missile life extension programs, command and control upgrades, and new production sites like the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The program also calls for the development of several new strategic systems such as the B-21 Raider strategic bomber, the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent intercontinental ballistic missile, and the Long-Range Stand-Off air-launched cruise missile.

We surveyed Americans about two specific efforts that have received considerable media coverage: the now-deployed W76-2 low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles and the proposed new submarine-launched nuclear cruise missile. If negative attitudes toward modernization were informed by components of the program, we would expect the public to oppose both efforts. Instead, a plurality of the public favors eachwith stark gender, age, and political party divisions. A majority of men, a plurality of older Americans, and nearly two-thirds of Republicans approve. Women, young people, and Democrats are far less enthusiastic. Regardless, greater support for these systems versus modernization in general suggests the public may be relatively persuadable about other efforts to strengthen the US deterrent.

Last, we asked participants about the Nuclear Posture Review statement that the United States will not seek ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A 2012 National Academy of Sciences study effectively addressed concerns about potential treaty verification and about the efficacy of the Stockpile Stewardship Program for maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable arsenal without nuclear explosive tests. And the administrations policy diverges from more than six decades of public opinion polling, including our own previous work showing 65 percent of Americans want ratification. Our findings were even stronger this time, indicating that only 10.1 percent of Americans agree with the Trump administrations policy of not seeking treaty ratification. On the other hand, 74.8 percent prefer US ratification and 15.1 percent remain undecided. Stunningly, a mere 11.4 percent of Republicans, 12.5 percent of Independents, and 7.5 percent of Democrats agree with President Trump on the issue. The door of public opinion appears to be wide open for presidential candidates to pledge their support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Iran and North Korea. Aside from the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, few foreign policy issues throughout Trumps term have commanded public attention like his nuclear diplomacy with Iran and North Korea. The presidents approaches toward these countries could hardly differ more. It is imperative for candidates to understand how the public views these divergent paths. Although there have been new developments in American relations with Iran and North Korea, the overall trajectory of US policy hasnt changed since we conducted our survey. The results therefore provide a useful snapshot of public views.

The Trump administration has overseen a dramatic worsening of USIran relations. Trump withdrew US participation from the Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in May 2018. He has since waged a campaign of maximum pressure consisting of harsh sanctions and military threats. These actions led to mutual escalations including the killing in January 2020 of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qasem Soleimani by a US MQ-9 Reaper drone and retaliatory ballistic missile strikes against US air bases in Iraq. Both sides have since deescalated, and polling indicates the US public has no interest in war with Iran. Unfortunately, diplomacy still appears exceptionally unlikely in the future due to continuing high tensions.

The survey asked about support or opposition for Trumps position of withdrawing from the deal and reimposing sanctions on Iran. Opinion is predictably divided, with 54.1 percent favoring the withdrawal and 45.9 percent dissenting. Unsurprisingly, partisanship appears to be the primary driver of individual support for the agreement. A strong majority of Republicans (88.6 percent) favor remaining outside the deal with just 11.4 percent in opposition. On the other side of the aisle, only 23.4 percent of Democrats approve of President Trumps Iran policy and 76.6 percent would prefer to see the United States return to the deal. Among Independents, 53.5 percent back the withdrawal and 46.5 percent do not. While many of the survey results point to surprising public consensus on nuclear issues, approaches to Iran remain divisive.

USNorth Korea tensions have also been concerningly high at several points during the Trump administration. North Korea accelerated its nuclear and ballistic missile testing, and its Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un and President Trump even famously exchanged nuclear threats, with the president issuing some via Twitter. However, Kim announced a unilateral moratorium on tests in April 2018, and the two subsequently held face-to-face nuclear negotiations in Singapore and Hanoi, Vietnam. But following the failure to quickly achieve a deal, at the beginning of 2020, Kim declared that North Korea was no longer bound by the testing moratorium. As of March 30, North Koreas Foreign Ministry stated that the country was no longer interested in dialogue with the United States. Denuclearization now seems as far away as ever.

We asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with the results Trump achieved at the Singapore Summit. This is an important matter because the administration has touted Singapore as an overwhelming success in North Koreas journey toward denuclearization. The public is somewhat evenly divided: 30.1 percent are satisfied, 33.1 percent are dissatisfied, and 36.8 percent are undecided. Predictably, support for Trumps diplomacy split along political party lines. Yet, average public attitudes toward ongoing diplomacy more closely approximate indecision than political polarization. Perhaps the public has come to the same conclusion that most policymakers seem to have reached. When dealing with North Korea, there are few ideal options, but none less so than war against a country with demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities.

Toward the election. Voters need to understand candidates nuclear policy positions before heading to the polls. But public preferences must also be part of the equation. While the vast majority of Americans are simply not nuclear policy or technology experts, nuclear issues nonetheless evoke strong emotions. Our study demonstrates that, while indecision is widespread, the public has several clear preferences on topics related to nuclear weapons. Politicians would be wise to consider their broad contours when formulating campaign platforms.

What are the US publics preferences on nuclear weapons? In the age of America First, the public appears increasingly skeptical of taking on risks even on behalf of Washingtons closest allies. It may be time for leaders to articulate why alliances and the nuclear umbrella are important, or to begin reassessing policies like forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons. The public also opposes the first use of nuclear weapons, even in response to a cyberattack. These findings suggest a need to revisit declaratory policy and the possibility of making a no-first-use pledge. Likewise, Americans emphatically support ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and slamming the door on US nuclear explosive tests. Overall, the public dislikes spending significant taxpayer dollars on nuclear weapons but appreciates the value of specific systems. And while nuclear diplomacy with Iran remains in bitter partisan gridlock, many Americans appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach to Trumps talks with North Korea.

Whether presidential candidates heed Americans attitudes is up to them and their advisors. However, our study suggests that the US public would be receptive to politicians staking clear positions, even if they involve bold changes to longstanding nuclear doctrine. And if politicians and political parties dislike these public attitudes, then they ought to be held accountable to justify their alternatives.

Data and results from the study are available from the authors upon request.

View post:
Poll: What the American public likes and hates about Trumps nuclear policies - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

The Global Soy Isoflavones Market provides a basic overview of the industry including definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain structure. The Soy Isoflavones market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, and key regions development status. The report provides key statistics on the market status of the Soy Isoflavones manufacturers and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the industry.

Complete report on Soy Isoflavones market spreads across 107 pages profiling companies and supported with tables and figures.

Our industry professionals are working reluctantly to understand, assemble and timely deliver assessment on impact of COVID-19 disaster on many corporations and their clients to help them in taking excellent business decisions. We acknowledge everyone who is doing their part in this financial and healthcare crisis.

Get Sample Copy of Soy Isoflavones market 2020-2025 at: https://www.insidemarketreports.com/sample-request/4/312628/Soy-Isoflavones

Key Companies Analysis: NOW Foods, InVite Health, ADM, DHC, GNC, Life Extension profiles overview.

This report includes the estimation of market size for value (million USD) and volume (K Units). Both top-down and bottom-up approaches have been used to estimate and validate the market size of Soy Isoflavones market, to estimate the size of various other dependent submarkets in the overall market. Key players in the market have been identified through secondary research, and their market shares have been determined through primary and secondary research. All percentage shares, splits, and breakdowns have been determined using secondary sources and verified primary sources.

Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analysed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins.

The Global Soy Isoflavones Market focuses on global major leading industry players providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Soy Isoflavones industry development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally the feasibility of new investment projects are assessed and overall research conclusions offered. With the tables and figures the report provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.

Major Points covered in this report are as below

The study objectives are:

Purchase the copy of this report at: https://www.insidemarketreports.com/buy-now/4/312628/Soy-Isoflavones/single

Purchase this Report now by availing up to 40% Discount and free consultation.Offer is valid for Apr 2020 only.

Why Inside Market Reports:

For all your Research needs, reach out to us at:

Email: [emailprotected]

Phone: +1-617-230-0741

View original post here:
Soy Isoflavones Market Analysis by 5 Key Players, Types, Applications and Growth Opportunities to 2025 - Cole of Duty

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

CRANFORD, N.J., April 27, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Citius Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Citius" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CTXR), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing critical care drug products, today announced that it submitted a pre-IND meeting request and supporting briefing documents to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ("CBER") of the FDA under the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) on April 24. The Company has requested the Division's feedback to support the most expeditious pathway into the clinic to evaluate a novel cell therapy in patients suffering from COVID-19-related ARDS.

The cells, called NoveCite Cells or NC-MSCs, are made by Novellus, Inc. ("Novellus"), a Cambridge-based biotechnology company, using its patented mRNA-based cell-reprogramming process. NC-MSCs are mesenchymal stem cells derived from a single donor's fibroblasts that have been dedifferentiated into an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) master cell bank, thereby avoiding the need to source additional donor cells. The iPSCs are then further differentiated into a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy. Citius and Novellus plan to develop NC-MSCs for the treatment of ARDS, and last month the companies signed an exclusive option agreement.

The Company plans a multi-center randomized placebo-controlled dose-finding study followed by an expansion phase to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of NC-MSCs in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19. The proposed trial, a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial, is titled "A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Dose-Finding Study Followed by a Dose Level Expansion to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of NoveCite MSCs in Subjects with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Due to SARS-CoV-2 Disease (COVID-19)," or "MARCO". The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NoveCite cells as a treatment for subjects with moderate-to-severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and to identify therapeutic doses.

"MSCs have an established track-record of clinical safety, and have shown promise in the treatment of inflammatory lung disease," said Matt Angel, PhD, co-founder and Chief Science Officer at Novellus, Inc. "Our research has shown that the NoveCite cells, being derived from mRNA-reprogrammed iPSCs, secrete higher levels of immunomodulatory proteins than donor-derived MSCs, and have unique manufacturing advantages."

"We believe we have the key elements in place from a clinical design and manufacturing point of view to evaluate this novel cell therapy approach to deal with the current pandemic," said Myron Holubiak, Chief Executive Officer of Citius. "ARDS is a very serious complication for many patients suffering from COVID-19, and is believed to account for about 80% of the deaths in ventilated patients. There is no proven or FDA-approved treatment for it, other than oxygen therapy, including use of mechanical ventilation, and fluid management. Literature from previous investigational studies with MSCs in the treatment of lung injuries support the idea that MSCs could prove effective in treating COVID-19-related ARDS. We look forward to our FDA discussions and are excited to be at the cusp of what could be a novel and effective therapy for ARDS."

About Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)ARDS is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs. ARDS is a rapidly progressive disease that occurs in critically ill patients most notably now in those diagnosed with COVID-19. ARDS affects approximately 200,000 patients per year in the U.S., exclusive of the current COVID-19 pandemic, and has a 30% to 50% mortality rate. ARDS is sometimes initially diagnosed as pneumonia or pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs from heart disease). Symptoms of ARDS include shortness of breath, rapid breathing and heart rate, chest pain (particularly while inhaling), and bluish skin coloration. Among those who survive ARDS, a decreased quality of life is relatively common.

About Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP)In response to the pandemic, the FDA has created an emergency program called the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) to accelerate the development of treatments for COVID-19. By redeploying staff, the FDA is responding to COVID-19-related requests and reviewing protocols within 24 hours of receipt. The FDA said CTAP "uses every available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as possible, while at the same time finding out whether they are helpful or harmful." In practice, that means developers of potential treatments for COVID-19 will benefit from an unusually faster track at the FDA to shorten wait times at multiple steps of the process.

About Citius Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Citius is a late-stage specialty pharmaceutical company dedicated to the development and commercialization of critical care products, with a focus on anti-infectives and cancer care. For more information, please visit http://www.citiuspharma.com.

About Novellus, Inc.Novellus is a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company developing engineered cellular medicines using its non-immunogenic mRNA, nucleic-acid delivery, gene editing, and cell reprogramming technologies. Novellus is privately held and is headquartered in Cambridge, MA. For more information, please visit http://www.novellus-inc.com.

Safe HarborThis press release may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such statements are made based on our expectations and beliefs concerning future events impacting Citius. You can identify these statements by the fact that they use words such as "will," "anticipate," "estimate," "expect," "should," and "may" and other words and terms of similar meaning or use of future dates. Forward-looking statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition, and stock price. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated are: the risk of successfully negotiating a license agreement with Novellus within the option period; our need for substantial additional funds; the ability to access the FDA's CTAP program for the MARCO trial; the estimated markets for our product candidates, including those for ARDS, and the acceptance thereof by any market; risks associated with conducting trials for our product candidates, including those expected to be required for any treatment for ARDS and our Phase III trial for Mino-Lok; risks relating to the results of research and development activities; risks associated with developing our product candidates, including any licensed from Novellus, including that preclinical results may not be predictive of clinical results and our ability to file an IND for such candidates; uncertainties relating to preclinical and clinical testing; the early stage of products under development; risks related to our growth strategy; our ability to obtain, perform under, and maintain financing and strategic agreements and relationships; our ability to identify, acquire, close, and integrate product candidates and companies successfully and on a timely basis; our ability to attract, integrate, and retain key personnel; government regulation; patent and intellectual property matters; competition; as well as other risks described in our SEC filings. We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations or any changes in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except as required by law.

Contact:Andrew ScottVice President, Corporate Development(O) 908-967-6677 x105 [emailprotected]

SOURCE Citius Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Home

See original here:
Citius Announces Pre-IND Submission to FDA Under the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program for a Novel Stem Cell Therapy for Acute Respiratory...

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

By Sarah Parsons 28-Apr-2020

Hair Care | Ingredients | Skin Care

The Swiss-led speciality chemicals manufacturer Clariant Active Ingredients has developed two new plant-based ingredients

Speciality chemicals giant Clariant has unveiled its latest beauty ingredients.

This week, the Swiss-led company launched two new plant-based ingredients for skin and hair.

Clariant Active Ingredients, Clariant's beauty business unit, released Rootness Energize, an extract of Luffa cylindrica, otherwise known as Egyptian cucumber, and can also be used as a natural cleaning sponge.

Developed for the skin, Claraint claims that sustainably-sourced Rootness Energize is rich in bryonolic acid, and can increase energy production in skin cells and stimulate ATP production.

"In turn, Rootness Energize visibly increases skin elasticity and reduces age-related lack of tonicity and firmness appealing factors for products such as firming creams, skin elasticity boosters and revitalising care products for well-aging skin care," explained the company.

Reported visible results include more than a 20% increase in firmness, tonicity and elasticity with 1% Rootness Energize.

For the hair, Clariant Active Ingredients has developed EquiScalp to target tightness, extreme dryness, itchiness and redness.

Based on stem cells from the Central Asian Malus domestica apple tree, according to the firm, the ingredient protects the scalp as it maintains the level of healthy bacteria.

Malus domestica is said to contain concentrated phloridzin, which can control inflammation as well as sebum overproduction.

Clariant Active Ingredients recommends EquiScalp for oily scalp treatments, sensitive scalp formulas and scalp itch erasers.

Alexandre Lapeyre, Global Head of Marketing, Clariant Active Ingredients, described EquiScalp and Rootness Energize as examples of using technology to develop sustainable ingredients.

"We apply science to nature to create potent actives effective at addressing very specific beauty needs, each one underpinned by plant resources preservation, traceability, no exploitation of cultural land and ecological cultivation," Lapeyre said.

"In doing so, we help cosmetic formulators support consumers requests for scientifically-proven and sustainably-sourced plant derived ingredients.

Like this story? For the latest in ingredients, formulation, packaging and regulation subscribe to SPC Magazine, for more information click here.

Read more:
Clariant taps natural sponges and apple trees for new beauty ingredients - Cosmetics Business

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith

Mathais Fleury, Givaudans global category manager of biotech actives, told CosmeticsDesign-Asia that leveraging on green biotechnology would allow companies to find solutions to consumers desire for products that are natural, sustainable and high-performing.

Green Biotech truly is a key pillar of the future. Consumers are looking for more naturality while protecting nature a difficult challenge, made possible by biotech along with a high level of innovation, said Fleury.

Most recently, the Swiss company collaborated with South Korean biotech company BIO-FD&C to tackle two frustrating beauty concerns by leveraging on green biotechnology.

It recently unveiled two actives, K-phyto [SC] Camellia and K-phyto [PP] GHK, which were developed to address dry scalp and oily skin respectively.

This exclusive partnership with Bio FD&C leverages the untapped power of plants through stem cell cultures and unique phytopeptides. It allows our experts to offer innovative natural and reliable solutions for hair and skin care issues such as dry scalp and oily skin, while protecting our planet, said Fleury.

K-phyto [SC] Camellia is an ingredient obtained from camellia phytoplacenta cells culture.

According to the company, the active can increase the scalp moisture content by 13.8%. This reinforces the epidermal cohesion of the scalp keratinocytes and reduces dry flakes and dandruff down by 33.6%.

It also was observed soothe the scalp by being able to reduce erythema down 6.6%.

According to Givaudan, having botanical claims with popular ingredients such as camellia, more commonly known as Tsubaki in the region, can drive hair care product launches by 70% in APAC.

The second ingredient, K-phyto [PP] GHK, is a molecule that combines botanicals and peptides to act on the mechanisms of sebum production.

Clinical studies have shown facial sebum production reduction by 35.5% in two weeks and 67.5% in one month.

Oily skin is a major claim requested by the market, specifically in APAC. Clinical results with the phytopeptide we've chosen to bring to market are outstanding and we definitely believe this could be a game changer, said Fluery.

The Swiss firm believes that the two actives showed a lot of promise for the global market.

Our partner was already doing a very good job in its local market, but we want to leverage our access to different places over the world to highlight its expertise and know-how. This collaboration is a real opportunity to bring innovative ingredients to consumers globally, and that's why we'll offer these products to our partners all over the world, said Fleury.

Additionally, these ingredients are aligned with the ideals of clean beauty, one of the most talked-about trends in the beauty market right now.

The two technologies that we've identified in Bio FD&C portfolio are a perfect answer to this need of clean beauty combined with performance, said Fluery.

Excerpt from:
'A key pillar of the future': Givaudan tips growth for ingredients developed with green biotech - CosmeticsDesign-Asia.com

Recommendation and review posted by Bethany Smith