Global Precision Medicine Software Market is Expected to Grow at CAGR 12.3% from 2019 to 2027 Owing to the Increase in the Number of People who are…

Some of the prominent players operating in the precision medicine software market include 2bPrecise, Syapse, Inc., IBM Corporation

PUNE, India, Jan. 27, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Precision medicine is a prototype in healthcare which provides the customization of healthcare with medical decisions, practices, treatments, and products for patients in person. It states about right therapeutic approach for the right patient at the right time. The use of precision medicine is to identify which treatment approach is effective for patients on the basis of genetic, environment, and lifestyle factors. Precision medicine software allows the healthcare professionals (HCPs) to provide personalized treatment plans to patients based on their genetic content. It gives a wide range of applications in both the clinical and diagnostic areas and it combines genetic and clinical data to cater targeted patient care, which is increasing the demand of precision medicine software market.

Absolute Market Insights Logo

Request a Sample@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_sample.php?id=349

The global precision medicine software market is experiencing lucrative growth owing to the increase in the number of patients suffering from chronic diseases such as cancer, heart diseases, and diabetes. For instance, as per the data presented by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in 2018, the cancer burden was 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million deaths across the world. One in five men and one in six women around the globe develop cancer during their lifetime, and one in eight men and one in 11 women die from the disease.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips Healthcare), a multinational electronics company focusing on healthcare, offers precision medicine platform, namely, IntelliSpace. It enables end-to-end oncology care or cancer management. The platform unifies and streamlines oncology care throughout the patient journey from molecular diagnostics to therapy recommendations. IntelliSpace, a precision medicine oncology solution integrates information over different clinical domains such as pathology, electronic health record (EHR) systems, radiology, and genomics. It consolidates all key patient and medical data in one location to represent a clear, comprehensible view of patient status in its disease and enable data driven clinical decision support, which in turn is propelling the precision medicine software market.

Enquiry Before Buying@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/enquiry_before_buying.php?id=349

Precision medicine with the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) will go to the next level with more accuracy and prediction of outcome for patients. Its major benefit for precision medicine is that it predicts outcomes as well as enables healthcare professionals to predict patient's probability of having diseases in the future, thus driving the demand of precision medicine software market. Oracle, an American multinational computer technology corporation offers precision medicine software that enables researchers, clinicians, and molecular pathologists to work together. The software addresses data aggregation, normalization and workflow issues, knowledge exchange which restricts timely creation of patient molecular profiles and it also enables spectrum testing from gene panels through whole genome sequencing, and integration with electronic health record systems for seamless clinical workflow.

Story continues

The detailed research study provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of the global precision medicine software market. The precision medicine software market has been analyzed from demand as well as supply side. The demand side analysis covers market revenue across regions and further across all the major countries. The supply side analysis covers the major market players and their regional and global presence and strategies. The geographical analysis done emphasizes on each of the major countries across North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa and Latin America.

Request for Customization@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_for_customization.php?id=349

Key Findings of the Report:

Global Precision Medicine Software Market

Get Full Information of this premium report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/reports/Precision-Medicine-Software-Market-2019-2027-349

About Us:

Absolute Markets Insights assists in providing accurate and latest trends related to consumer demand, consumer behavior, sales, and growth opportunities, for the better understanding of the market, thus helping in product designing, featuring, and demanding forecasts. Our experts provide you the end-products that can provide transparency, actionable data, cross-channel deployment program, performance, accurate testing capabilities and the ability to promote ongoing optimization.

From the in-depth analysis and segregation, we serve our clients to fulfill their immediate as well as ongoing research requirements. Minute analysis impact large decisions and thereby the source of business intelligence (BI) plays an important role, which keeps us upgraded with current and upcoming market scenarios.

Contact Us:

Company:Absolute Markets Insights Email id:sales@absolutemarketsinsights.comPhone:+91-740-024-2424 Contact Name:Shreyas Tanna The Work Lab, Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune, MH, 411016 Website:https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-precision-medicine-software-market-is-expected-to-grow-at-cagr-12-3-from-2019-to-2027-owing-to-the-increase-in-the-number-of-people-who-are-suffering-from-chronic-diseases-says-absolute-markets-insights-300993554.html

SOURCE Absolute Markets Insights

Read more:
Global Precision Medicine Software Market is Expected to Grow at CAGR 12.3% from 2019 to 2027 Owing to the Increase in the Number of People who are...

Updated Alta Trial Results Support SB-525 Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A – Hemophilia News Today

Updated results from the Alta trial show that a single infusion with the highest dose of SB-525, an investigational gene therapy, yields dose-dependent and durable increases in clotting factor VIII (FVIII). The trial, in adults with severe hemophilia A , found no bleeding episodes up to 24 weeks following the infusion.

That highest dose of SB-525 31013 vector genomes, vg/kilogram, kg led patients to reach normal FVIII activity. Participants no longer needed replacement therapy following a short preventive course post-SB-525-administration.

With these promising results, Pfizer has initiated a lead-in study (NCT03587116) to support SB-525 advancement to a Phase 3 registrational clinical trial. The six-month study will evaluate the current efficacy and safety of preventive replacement therapy in the usual care setting. It is currently recruiting participants worldwide.

The Alta trials most recent findings will be shared at the upcoming 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), to be held Dec. 7-10 in Orlando, Fla.

Data will be featured in a poster titled Updated Follow-up of the Alta Study, a Phase 1/2, Open Label, Adaptive, Dose-Ranging Study to Assess the Safety and Tolerability of SB-525 Gene Therapy in Adult Patients with Severe Hemophilia A.

SB-525 is a gene therapy candidate to treat hemophilia A thats being developed by Sangamo Therapeutics in collaboration with Pfizer. It consists of a DNA sequence coding for the production of a working FVIII the clotting factor missing in hemophilia A. That FVIII is carried and delivered to liver cells, where clotting factors are produced, using a harmless adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector.

The goal of the therapy is for patients to regain the ability to continuously produce the coagulation factor, and reduce or eliminate the need for FVIII replacement therapy.

The therapys safety and effectiveness for the treatment of adults with severe hemophilia A are currently being evaluated in the open-label Phase 1/2 Alta trial (NCT03061201).

The study is testing a single infusion into the vein (intravenous) of one of four ascending doses of SB-525: 91011 vg/kg; 21012 vg/kg; 11013 vg/kg; and 31013 vg/kg. Two people have been dosed per group, except for the highest dose group, which was expanded to five patients.

Updated trial data now released show the results for the two patients dosed in the third group those given 11013 vg/kg and the five individuals receiving the highest dose of 31013 vg/kg.

In the third group, a single infusion of SB-525 resulted in stable and clinically relevant increases in FVIII activity.

Stronger results were seen with SB-525s highest dose. Of the five patients treated, data were available for four. For these participants, a single infusion with the highest dose of SB-525 led to normal FVIII levels with no bleeding events reported up to 24 weeks post-administration. These individuals no longer needed replacement therapy after the initial prophylactic period of up to about three weeks after SB-525 dosing.

In addition, preliminary tests from the high-dose group indicate similar activity of SB-525-derived FVIII and the clotting factor provided by Xyntha, Pfizers recombinant therapy for hemophilia A.

As to safety, one patient had treatment-related serious adverse events, namely low blood pressure and fever, occurring about six hours after infusion. These effects resolved with treatment within 24 hours, with no loss of FVIII expression.

Some patients also showed elevated blood levels of liver enzymes(ALT, alanine aminotransferase). However, these were reported to be mild and temporary increases, which were treated in a timely manner with corticosteroids.

Dosing in the fourth group is ongoing. At the upcoming meeting, Sangamo will disclose additional analyses of the trial data, including a follow-up of approximately 4 to 11 months after treatment.

The rapid kinetics of Factor VIII expression, durability of response, and the relatively low intra-cohort variability in the context of a complete cessation of bleeding events and elimination of exogenous Factor VIII usage continues to suggest SB-525 is a differentiated hemophilia A gene therapy, Bettina Cockroft, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Sangamo said in a press release.

We are pleased with the progress of the program toward a registrational Phase 3 study led by Pfizer, who announced it has enrolled its first patient in the 6-month Phase 3 lead-in study. We have recently completed the manufacturing technology transfer to Pfizer and initiated the transfer of the IND [investigational new drug].

Ana is a molecular biologist enthusiastic about innovation and communication. In her role as a science writer she wishes to bring the advances in medical science and technology closer to the public, particularly to those most in need of them. Ana holds a PhD in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where she focused her research on molecular biology, epigenetics and infectious diseases.

Total Posts: 121

Margarida graduated with a BS in Health Sciences from the University of Lisbon and a MSc in Biotechnology from Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST-UL). She worked as a molecular biologist research associate at a Cambridge UK-based biotech company that discovers and develops therapeutic, fully human monoclonal antibodies.

See original here:
Updated Alta Trial Results Support SB-525 Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A - Hemophilia News Today

On Human Gene Editing: International Summit Statement

Date: Dec. 3, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fundamental research into the ways by which bacteria defend themselves against viruses has recently led to the development of powerful new techniques that make it possible to perform gene editing that is, precisely altering genetic sequences in living cells, including those of humans, at much higher accuracy and efficiency than ever before possible. These techniques are already in broad use in biomedical research. They may also enable wide-ranging clinical applications in medicine. At the same time, the prospect of human genome editing raises many important scientific, ethical, and societal questions.

After three days of thoughtful discussion of these issues, the members of the Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing have reached the following conclusions:

1. Basic and Preclinical Research. Intensive basic and preclinical research is clearly needed and should proceed, subject to appropriate legal and ethical rules and oversight, on (i) technologies for editing genetic sequences in human cells, (ii) the potential benefits and risks of proposed clinical uses, and (iii) understanding the biology of human embryos and germline cells. If, in the process of research, early human embryos or germline cells undergo gene editing, the modified cells should not be used to establish a pregnancy.

2. Clinical Use: Somatic. Many promising and valuable clinical applications of gene editing are directed at altering genetic sequences only in somatic cells that is, cells whose genomes are not transmitted to the next generation. Examples that have been proposed include editing genes for sickle-cell anemia in blood cells or for improving the ability of immune cells to target cancer. There is a need to understand the risks, such as inaccurate editing, and the potential benefits of each proposed genetic modification. Because proposed clinical uses are intended to affect only the individual who receives them, they can be appropriately and rigorously evaluated within existing and evolving regulatory frameworks for gene therapy, and regulators can weigh risks and potential benefits in approving clinical trials and therapies.

3. Clinical Use: Germline. Gene editing might also be used, in principle, to make genetic alterations in gametes or embryos, which will be carried by all of the cells of a resulting child and will be passed on to subsequent generations as part of the human gene pool. Examples that have been proposed range from avoidance of severe inherited diseases to enhancement of human capabilities. Such modifications of human genomes might include the introduction of naturally occurring variants or totally novel genetic changes thought to be beneficial.

Germline editing poses many important issues, including: (i) the risks of inaccurate editing (such as off-target mutations) and incomplete editing of the cells of early-stage embryos (mosaicism); (ii) the difficulty of predicting harmful effects that genetic changes may have under the wide range of circumstances experienced by the human population, including interactions with other genetic variants and with the environment; (iii) the obligation to consider implications for both the individual and the future generations who will carry the genetic alterations; (iv) the fact that, once introduced into the human population, genetic alterations would be difficult to remove and would not remain within any single community or country; (v) the possibility that permanent genetic enhancements to subsets of the population could exacerbate social inequities or be used coercively; and (vi) the moral and ethical considerations in purposefully altering human evolution using this technology.

It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application. Moreover, any clinical use should proceed only under appropriate regulatory oversight. At present, these criteria have not been met for any proposed clinical use: the safety issues have not yet been adequately explored; the cases of most compelling benefit are limited; and many nations have legislative or regulatory bans on germline modification. However, as scientific knowledge advances and societal views evolve, the clinical use of germline editing should be revisited on a regular basis.

4. Need for an Ongoing Forum. While each nation ultimately has the authority to regulate activities under its jurisdiction, the human genome is shared among all nations. The international community should strive to establish norms concerning acceptable uses of human germline editing and to harmonize regulations, in order to discourage unacceptable activities while advancing human health and welfare.

We therefore call upon the national academies that co-hosted the summit the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Academy of Medicine; the Royal Society; and the Chinese Academy of Sciences to take the lead in creating an ongoing international forum to discuss potential clinical uses of gene editing; help inform decisions by national policymakers and others; formulate recommendations and guidelines; and promote coordination among nations.

The forum should be inclusive among nations and engage a wide range of perspectives and expertise including from biomedical scientists, social scientists, ethicists, health care providers, patients and their families, people with disabilities, policymakers, regulators, research funders, faith leaders, public interest advocates, industry representatives, and members of the general public.* Clinical use includes both clinical research and therapy.

Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing

David Baltimore(chair)President Emeritus and Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of BiologyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena

Franoise Baylis Professor and Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy Dalhousie UniversityNova Scotia

Paul BergRobert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor Emeritus, and Director Emeritus, Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanford, Calif.

George Q. DaleySamuel E. Lux IV Chair in Hematology/Oncology, andDirector, Stem Cell Transplantation ProgramBoston Children's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBoston

Jennifer A. DoudnaInvestigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; andLi Ka Shing Chancellor's Chair in Biomedical and Health Sciences, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, and Professor of ChemistryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Eric S. LanderFounding DirectorBroad Institute of Harvard and MITCambridge, Mass.

Robin Lovell-BadgeGroup Leader and HeadDivision of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental GeneticsThe Francis Crick InstituteLondon

Pilar OssorioProfessor of Law and BioethicsUniversity of Wisconsin; andEthics Scholar-in-ResidenceMorgridge Institute for Research Madison

Duanqing PeiProfessor of Stem Cell Biology, and Director General, Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and HealthChinese Academy of SciencesGuangzhou

Adrian ThrasherProfessor of Paediatric Immunology and Wellcome Trust Principal FellowUniversity College London Institute of Child HealthLondon

Ernst-Ludwig WinnackerDirector Emeritus, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Gene Center, andProfessor Emeritus Ludwig-Maximilians University of MunichMunich

Qi ZhouDeputy Director, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijing

Originally posted here:
On Human Gene Editing: International Summit Statement

How do you turn world-leading British science into medicines? – Telegraph.co.uk

Ministers will have their work cut out as the UK has too often failed to translate medical breakthroughs into blockbusters made in Britain. An example is monoclonal antibodies, a common component of biological drugs discovered at Cambridge University in the Seventies.

It led to a Nobel Prize for the scientists involved and has since exploded into a field worth around 70bn globally today. Yet just 3,000 of the 100,000 people working in this area are in Britain. Over the past eight years the UKs historic status as a major net exporter of medicines has been gradually dwindling.

Since 2009, every year bar one has seen a lowering of net exports of pharmaceutical products and medical devices, with the UK even becoming a net importer for the first time on record in 2014, according to UN trade data. So what barriers will industry and the Government have to overcome to make the UK a medicines manufacturing powerhouse once again?

Britains drug makers outlined a blueprint this week for doing just that, in a report entitled Manufacturing Vision for UK Pharma. In it they called on government to invest up to 140m to build a further threedrugmanufacturing centres of excellence, like the one in Stevenage. They also urged pharmaceutical firms to learn from their counterparts in the automotive and aerospace industries on how to partner with government and pool research and development efforts.

View original post here:
How do you turn world-leading British science into medicines? - Telegraph.co.uk

Gene-Editing Success Brings Pig-to-Human Transplants Closer to Reality – Scientific American

The idea of solving the human organ shortage with pigs has tantalized surgeons for decades. More than 117,000 Americans are currently on a transplant wait-list in the U.S., according to federal figures, and 22 people die every day awaiting a match.

Pig organs are similar in size and function to our own, and people are less squeamish about harvesting body parts from an animal raised for meat than they would be about a primates. Yet one major hurdle that has continued to vex any such cross-species transplants, or xenotransplants, has been the threat of transmitting viruses that can infect people and pigs alike: The latters genome includes 25 so-called retroviruses that apparently do nothing to porkers but might transmit diseases to peopleespecially immune-compromised transplant patients.

That concern, particularly amid the HIV epidemic, has helped stall such research for the past couple decades (with the exception of pig heart valves that are used in humansdead tissue that doesnt pose the same transmission risks). Recent gene editing advances, however, are rejuvenating interest in pig-to-human transplants.

Today scientists in Massachusetts announced that by using the CRISPRCas9 gene-editing system they were able to inactivate all 25 viruses in the pig genome, yielding seemingly healthy piglets and moving research one step closer to a future of xenotransplantation. Our animal is probably the most [genetically] modified animal on the Earth, says Luhan Yang, co-founder and chief science officer of eGenesis, the Cambridge, Mass.based start-up that led the research. We are pushing the envelope of technology day by day. I think that such innovation is required to tackle as challenging a problem as xenotransplantation.

At four months oldroughly the age the pig would need to be for its organs to be large enough to use in peoplethe animals seem perfectly normal, says George Church, a Harvard Medical School geneticist who co-founded eGenesis and is a co-author of the paper. Its a very, very nice piece of work, says Joseph Tector, a transplant surgeon and professor of surgery at the University of Alabama School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research, published in todays Science.

Church says he was surprised the piglets turned out to be so healthy. CRISPR can be toxic to cells because it causes breaks in DNA strands, which can lead cells to self-destruct. Whats more, retroviruses replicate by inserting a copy of their genome into their hosts so those viruses may have been part of the pig genome for the roughly 25 million years that pig species have existed. As a result, Church had wondered if they play an essential role in the pigs survival and whether the animals could develop properly without them.

Another pleasant surprise, Church adds, is that the piglets did not get reinfected with the viruses in the womb. I generally hesitate to say weve solved a two-decade-old problem, but in this case, we have, he notes. So far the team has only made female pigs, raised in a lab. They are now repeating the process to engineer male pigs, which Church says he doesnt expect to be any more complicated.

The next stage of the research, Church and Yang say, will be to essentially humanize the pigsmodifying them enough that their organs can function in the human body. This involves immunological changes as well as making the tissues compatible and fixing blood-clotting issues. They have already begun such work and are writing it up for submission to a peer-reviewed journal, Church adds.

Other teams, including Tectors at Alabama, are working along a similar path, hoping to get the pig parts ready to be tested in the first people within the next two to three years. Researchers expect to start by transplanting kidneys, where the human waiting list is the longest, followed by other organs like the heart and liver; pancreatic islet cells to combat type 1 diabetes; skin; and corneas.

Studying the eGenesis-edited pigs will also give researchers the opportunity to see whether editing a significant number of genes with CRISPR causes any long-term problems in mammals. Pigs are the biggest animals that have undergone CRISPR, he says, and he wants to see what happens when they are allowed to grow to a ripe old age of over 20. There has been some speculation that CRISPR might lead to cancers, but that has not been adequately tested, he says.

Whether or not pig retroviruses would truly pose a risk of causing disease in humans remains controversial. In their new work the Yang team performed experiments confirming that pig retroviruses can infect human cellsjust as another retrovirus, HIV, does with people. In a lab dish the pig viruses infected human cells, and those infected cells were able to infect other human cells that had not been directly exposed to pig cells.

But other researchers say the risk of infecting humans with pig retroviruses is not that clear and that, on balance, unnecessarily editing the pig genes would add to the complexity and cost of a xenotransplant. Tector says his own team stopped worrying about the viruses years ago, because it is not clear whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will require the viruses to be removed prior to transplantation. And eGenesiss lab tests did not prove the viruses would be a risk to patients, says Muhammad Mansoor Mohiuddin, a professor of surgery and director of Xenoheart Transplantation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, who was not part of the new study. The viruses ability to infect cell lines is not enough to be of concern, he says. I fail to understand the significance of this [infectivity] unless it is shown that it can cause some kind of disease.

Still, Tector says, if the FDA does require the viruses to be removed, then the eGenesis teams approach will be useful. If you need to knock [these viruses] out, this is the way to do it, no question, he says.

The rest is here:
Gene-Editing Success Brings Pig-to-Human Transplants Closer to Reality - Scientific American

New version of DNA editing system corrects underlying defects in RNA-based diseases – Phys.Org

Muscle cells from a patient with myotonic dystrophy type I, untreated (left) and treated with the RNA-targeting Cas9 system (right). The MBNL1 protein is in green, repetitive RNA in red and the cell's nucleus in blue. MBNL1 is an important RNA-binding protein and its normal function is disrupted when it binds repetitive RNA. In the treated cells on the right, MBNL1 is released from the repetitive RNA. Credit: UC San Diego Health

Until recently, the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique could only be used to manipulate DNA. In a 2016 study, University of California San Diego School of Medicine researchers repurposed the technique to track RNA in live cells in a method called RNA-targeting Cas9 (RCas9). In a new study, published August 10 in Cell, the team takes RCas9 a step further: they use the technique to correct molecular mistakes that lead to microsatellite repeat expansion diseases, which include myotonic dystrophy types 1 and 2, the most common form of hereditary ALS, and Huntington's disease.

"This is exciting because we're not only targeting the root cause of diseases for which there are no current therapies to delay progression, but we've re-engineered the CRISPR-Cas9 system in a way that's feasible to deliver it to specific tissues via a viral vector," said senior author Gene Yeo, PhD, professor of cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

While DNA is like the architect's blueprint for a cell, RNA is the engineer's interpretation of the blueprint. In the central dogma of life, genes encoded in DNA in the nucleus are transcribed into RNA and RNAs carry the message out into the cytoplasm, where they are translated to make proteins.

Microsatellite repeat expansion diseases arise because there are errant repeats in RNA sequences that are toxic to the cell, in part because they prevent production of crucial proteins. These repetitive RNAs accumulate in the nucleus or cytoplasm of cells, forming dense knots, called foci.

In this proof-of-concept study, Yeo's team used RCas9 to eliminate the problem-causing RNAs associated with microsatellite repeat expansion diseases in patient-derived cells and cellular models of the diseases in the laboratory.

Normally, CRISPR-Cas9 works like this: researchers design a "guide" RNA to match the sequence of a specific target gene. The RNA directs the Cas9 enzyme to the desired spot in the genome, where it cuts DNA. The cell repairs the DNA break imprecisely, thus inactivating the gene, or researchers replace the section adjacent to the cut with a corrected version of the gene. RCas9 works similarly but the guide RNA directs Cas9 to an RNA molecule instead of DNA.

The researchers tested the new RCas9 system on microsatellite repeat expansion disease RNAs in the laboratory. RCas9 eliminated 95 percent or more of the RNA foci linked to myotonic dystrophy type 1 and type 2, one type of ALS and Huntington's disease. The approach also eliminated 95 percent of the aberrant repeat RNAs in myotonic dystrophy patient cells cultured in the laboratory.

Another measure of success centered on MBNL1, a protein that normally binds RNA, but is sequestered away from hundreds of its natural RNA targets by the RNA foci in myotonic dystrophy type 1. When the researchers applied RCas9, they reversed 93 percent of these dysfunctional RNA targets in patient muscle cells, and the cells ultimately resembled healthy control cells.

While this study provides the initial evidence that the approach works in the laboratory, there is a long way to go before RCas9 could be tested in patients, Yeo explained.

One bottleneck is efficient delivery of RCas9 to patient cells. Non-infectious adeno-associated viruses are commonly used in gene therapy, but they are too small to hold Cas9 to target DNA. Yeo's team made a smaller version of Cas9 by deleting regions of the protein that were necessary for DNA cleavage, but dispensable for binding RNA.

"The main thing we don't know yet is whether or not the viral vectors that deliver RCas9 to cells would illicit an immune response," he said. "Before this could be tested in humans, we would need to test it in animal models, determine potential toxicities and evaluate long-term exposure."

To do this, Yeo and colleagues launched a spin-out company called Locana to handle the preclinical steps required for moving RCas9 from the lab to the clinic for RNA-based diseases, such as those that arise from microsatellite repeat expansions.

"We are really excited about this work because we not only defined a new potential therapeutic mechanism for CRISPR-Cas9, we demonstrated how it could be used to treat an entire class of conditions for which there are no successful treatment options," said David Nelles, PhD, co-first author of the study with Ranjan Batra, PhD, both postdoctoral researchers in Yeo's lab.

"There are more than 20 genetic diseases caused by microsatellite expansions in different places in the genome," Batra said. "Our ability to program the RCas9 system to target different repeats, combined with low risk of off-target effects, is its major strength."

Explore further: For first time, scientists use CRISPR-Cas9 to target RNA in live cells

More information: Cell (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.010

See more here:
New version of DNA editing system corrects underlying defects in RNA-based diseases - Phys.Org

New Gene Editing Study Raises Possibilities, Questions – Chicago Tonight | WTTW

An international team of scientists published a new study last week documenting edits theyd made to viable human embryos carrying a genetic mutation, one associated with a life-threatening heart condition. It is the first study of its kind to take place in the United States.

The researchers were able to remove a problematic mutation in the MYBPC3 gene with a higher success rate than in similar studies. After adjusting their method, 72 percent of the embryos were free of the mutation. The scientists believe they may be able to address other monogenetic diseases using the same technique, CRISPR-Cas9.

But the notion of altering human DNA to eradicate inherited diseases is generating concern, too. These genetic changes would permanently affect the DNA passed through a family line, for one. Other critics raise the possibility of altering embryos to create desired characteristics (though it would be much harder for scientists to target genes associated with humor, creativity or physical traits).

Cardiologist and geneticist Dr. Elizabeth McNally is the director of the Center for Genetic Medicine at Northwestern University. She joins Phil Ponce in discussion.

Related stories:

UIC Launches Stem Cell, Regenerative Medicine Center

June 12: Researchers at UIC will focus on understanding tissue regeneration and spearheading future developments in stem cell biology as a means to repair diseased organs and tissues.

The Science and Ethics of Editing Human Embryos

Feb. 28: Earlier this month, an influential group backs editing the genes in human embryos to eliminate disease. Chicago Tonight guests discuss human gene editing and some of the ethical issues it raises.

Baby with 3 Parents: Genetic Technique Offers Hope, Controversy

Sept. 29, 2016: A baby has been born with the DNA of three parents. We hear about the promise the technique offers for avoiding some birth defects, and the ethical concerns it raises.

Follow this link:
New Gene Editing Study Raises Possibilities, Questions - Chicago Tonight | WTTW

Prepping for FDA filing, Loxo rolls up data on its site-agnostic cancer med larotrectinib – FierceBiotech

CHICAGOWhen Merck & Co.s Keytruda won approval last week to treat tumors based on a common biomarkerrather than the location in the body where the tumor originated, talk was thatthe true start of precision medicine had arrived.

The $1.3 billion market cap biotech Loxo Oncology is hoping to be a part of that journey. At the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting Saturday, Loxo posted the latest data for its experimental larotrectinib (LOXO-101), amedicationit hopes will treat an array of cancers innearly a dozen sites across the body.

The data showed that 50 larotrectinib patients withtumors harboring tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusions had a 76% objective response rate (ORR) across tumor types. The drug met its primary endpoint; key secondary endpoints, including progression-free survival and duration of response, had not yet been reached.

The data drewfrom three trials, a phase 1 study in adults, a phase 2 study called Navigate, and a phase 1/2 pediatric trial called Scout.The results were based on the intention-to-treat principle, using the first 55 TRK fusion patients enrolled to the three trials, regardless of their prior therapy or tumor-tissue diagnostic method.

In all, 44 adults and 12 younger patients were enrolled, with tumors identified by 14 different lab tests. The TRK fusion patients carried a host of primary diagnoses, including appendiceal cancer, breast cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, infantile fibrosarcoma, lung cancer and more.

The confirmed overall response rate was 76% in 50 patients, with these rates generally consistent across tumor types, TRK gene fusions, and various diagnostic tests, Loxo said in a statement.

In the pediatric setting, larotrectinib also showed promising activity in the presurgical management of patients with infantile fibrosarcoma, with three patients treated to best response.

The drug, developed in partnership with Array Biopharma,has a breakthrough designation from the FDA to treat children and adults with metastatic or inoperable solid tumors that test positive for the TRK biomarker, and who've either failed on previous treatments or have no acceptable alternatives.

In the safety department, Loxo says that seven(13%) of the study patients had their doses reduced because of side effects, but no patients stopped taking larotrectinib after suffering side effects.

All patients whose doses were lowered experienced tumor regression, which then continued on the reduced dose. Nearly all of the dose reductions were due to infrequent neurocognitive adverse events, likely a result of on-target TRK inhibition in the [central nervous system], Loxo explained.

Loxo added that sixpatients responded to larotrectinib but later progressed, a pattern referred to as acquired resistance.

The company is gathering other evidence forlarotrectinib'sapplication for FDA approval, slated for late this year or early next. Acentral, independent radiology review will be performed in the second half of 2017, and Loxo plans to announce that data before the end of the year. A separate assessment by independent radiologists, not yet conducted, will also be required to support its regulatory filing, the companynotes.

TRK is a neuron-stimulating factor that is active in fetal development but has its expression switched off later in life. In some cases, the TRK gene can fuse with other genes and reactivate, causing various forms of cancer.

Loxo's development program for the drug is agnostic to any particular tumor type, focusing instead on recruiting patients whose cancer cells express the TRK gene. If approved, the drug could be prescribed across multiple solid tumor types on the strength of genetic testing for neurotrophic TRK (NTRK) fusion proteins, which it will do with the help of Roche.

RELATED: Merck's Keytruda wins first FDA nod to treat genetically ID'd tumors anywhere in the body

NTRK mutations crop up in a small percentage of patients with any particular cancer, but they add up. The company estimated last year that between 1,500 and 5,000 late-stage cancer patients could be eligible for treatmentin the U.S. each year, with a similar number in Europe.

[T]he larotrectinib TRK fusion story fulfills the promise of precision medicine, where tumor genetics rather than tumor site of origin define the treatment approach," said David Hyman, lead investigator in the Navigate trial and chief of the early drug development service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center."It is now incumbent upon the clinical oncology and pathology communities to examine our testing paradigms, so that TRK fusions and other actionable biomarkers become part of the standard patient workup."

The company also has two follow-up candidatesLOXO-292 and LOXO-195which target other cancer-causing genes resulting from fusions with kinase genes.

Originally posted here:
Prepping for FDA filing, Loxo rolls up data on its site-agnostic cancer med larotrectinib - FierceBiotech

Researchers make breakthrough discovery in fight against bowel cancer – Medical Xpress

May 31, 2017 Professor Mark Lawler, Queen's University Belfast. Credit: Queen's University Belfast

New research led by Queen's University Belfast has discovered how a genomic approach to understanding bowel (colorectal) cancer could improve the prognosis and quality of life for patients.

For clinicians, treating patients with bowel cancer can be particularly challenging. Professor Mark Lawler, Chair in Translational Genomics, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology at Queen's and joint Senior Author on the study explains: "Currently patients with colorectal cancer are offered chemotherapy treatment. While this treatment may be successful for some patients, for others it will have no effect on fighting the cancer, though the patients may suffer debilitating side effects such as nerve damage that can result in a loss of sensation or movement in a part of the body. A 'one size fits all' approach isn't a viable option if we are to effectively tackle this disease."

Researchers at Queen's, in collaboration with the University of Oxford and the University of Leeds have made a significant advance in the treatment of bowel cancer. The study, which has been published in the high impact journal Nature Communications, has shown how defining precise gene signatures within bowel cancer cells can allow us to develop novel prognostic and predictive markers for bowel cancer and help to drive personalised medicine approaches.

Dr Philip Dunne, Senior Research Fellow at Queen's said: "Through analysing the molecular and genetic data generated from patient tissue samples, we have discovered that there are different subtypes of bowel cancer. This research unequivocally identifies robust gene signatures that can be used to inform patient management. It will allow us to identify particular gene signatures that indicate sensitivity or resistance to specific therapies. Thus, we can tailor treatment to the individual patient, maximising its effectiveness while minimising potential side effects."

Dr Catherine Pickworth, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, a funder of the study, added: "Personalised medicine aims to give the best treatment to each patient, sparing people unnecessary therapy if it won't help.

"This study is a step forward in achieving this, giving us genetic signatures to look out for in bowel cancer patients. The next steps will be to find out which treatment works best for each genetic signatures so that cancer treatments can be tailored to each patient, so they have the best chance of beating cancer."

Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the UK, with 41,200 people newly diagnosed each year. A number of treatment options are available but mortality rates remain high, with bowel cancer the second most common cause of cancer death in the UK.

This research was performed as part of Stratified Medicine in Colorectal Cancer (S:CORT), an MRC-Cancer Research UK funded stratified medicine consortium, bringing together the best of UK science and clinical care in bowel cancer to develop personalised medicine treatment approaches in this common malignancy.

S:CORT involves key partnerships with patients and patient advocacy groups. Ed Goodall, a survivor of bowel cancer and a member of S:CORT explains: "In the past, a tumour was a tumour. Patients are offered chemotherapy and this may not be effective or necessary depending on the patient yet they will still endure all the horrors this treatment can cause including nausea and hair loss.

"If the oncologist knows more about the subtype of bowel cancer, they will know whether the treatment will be necessary or effective. From a patient point of view, discovering the subtypes of this cancer is really ground breaking work because it will have massive implications for patient care and treatment."

Professor Tim Maughan, Professor of Clinical Oncology at the University of Oxford and Principal Lead of the S:CORT Consortium said: "This research emphasises how a collaborative approach can give significant insight into bowel cancer disease biology, but also to begin to translate this knowledge into clinically-relevant applications. As part of the work of the S:CORT consortium, we will now focus on making sure that the research is put into practice so that it can become part of the standard of care for patients."

Deborah Alsina MBE, Chief Executive of Bowel Cancer UK, the UK's leading bowel cancer research charity and a partner in S:CORT said: "This important study highlights how increasing our understanding of what makes normal cells go wrong is key to developing new approaches that can improve outcomes for patients. With nearly 16,000 people dying from bowel cancer each year, it is essential that we increase our understanding of what drives the disease and then improve and extend the range of treatment options available. The results of this study take us a step closer to achieving this."

Explore further: Researcher finds key to drug resistant bowel cancer

More information: Nature Communications (2017). DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS15657

Blocking a molecule could bypass bowel cancer's defence against the drug cetuximab, according to new research presented at the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Cancer Conference in Liverpool.

A new test could help patients with advanced bowel cancer get the best treatment for their disease, according to a Cancer Research UK clinical trial published today in JAMA Oncology.

A new study that combines genetic information on bowel cancer with NHS patient outcome data has found a link between family history of the disease and a better chance of survival, published in the British Journal of Cancer.

Researchers at Queen's University have made a significant breakthrough that may benefit patients with bowel cancer.

Manchester researchers have provided early evidence to suggest that a blood test could be used to identify bowel cancer patients that may benefit from more intensive chemotherapy.

Up to a quarter of patients with bowel cancer who have a family history of the disease could have the causes of their cancer identified through gene testing, a new study reports.

New research led by Queen's University Belfast has discovered how a genomic approach to understanding bowel (colorectal) cancer could improve the prognosis and quality of life for patients.

Batman and Robin. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Fiction is full of dynamic duos that work together to accomplish amazing feats. When one partner is out of commission, the other steps in to make sure the job gets done. But ...

Research in the field of kidney cancer, also called renal cancer, is vital, because many patients with this disease still cannot be cured today. Researchers from the University of Zurich have now identified some of the gene ...

A University of Otago, Christchurch, discovery of missing DNA in women who develop breast cancer at a young age could hold the key to helping them beat the disease.

Ashkenazi Jewish women are known to have a predisposition to the inherited breast cancers BRCA1 and BRCA2, but currently genetic testing in this group is limited to women affected by breast and ovarian cancers and those who ...

In a new study, scientists at The University of Texas at Dallas have found that some types of cancers have more of a sweet tooth than others.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Link:
Researchers make breakthrough discovery in fight against bowel cancer - Medical Xpress

Thoughts on Gene Editing From the Science Community – The Atlantic

Our next group of correspondents stood out due to their vocations: In one way or another, their chosen careers brought them into the subculture of scientific thinking. These readers tended to be more favorably disposed to gene editing than others.

Take this reader, a semi-retired school psychologist and a lover of science whose daughter plans to become a clinical geneticist:

I agree with the premise of your article [that prophylactic gene editing could soon be mandatory] and am not frightened by it at all. Scientific advances have not, cannot, and should not be stopped. Since the first civilizations science has been dragging religion and society reluctantly along into a more technologically advanced future. What we gain from this seems always to be more than what we have lost.

A medical student who hopes one day to do gene editing was likewise eager for a future where it is used to cure diseaseand even to direct the way that humans evolve:

Modern medicine, in its current form, is basically the answer to the question: What is the best way to treat diseases whose cures cannot and will not ever be found? Treating someone with cystic fibrosis, for instance, is an admirable thing to do, but its also an exercise in futility: That patient will undoubtedly die prematurely. Anything besides excising the mutant gene and replacing it with a normal copy is treading water and delaying the inevitable (though, obviously, the patients must still be treated).

In modern societies, infectious diseases and trauma are more or less under control (relative to developing countries and bygone eras). Curing genetic diseases (cancer loosely being included in this category) are currently a dead end. So, logically, addressing this head-on is the only next step.

I view gene therapy and editing as the way of the future, not only of medicine but also of humanity in general. It will start as the means for cures of currently incurable diseases. Eventually, it will be a means by which we can continue to evolve ourselves as a species. If 3.5 billion years of evolution churned our species out through the natural selection of random mutations, how much better can we do with logic and molecular precision? In my opinion, anything that can widely (and, potentially, permanently) change mankind and society for the better should be done.

I wish I shared the correspondents confidence that logic and molecular precision will serve humanity better in this realm than the decentralized systems of dating and mating have done so far. Reflecting on the decisions that literally every bygone generation might have made if able to edit genes, I fear that our choices will prove as imprudent in hindsightand thats not even accounting for unintended consequences.

The next reader is working to earn his Masters degree in Biochemistry:

It is not unreasonable to imagine that in the near future gene editing will be a safe and effective means of preventing genetic diseases. It is also not unreasonable to imagine that in the case of many diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, which are caused by small mutations in a single gene coding for a functionally important protein, gene editing would be likely to prevent the disease without affecting the child in any other way. For these diseases, once it is demonstrated that gene editing works the way that it is supposed to, I think parents should be punished for failing to employ gene editing. I think that if it had been demonstrated that gene editing was safe, effective, and selective, refusal to use this technique to prevent disease would essentially amount to fear and mistrust of the scientific and medical communities. I really dont think thats a valid reason to allow another person to be afflicted by a preventable disease.

However, I draw a distinction here between expecting parents to make edits that will definitely prevent a debilitating disease, and expecting edits that reduce the risk of a disease that the child may or may not have ended up getting. I certainly wouldnt be opposed to parents editing genes to reduce the chance of cancer, but I wouldnt really expect it. There are a number of behaviors that we know reduce cancer risk which we dont really expect parents to push on their kids. For example, parents could probably reduce cancer risk in their children by some small fraction by giving them grape juice every day or something like that. I dont really expect parents to do that. If you cant blame parents for not giving their kids grape juice you really cant blame them for not editing the kids genome.

At the same time, he adds, we can really only justify using gene editing for medical purposes:

We are a long way from understanding our biology well enough to be able to make genome modifications to enhance intelligence or beauty or athleticism without risking horrible unforeseen side effects. But even if we did have the ability to do that, I still dont think it would be justified because I dont think we can tie these traits to an increased sense of happiness or fulfillment.

I am short and scrawny, and Im perfectly happy with that. I know plenty of people who are perfectly content with being as dumb as rocks. I know plenty of smart people who are miserable. So, Ill grant that I am basing my opinion here on a biased personal experience, but I really dont think that we can say that it really is in the best interests of the child to alter superficial traits.

When discussing a childs future, people often talk as if the parents preference is the most important thing. But parents dont own their children. Parents are stewards of their children. I think that making designer babies would be an example of parents making self-serving decisions, rather than making decisions in the best interests of the child. I dont think that is justifiable.

The next correspondent is a biochemistry grad student who works in a research group that specializes in genome-editing technology, and cautions against its near-term limits:

If gene therapy with Cas9 were at some future time as cheap, easy, and safe as an antibiotic treatment, then yes, I would support punishments for parents who forewent a cure for their children. In some cases, a genetic disorder is very similar to other macro-level disorders, e.g. genes can be broken in the same sense that a wrist is broken. While wrists can come in many healthy shapes and sizes and colors, broken in two is not one of them; likewise, while genetic diversity is important and natural and cant always be cleanly mapped to disease, some genetic mutations are incontrovertibly damaging and lead to illness and suffering. Refusing a simple medical treatment for a disorder with a clear singular genetic root cause (of which there are fewer than one might think) would be as unethical as refusing to set a broken wrist.

But I dont think gene therapy will be as cheap, easy, or safe as antibiotics in our lifetimerather, my opinion is that gene therapy will be expensive, invasive, and risky (at least relative to an antibiotic pill) for the foreseeable future. I dont expect gene therapy to become routine in the same way that oral therapies are, and so choosing not to subject your child to gene editing cannot be chalked up to negligence. (A contemporary example: Sovaldi is a drug that essentially cures Hepatitis C, but it costs $200,000 and there are other treatmentscould you imagine a parent being prosecuted for refusing to pay for Sovaldi?)

Why am I so down on gene therapy?

First of all, regarding cost, the clamor surrounding the Cas9 patent dispute should give you an idea of how profitable the players in this field expect gene therapy to be. Gene therapy will always be more expensive than an oral antibiotic because the treatment requires many more steps (each of which is far costlier), is much lower throughput, and will require specialized care and oversight. For similar reasons, it will not be nearly as convenient for patients as filling a prescription. And as Ive written elsewhere, our current early-generation gene-therapy tools and limited understanding of the link between genetics and disease means that gene therapy carries unprecedented safety risks. (For example, no currently approved therapy could cause permanent heritable genetic changes.)

These risks shouldnt disqualify gene therapy as a possible future treatment, but they could certainly give the most informed and adventurous patient pause. In short, I believe technical limitations and cost and safety concerns will delay the debate over mandatory gene editing for decades at least. More pressing to discuss are the multitude of other ways that gene editing and GMOs affect modern life and medicine.

Go here to read the rest:
Thoughts on Gene Editing From the Science Community - The Atlantic

FDA Grants Fast Track Designation to XyloCor Therapeutics Lead … – Business Wire (press release)

NEWTOWN SQUARE, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--XyloCor Therapeutics Inc., a privately held biotech company, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has grantedFast Track designation to its lead product candidate XC001 (AdVEGF-All6A+), a cardiovascular angiogenic gene therapy. XC001 is a one-time treatment being investigated for improving exercise tolerance in patients who have chronic angina that is refractory to standard medical therapy and not amenable to conventional revascularization procedures such as coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention and stents.

Achieving Fast Track status validates the need for XC001, which has the potential to be a unique treatment for this serious condition with high unmet need - chronic, refractory angina, said Al Gianchetti, President and Chief Executive Officer of XyloCor. This designation is supported by strong scientific evidence for XC001 and clinical validation of this mechanism of action in refractory angina. This important designation is intended to contribute to an expedited development and regulatory review process, which can get the drug sooner to patients who can benefit from it.

The FDA Fast Track designation is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of new drugs and vaccines intended to treat or prevent serious conditions and that demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need.

XC001 is a novel gene therapy that promotes angiogenesis, the formation of new vessels that can provide arterial blood flow to myocardial regions with inadequate blood supply. Enhancing myocardial blood flow with therapeutic angiogenesis is intended to relieve myocardial ischemia, improve regional and global left ventricular performance, alleviate angina symptoms and disability and potentially improve prognosis.

There are many patients in the United States with refractory angina and there are no available treatment options, said Magnus Ohman, Professor of Medicine, The Kent and Siri Rawson Director, Duke Program for Advanced Coronary Disease, Duke University School of Medicine. These patients have significant limitations in terms of their daily activities because of the chest pain associated with their ischemic disease and XC001 could be an important new option for them.

An IND for XC001 is open with the FDA and XyloCor intends to commence clinical trials upon funding.

About XyloCor

XyloCor Therapeutics is a private biopharmaceutical company developing novel gene therapy for people with unmet medical need from advanced coronary artery disease.XyloCor is focused on developing its lead product, XC001, for patients with refractory angina with no treatment options and its secondary product, XC002, for patients with cardiac tissue damage from heart attacks. XyloCor was founded by Dr. Ronald Crystal and Dr. Todd Rosengart, who both sit on XyloCors advisory board. Dr. Crystal is the Bruce Webster Professor and Chairman, Department of Genetic Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine and Director of the Belfer Gene Therapy Core Facility.Dr. Rosengart is Professor and Chairman, DeBakey Bard Chair of Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine.XyloCor has a licensing agreement with Cornell University granting the company worldwide rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize XC001. With a strong scientific foundation, compelling preclinical and clinical evidence and an experienced team, XyloCor is poised for success and to help patients lead better, healthier lives. For more information, visit http://www.xylocor.com.

Read more:
FDA Grants Fast Track Designation to XyloCor Therapeutics Lead ... - Business Wire (press release)

Gene editing technique helps find cancer’s weak spots — ScienceDaily – Science Daily


Science Daily
Gene editing technique helps find cancer's weak spots -- ScienceDaily
Science Daily
Genetic mutations that cause cancer also weaken cancer cells, allowing researchers to develop drugs that will selectively kill them. This is called "synthetic ...

and more »

Link:
Gene editing technique helps find cancer's weak spots -- ScienceDaily - Science Daily

Testing the efficacy of new gene therapies more efficiently – Science Daily

Testing the efficacy of new gene therapies more efficiently
Science Daily
Crispr/Cas9 is key here too. However, it will need another five to six years until this 'precision gene surgery' is ready for clinical applications. Janine Reichenbach appears optimistic. "Within the framework of University Medicine Zurich, we have the ...

and more »

See more here:
Testing the efficacy of new gene therapies more efficiently - Science Daily

Research Roundup: How Tau Proteins Spread in Alzheimer’s and More – BioSpace

Every week there are numerous scientific studies published. Heres a look at some of the more interesting ones.

Toxic Tau Proteins Spread in Alzheimers Patients Via Connected Neurons

Two abnormal proteins are associated with Alzheimers disease, beta-amyloid and tau. A study out of Lund University in Sweden and McGill University in Canada showed how toxic tau in the human brain in elderly individuals spreads by way of connected neurons. They also found that beta-amyloid facilitates the spread of toxic tau. The research was published in the journal Nature Communications.

Our research suggests that toxic tau may spread across different brain regions through direct neuronal connections, much like infectious diseases may spread to different cities through different transportation pathways, said lead author Jacob Vogel from McGill. The spread is restricted during normal aging, but in Alzheimers disease the spread may be facilitated by beta-amyloid, and likely leads to widespread neuronal death and eventually dementia.

Beta-amyloid forms plaques in the brain and tau forms tangles within brain cells. Toxic tau, in particular, has been linked to brain degeneration and cognitive symptoms. In general, beta-amyloid appears earlier in the disease with tau appearing later.

Our findings have implications for understanding the disease, but more importantly for the development of therapies against Alzheimers, which are directed against either beta-amyloid or tau, said Oskar Hansson, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of neurology at Lund. Specifically, the results suggest that therapies that limit uptake of tau into the neurons or transportation or excretion of tau, could limit disease progression.

Improving on Gene Therapy by Decreasing Immune Response to AAV

Biotech company Spark Therapeutics published research in the journal Nature Medicine showing that treatment with immunoglobulin G-degrading enzyme of Streptococcus pyogenes (IdeS0 caused fast and transient decrease of neutralizing anti-adeno-associated virus (AAV) antibodies and restored gene therapy efficacy in laboratory animals. The study was conducted by Spark, Genethon, the Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers (Inserm, Sorbonne Universite, Universite de Paris) and the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France.

Biggest Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 in UK

In a large cohort study published in The BMJ of COVID-19 patients in the UK, the biggest risk factors for severe disease or death were found to be age over 50, being male, obese, or having underlying heart, lung, liver and kidney disease. The study, which is still ongoing, recruited over 43,000 patients. The study essentially looked at data from a third of all COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals in the UK between February 6 and April 19, 2020. Overall, the data confirms studies conducted in China, although obesity was not highlighted in the China data. The researchers believe that reduced lung function or obesity-related inflammation are the factors involved in increased disease severity or mortality in obese patients.

Warmer Temperatures Slow COVID-19A Little Bit

Researchers at Mount Auburn Hospital evaluated the impact of temperature, precipitation and UV index on COVID-19 cases in the U.S. during the spring of 2020. They found that while the rate of COVID-19 incidence decreases with warmer temperatures up to 52 degrees F, anything warmer than that does not decrease disease transmission all that much. Precipitation doesnt seem to have any effect and UV index helps a little bit. The bottom line, they say, is that their research supports what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is saying, which is that although the pandemic might abate a little bit in the summer, it is expected to be worse in the fall and winter.

Antibodies Against Alzheimers Toxic Particles

Investigators at the University of Cambridge have identified a method to design an antibody that can seek out and attack the toxic particles that destroy healthy brain cells, such as in Alzheimers disease. These antibodies recognize amyloid-beta oligomers. They believe this could lead to new diagnostics or possible treatments for Alzheimers and other types of dementia.

Oligomers are difficult to detect, isolate, and study, said Francesco Aprile, the studys lead author. Our method allows the generation of antibody molecules able to target oligomers despite their heterogeneity, and we hope it could be a significant step towards new diagnostic approaches.

Physical Distancing, Masks and Eye Protection Help Prevent COVID-19

As has been suggested all along, the use of physical distancing, face masks and eye protection does appear, in a systematic review of the literature by researchers at McMaster University, to help prevent the transmission of COVID-19. The two meters (about six feet) physical distancing seems to prevent person-to-person transmission and face masks and eye protect decrease the risk of infection.

Although the direct evidence is limited, the use of masks in the community provides protection, and possibly N95 or similar respirators worn by health care workers suggest greater protection than other face masks, said Holger Schunemann, professor of the departments of health research methods, evidence, and impact, and medicine at McMaster. Availability and feasibility and other contextual factors will probably influence recommendations that organizations develop about their use. Eye protection may provide additional benefits.

The review was led by McMaster researchers, but also included a large, international collaboration of researchers, front-line and specialist clinicians, epidemiologists, patients, public health and health policy experts of published and unpublished studies in any language. They also evaluated direct evidence on COVID-19 and indirect evidence on other coronaviruses, such as the ones that cause SARS and MERS. Although there were no randomized control trials addressing the three coronaviruses (SARS, MERS and COVID-19), they found 44 relevant comparative studies in health care and community settings across 16 countries and six continents from inception to early May 2020. The study was published in The Lancet.

See the original post here:
Research Roundup: How Tau Proteins Spread in Alzheimer's and More - BioSpace

Gene Editing Tools Market(COVID-19 Impact Analysis) 2020 Global Industry Key Strategies, Historical Analysis, Segmentation, Application, Technology,…

This Gene Editing Tools Market research document helps a lot to businesses by giving an insightful market data and information to businesses for making better decisions and defining business strategies. Additionally, this report gives Gene Editing Tools Market size, trends, share, growth, and cost structure and drivers analysis. The Gene Editing Tools Market 2020 Report is a perfect window to the Gene Editing Tools Industry which explains what market definition, classifications, applications, engagements and market trends are. Such report is a key to achieve the new horizon of success. The report comprises of CAGR value fluctuation during the forecast period of 2020-2027, historic data, current market trends, market environment, technological innovation, upcoming technologies and the technical progress in the related industry.

Get Sample Report: To Know the Impact of COVID-19 on this [emailprotected]https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-gene-editing-tools-market

The Major Top Key Players associated with the Gene Editing Tools Market areThermo Fisher Scientific Inc.; CRISPR Therapeutics; Editas Medicine; National Human Genome Research Institute; Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.; Merck KGaA; Horizon Discovery Ltd.; GeneCopoeia, Inc.; ERS Genomics; Takara Bio Inc.; New England Biolabs; GenScript among others.

Market Definition:GlobalGene Editing Tools Market

Gene editing also known as genome editing is the method of modifications of DNA focusing on replacement and deletion of these DNA from a specific location inside of a genome in an organism/cell. This process requires specialized tools to be carried out and is generally undertaken in different labs with the help of engineered nucleases.

Market Drivers

Market Restraint

Browse Full Report with Detailed Table of Content Here:https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-gene-editing-tools-market

Browse in-depth TOC on Gene Editing Tools Market

220Tables

60Figures

350Pages

This Gene Editing Tools report works as a reputable source of information to offer a telescopic view of the existing market trends, situations, opportunities and status. In addition, this market report consists of vital aspects of the market that contain but are not limited to historic data, present market trends, environment, future trends, technological innovation, upcoming technologies and the technical progress in the industry.

The Gene Editing Tools market report is a window to the industry which gives details about what market definition, classifications, applications, engagements and market trends are. The complete knowledge and info covered in the report is based on latest industry news, opportunities, and trends.

For More Information, Query or Customization before buying visit @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/inquire-before-buying/?dbmr=global-gene-editing-tools-market

Development policies and plansare discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed.

This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins. Competitive analysis includes competitive information of leading players in Gene Editing Tools market, their company profiles, product portfolio, capacity, production, and company financials.

In addition, report also provides upstream raw material analysis and downstream demand analysis along with the key development trends and sales channel analysis.

Segmentation:Global Gene Editing Tools Market

By Product (CRISPR/Cas9, ZFNs, TALENs, Viral Systems, Transposon Systems, Others)

By Application (Veterinary Medicine, Cell Line Engineering, Bioremediation, Food & Brewing Development, Food Waste Management, Bio Sensing Development, Others)

By Disease Application (Sickle Cell Disease, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimers Disease, Obesity, Others)

By End-User (Biotech & Pharma Companies, CROs, Academic & Research Institutes, Food Industry, Others)

Few of the major competitors currently working in the Gene Editing Tools market areThermo Fisher Scientific Inc.; CRISPR Therapeutics; Editas Medicine; National Human Genome Research Institute; Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.; Merck KGaA; Horizon Discovery Ltd.; GeneCopoeia, Inc.; ERS Genomics; Takara Bio Inc.; New England Biolabs; GenScript among others.

Important Aspects of Gene Editing Tools Report:

Order a Copy of GlobalGene Editing ToolsMarket Report @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/checkout/buy/singleuser/global-gene-editing-tools-market

Critical Questions the Gene Editing Tools Report Answers:

We can also customize this report and provide individual chapters or a region-wise breakdown report such as North America, Europe or Asia. Also, if you have any special requirements, please let us know ([emailprotected]) and we will offer you the report as you want.

About Data Bridge Market Research:

An absolute way to forecast what future holds is to comprehend the trend today!

Data Bridge set forth itself as an unconventional and neoteric Market research and consulting firm with unparalleled level of resilience and integrated approaches. We are determined to unearth the best market opportunities and foster efficient information for your business to thrive in the market. Data Bridge endeavors to provide appropriate solutions to the complex business challenges and initiates an effortless decision-making process.

Data Bridge adepts in creating satisfied clients who reckon upon our services and rely on our hard work with certitude. We are content with our glorious 99.9 % client satisfying rate.

Contact Us:

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Email:[emailprotected]

Read this article:
Gene Editing Tools Market(COVID-19 Impact Analysis) 2020 Global Industry Key Strategies, Historical Analysis, Segmentation, Application, Technology,...

Meet a superhero that fights breast cancer, neurofibromin – Baylor College of Medicine News

It is well known that neurofibromin (NF1), a tumor suppressor produced by the NF1 gene, keeps cancer growth in check by repressing the activity of a cancer driver gene called Ras. It then follows that when NF1 is lost, Ras can drive cancer growth by promoting treatment resistance and metastasis. NF1, however, can do more than regulate Ras.

Drs. Eric C. Chang, Matthew Ellis and Zeyi Zheng at Baylor College of Medicine and their colleagues have discovered new insights into the function of neurofibromin that improve our understanding of breast cancer resistance and suggest novel therapeutic approaches to overcome it.

The team first studied the importance of neurofibromin loss in a study they published in 2018. In this study, they sequenced tumor DNA seeking for mutations that can promote resistance to tamoxifen, a drug commonly used to prevent relapses from estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer.

When we examined the mutational patterns in NF1, we observed that poor patient outcome only occurred when neurofibromin was lost, not through mutations that selectively affect Ras regulation. This suggested that neurofibromin may have more than one function, said Chang, co-corresponding author of this work and associate professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology and a member in the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Centers Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center.

This thought triggered studies, spearheaded by Zheng in Changs lab, into the function of neurofibromin in ER+ breast cancer cells. One of his early experiments showed that when expression of NF1 is inhibited (to mimic neurofibromin loss in tumors), the resulting ER+ breast cancer cells were stimulated by tamoxifen instead of inhibited, as it usually happens. Furthermore, these neurofibromin-depleted cells became sensitive to a very low concentration of estradiol, a form of estrogen.

The clinical relevance of these findings was immediately apparent because it suggested that tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen levels available to the cancer cells, would be the wrong choice for treatment when neurofibromin is lost by the tumor, said Ellis, co-corresponding author and professor and director of the Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center. Dr. Ellis also is a McNair Scholar at Baylor.

Follow-up gene expression studies all strongly suggested that neurofibromin behaves like a classic ER co-repressor.

A co-repressor must bind ER directly, but the group hesitated to conduct such an experiment without more evidence because it is not trivial to do so, Chang said.

A breakthrough came when Dr. Charles Foulds, a co-author on the paper and assistant professor at the Center for Precision Environmental Health at Baylor, searched the Epicome, a massive proteomic database created by Dr. Anna Malovannaya and Dr. Jun Qin, also at Baylor. This is a part of an effort by Dr. Bert OMalley, chancellor and professor of Baylors Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology to comprehensively document all the proteins associated with ER.

Foulds found neurofibromin in the database, which encouraged the team to ultimately investigate whether estrogen receptor and neurofibromin interacted directly. However, to seriously consider NF1 as an ER co-repressor, there was still another missing piece of the puzzle.

One day Charles casually asked me whether neurofibromin had a region rich in the amino acids leucine and isoleucine, because co-repressors use these regions or motifs to bind ER, and it dawned on me that neurofibromin indeed does, Chang said. In fact, neurofibromin has two such motifs that mediate ER binding in a cooperative manner. These motifs are frequently mutated in cancer, but are not required for Ras regulation.

Since tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors were found to be ineffective for neurofibromin-deficient ER+ breast cancer tumors, the researchers worked with animal models to determine whether the ER-degrading drug fulvestrant was still effective. However, fulvestrant only temporarily inhibited tumor growth because secondary Ras-dependent fulvestrant resistance was induced by neurofibromin loss. This Ras-dependent growth phase could be inhibited with the addition of a MEK inhibitor, which shuts off a key signaling pathway downstream of Ras.

The team validated this combination treatment strategy using a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse model. In this model, a section of a human tumor taken from a patient is directly transplanted into a mouse under conditions that maintain the genomics and drug response of the original human tumor from which it was derived (Cell Reports, 2013). In this case, this PDX was derived from a patient who failed several lines of endocrine therapy and had already developed fulvestrant resistance.

The results of the combination of fulvestrant to degrade ER and a MEK inhibitor (e.g., selumetinib or binimetinib) to inhibit Ras downstream signaling, were encouraging the tumor shrunk to almost undetectable levels, Chang said.

Our next goal is to test this combination therapy in clinical trials in order to determine its therapeutic potential in the clinic.

Neurofibromin is lost in at least 10 percent of metastatic ER+ tumors. As a result of these new data, we are now working on a clinical trial that combines a MEK inhibitor with fulvestrant, said Ellis, Susan G. Komen scholar and associate director of Precision Medicine at the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor. Interestingly, MEK inhibitors are also being used to control peripheral nerve tumors in patients with neurofibromatosis, where a damaged NF1 gene is inherited. Our findings contribute to an understanding of why female neurofibromatosis patients also have a much higher incidence of breast cancer.

Other contributors to this work include Meenakshi Anurag, Jonathan T. Lei, Jin Cao, Purba Singh, Jianheng Peng, Hilda Kennedy, Nhu-Chau Nguyen, Yue Chen, Philip Lavere, Jing Li, Xin-Hui Du, Burcu Cakar, Wei Song, Beom-Jun Kim, Jiejun Shi, Sinem Seker, Doug W. Chan, Guo-Qiang Zhao, Xi Chen, Kimberly C. Banks, Richard B. Lanman, Maryam Nemati Shafaee, Xiang H.-F. Zhang, Suhas Vasaikar, Bing Zhang, Susan G. Hilsenbeck, Wei Li and Charles E. Foulds. The authors are affiliated with one or more of the following institutions: Baylor College of Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Adrienne Helis Malvin Medical Research Foundation, Zhengzhou University and Guardant Health.

This work appears in Cancer Cell,

See the publication for a complete list of the sources of support for this work.

By Ana Mara Rodrguez, Ph.D.

Read more:
Meet a superhero that fights breast cancer, neurofibromin - Baylor College of Medicine News

Castle Creek Biosciences Announces $75 Million Investment to Advance Development of Multiple Gene Therapy Candidates for Rare Diseases – Yahoo Finance

- Leveraging proprietary technology and manufacturing platform to develop transformativegene therapies for multiple rare diseases with high unmet needs -

- Pipeline led by Phase 3 gene therapy candidate for treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), with a BLA filing targeted for 2021 -

- Backed by world-class group of biotech operators and investors -

EXTON, Pa., March 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Castle Creek Biosciences, Inc., a privately held, late-stage gene therapy company, announced that it has received a new investment of $75 million to support the advancement of its clinical development pipeline. Castle Creek Biosciences is a portfolio company of Paragon Biosciences, which led the $55 million equity investment from Fidelity Management & Research Company and Valor Equity Partners, along with a $20 million venture loan from Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN).

Castle Creek Biosciences is leveraging its proprietary technology platform and commercial-scale manufacturing infrastructure to develop personalized gene therapies for rare diseases with high unmet needs. The company plans to use the funding to advance and expand its gene therapy pipeline, led by the Phase 3 clinical development of FCX-007 (NCT04213261), its gene therapy candidate for the treatment of RDEB. It will also use the funding to expand its current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) infrastructure located in the greater Philadelphia region.

Clinical results from the ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial for FCX-007 continue to show positive trends in safety and wound healing in RDEB patients. Current data from this clinical trial were presented at the inaugural World Congress on Epidermolysis Bullosa held in London during January of 2020. FCX-007 was administered to 10 non-healing chronic wounds of which eight achieved complete wound closure 12 weeks post-administration (80%) vs. no wound closure in intra-patient, matched non-treated wounds (0%). FCX-007 continues to be well tolerated up to 52 weeks post administration.

We are proud to have the strategic support of world-class investors whose impact enables our efforts to transform the lives of patients and the future of medicine, said John Maslowski, Chief Executive Officer of Castle Creek Biosciences. We are steadfast in our commitment to the epidermolysis bullosa community and will continue to keep patients, caregivers and clinicians informed on the progress of our current programs, including FCX-007 and diacerein topical ointment, while we expand the scope of our gene therapy platform.

Castle Creek Biosciences is led by a strong executive leadership team with a proven record of developing innovative and potentially life-changing treatments for conditions with the greatest medical need, said Jeffery Aronin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Paragon Biosciences. As investors, we are excited by the progress that the team has made and are committed to growing the Castle Creek Biosciences platform to address multiple rare genetic diseases.

About Castle Creek Biosciences, Inc. Castle Creek Biosciences is a privately held company that develops and commercializes gene therapies for patients with rare and serious genetic diseases. The companys lead gene therapy candidate, FCX-007, is being evaluated for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), the most severe and debilitating form of epidermolysis bullosa (EB). The company is also advancing clinical research evaluating a diacerein topical ointment, CCP-020, for the treatment of epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS) and other forms of EB. In addition, Castle Creek Biosciences is developing FCX-013, a gene therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe localized scleroderma. Castle Creek Biosciences is a portfolio company of Paragon Biosciences. For more information, visit castlecreekbio.com or follow Castle Creek on Twitter @CastleCreekBio.

About Paragon BiosciencesParagon is a life science innovator that invests in, builds, and advises bioscience companies. Our mission is to serve patients living with severe medical conditions which do not yet have adequate treatments. Paragons portfolio of independently-run bioscience companies focus on biopharmaceuticals, AI-enabled life science products, and advanced treatments such as cell and gene therapies. We help people live longer, healthier lives. For more information, please visit: ParagonBioSci.com.

Story continues

Here is the original post:
Castle Creek Biosciences Announces $75 Million Investment to Advance Development of Multiple Gene Therapy Candidates for Rare Diseases - Yahoo Finance

How sick will the coronavirus make you? The answer may be in your genes – Science Magazine

A patient in Italy receives intensive care for COVID-19. Human geneticists are coming together to look for genes that make some people more vulnerable to the disease.

By Jocelyn KaiserMar. 27, 2020 , 3:25 PM

Sciences COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center.

COVID-19, caused by the new pandemic coronavirus, is strangelyand tragicallyselective. Only some infected people get sick, and although most of the critically ill are elderly or have complicating problems such as heart disease, some killed by the disease are previously healthy and even relatively young. Researchers are now gearing up to scour the patients genomes for DNA variations that explain this mystery. The findings could be used to identify those most at risk of serious illness and those who might be protected, and they might also guide the search for new treatments.

The projects range from ongoing studies with DNA for many thousands of participants, some now getting infected with the coronavirus, to new efforts that are collecting DNA from COVID-19 patients in hard-hit places such as Italy. The goal is to compare the DNA of people who have serious cases of COVID-19 (which stands for coronavirus disease 2019)but no underlying disease like diabetes, heart or lung diseasewith those with mild or no disease. We see huge differences in clinical outcomes and across countries. How much of that is explained by genetic susceptibility is a very open question, says geneticist Andrea Ganna of the University of Helsinkis Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM).

Its hard to predict what will pop out from these gene hunts, some researchers say. But there are obvious suspects, such as the gene coding for the cell surface protein angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which the coronavirus uses to enter airway cells. Variations in the ACE2 gene that alter the receptor could make it easier or harder for the virus to get into cells, says immunologist Philip Murphy of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose lab identified a relatively common mutation in another human cell surface protein, CCR5, that makes some people highly resistant to HIV.

Ganna heads up a major effort to pool COVID-19 patients genetic data from around the world. The idea came quite spontaneously about 2 weeks ago when everyone was sitting at their computers watching this crisis, says Ganna, who is also affiliated with the Broad Institute, a U.S. genomic powerhouse.

He and FIMM Director Mark Daly quickly created a website for their project, the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative, and reached out to colleagues who run large biobank studies that follow thousands of volunteers for years to look for links between their DNA and health. At least a dozen biobanks, mostly in Europe and the United States, have expressed interest in contributing COVID-19 data from participants who agreed to this. Among them are FinnGen, which has DNA samples and health data for 5% of the 5 millionperson Finnish population, and the 50,000-participant biobank at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

The UK Biobank, one of worlds largest with DNA data for 500,000 participants, also plans to add COVID-19 health data from participants to its data set, the project tweeted this month. And the Icelandic company deCODE Genetics, which is helping test much of the nations population to see who is infected with the new coronavirus, has received government permission to add these data and any subsequent COVID-19 symptoms to its database, which contains genome and health data on half of Icelands 364,000 inhabitants, says its CEO Kri Stefnsson. We will do our best to contribute to figuring this out, Stefnsson says.

Another effort to identify protective or susceptibility DNA variants is the Personal Genome Project led by Harvard Universitys George Church, which recruits people willing to share their full genome, tissue samples, and health data for research. Earlier this month, it sent questionnaires to its thousands of participants, asking about their COVID-19 status. More than 600 in the United States responded within 48 hours. It seems that most people want to do their part, says Church, whose group isnt yet part of Gannas collaboration.

Other researchers working with Gannas initiative are recruiting COVID-19 patients directly within hospitals for such genomics studies. Italian geneticist Alessandra Renieri of the University of Siena expects at least 11 hospitals in the nation to give ethics approval for her team to collect DNA samples from willing patients. It is my opinion that [host] genetic differences are a key factor for susceptibility to severe acute pneumonia, Renieri says.

Pediatrics researcher Jean-Laurent Casanova at the Rockefeller University, who specializes in identifying rare genes that can make healthy young people susceptible to certain serious diseases, is drawing on a network of pediatricians around the world to look for the relatively few young people who develop COVID-19 serious enough to get admitted to intensive care. We study exclusively patients who were previously healthy and under 50, as their serious COVID-19 illness is more likely to have a genetic basis, he explains.

In addition to genetic variants of the ACE2 receptor, scientists want to see whether differences in the human leukocyte antigen genes, which influence the immune systems response to viruses and bacteria, affect disease severity. And some investigators want to follow up a finding, which a Chinese team reported in a preprint: that people with type O blood may be protected from the virus. Were trying to figure out if those findings are robust, says Stanford University human geneticist Manuel Rivas, who is contributing to Gannas initiative.

The catastrophic spread of the coronavirus should soon increase the number of COVID-19 patients available to these gene hunts. And that could speed findings. Ganna expects the first susceptibility genes could be identified within a couple of months.

With reporting by Elizabeth Pennisi.

Read the original here:
How sick will the coronavirus make you? The answer may be in your genes - Science Magazine

Coronavirus testing is starting to get better but it has a long way to go – STAT

Friday morning a ray of light cracked through the ominous cloud of the pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus: The Swiss health care giant Roche introduced a new test for the virus that could be run more efficiently and with less manpower than existing diagnostics, potentially doubling the capacity in the U.S. to detect the virus.

But the news only emphasizes the degree to which one of the worlds great technological powers, the leading country in generating new biotechnologies and medical advances, has stumbled to test patients when other nations, including most of Europe, China, and in particular South Korea, have been able to do so much more efficiently.

The technology behind the tests for detecting the virus, called the polymerase chain reaction or PCR, was invented in the U.S. in 1983. Advances in other approaches to detect viruses, such as antibodies or gene sequencing, were pioneered here, too. But the U.S. health care system has proven unable to test its own people for the virus, SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes, Covid-19. To date, the U.S. has seen 1,629 cases and 41 deaths, although those numbers may not reflect reality because of low testing rates.

advertisement

This is a wake-up call for diagnostic testing in the United States, said Michael Pellini, a longtime diagnostics company executive who is now a managing partner at Section 32, a venture capital firm. He said that it has become too difficult to get new tests approved and paid for by insurers. No one has spent any time evaluating the diagnostic system. So here we are in a ridiculous bind.

The Roche test is good news because it represents one of the private sectors largest players attacking the coronavirus outbreak with full force, and because the Food and Drug Administration moved with the necessary speed on clearance. Thats in contrast to the federal governments response so far.

Roches new diagnostic runs the PCR test for the virus on an automated system called cobas 6800/8800 (the numbers refer to a smaller and larger system). Paul Brown, head of Roche Molecular Solutions in Pleasanton, Calif., said that the company believes it can ship 400,000 of the tests this weekend from its Nutley, N.J., manufacturing facilities to laboratories already identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to do coronavirus testing.

The U.S. currently has capacity to run just 175,000 tests a week, according to an effort run by former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb at the American Enterprise Institute. Even if those additional tests come online all at once, patients may not be able to get them. Right now, some health departments have not tested even patients with fevers and chest pain who are testing negative for other viruses. Efforts like drive-through testing centers, which were pioneered in South Korea and are now being launched by both New York state and developed by Trump administration in partnership with private industry, as announced today, could certainly help.

But every patient who has symptoms may need a test, and that will require even greater diagnostic capacity. Right now, the process is slow, with laboratories often taking several days to get back to doctors and patients. Thousands of tests came online this week from companies like Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, but capacity has still lagged behind early promises and the public health need.

The Roche case offers some encouragement: Brown said that the company started working on its new test last month, and finished the work in six weeks. Roche asked the FDA for emergency clearance earlier this week, and received it around the stroke of midnight Friday. As he announced a national emergency Friday afternoon, President Trump promised that testing capacity would eventually reach 5 million.

Testing serves two purposes. It can tell whether an individual person is sick. But it also acts as our way of knowing how bad the epidemic is, and where it is worst. Other types of technologies might help with the second part, if not the first. Blood tests that look to see if people have antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 when they become available can tell us how many people have had Covid-19. Next-generation DNA sequencing technologies could also play a role in monitoring it.

Through all this, the CDC and other health officials now need to follow an old maxim: Dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Regulatory standards are important, and if the U.S. had organized its response sooner, getting the developers of diagnostic tests and major labs ready, there would have been time for an orderly process. But this is an emergency. And there is a need for speed.

See the rest here:
Coronavirus testing is starting to get better but it has a long way to go - STAT

Haunted by a Gene – The New York Times

Year after year for two decades, Nancy Wexler led medical teams into remote villages in Venezuela, where huge extended families lived in stilt houses on Lake Maracaibo and for generations, had suffered from a terrible hereditary disease that causes brain degeneration, disability and death.

Neighbors shunned the sick, fearing they were contagious.

Doctors wouldnt treat them, Dr. Wexler said. Priests wouldnt touch them.

She began to think of the villagers as her family, and started a clinic to care for them.

They are so gracious, so kind, so loving, she said.

Over time, Dr. Wexler coaxed elite scientists to collaborate rather than compete to find the cause of the disorder, Huntingtons disease, and she raised millions of dollars for research.

Her work led to the discovery in 1993 of the gene that causes Huntingtons, to the identification of other genes that may have moderating effects and, at long last, to experimental treatments that have begun to show promise.

Now, at 74, Dr. Wexler is facing a painful and daunting task that she had long postponed. She has decided its time to acknowledge publicly that she has the disease shes spent her life studying and that killed her mother, uncles and grandfather.

There is such stigma, and such ostracization, Dr. Wexler, a professor of neuropsychology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University, said in a lengthy interview. I think its important to destigmatize Huntingtons and make it not as scary. Of course it is scary. Having a fatal disease is scary and I dont want to trivialize that. But if I can say, Im not stopping my life, Im going to work, were still trying to find a cure, that would help. If I can do anything to take the onus off having this thing, I want to do it.

Among her greatest concerns are the thousands of Venezuelans from the families full of the disease, whose willingness to donate blood and skin samples, and the brains of deceased relatives, made it possible to find the gene. But they live in an impoverished region, and, Dr. Wexler said, they are still outcasts. The clinic that she and her colleagues opened has been shut down by Venezuelas government.

We share DNA, Dr. Wexler said. Theyre part of my family. They are super-stigmatized. So I thought, this is part of my decision to come out, about me which I still find hard to do without breaking into tears.

If treatments now being tested do pan out, she said in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, the Venezuelan patients should get them, for free.

Shes a remarkable human being whos been an incredible leader of a scientific initiative, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, who was among those she recruited to help find the Huntingtons gene.

Although Dr. Wexler has not talked about her diagnosis until now, it is no surprise to friends or colleagues. For at least a decade, her symptoms were noticeable. Her gait is unsteady, her speech is sometimes slurred, her head and limbs move uncontrollably at times. She loses her temper. She needs a walker to get around outside the Manhattan apartment she shares with Dr. Herbert Pardes.

But her mind is sharp and her will is strong, and she has chosen to deal with the disease or not deal with it on her own terms and in her own good time.

Weve been close friends for 37 years and it has been very hard to not have this as a topic we can share, Dr. Collins said. But shes a private person, and I think we all understood she was not ready to go there.

Part of her coming out includes appearing in a new documentary film, The Gene, produced by Ken Burns and Barak Goodman, to air on PBS this spring. Film shot later, not part of the documentary, shows her exuberantly touring a facility that makes an experimental drug being developed by Roche that she is hoping will work and become available in time to help her. The studies she led made development of the drug possible, but she is too old to qualify for the clinical trials testing it. Results are not expected until 2022.

In the film, a researcher shows her a vial of the drug. She kisses the vial and hugs the researcher. Thats my disease there, she says. Youre curing it!

The specter of the disease has been hanging over Dr. Wexler since 1968, when she was 22. One morning, a police officer accused her mother, Leonore, of being drunk as she crossed a street in Los Angeles on the way to jury duty. She had not realized she was staggering.

Leonore Wexlers father and all three of her brothers had died from Huntingtons. She was a geneticist, a field she had chosen in hopes of finding a way to save her brothers, Dr. Wexler said.

Huntingtons is caused by a dominant gene: If one parent has the disease, every child has a 50/50 chance of having it, too. The disease is rare. About 30,000 people in the United States have it, and another 200,000 are at risk. It is the disease that killed the folk singer Woody Guthrie in 1967.

At the time of Leonores diagnosis, there was no test for the gene. People who knew they were at risk could only wait to see whether they fell ill. The symptoms usually appear when patients are in their 30s or 40s after theyve already had children. Leonore was 53 at her diagnosis, past the average.

Depression, irritability and other psychological problems can occur, along with the uncontrolled movements. Patients lose the ability to speak, but remain painfully aware of their decline.

After Leonores diagnosis, her ex-husband, Milton Wexler, told their daughters, Nancy and her older sister, Alice, about the disease and that they were at risk of getting it, too. Despite the odds, he insisted that they would be spared.

But looking back at that day, Dr. Wexler said she felt that, in an instant, three generations had been wiped out: Her mother, herself and the children she had hoped to have. She and her sister decided that they would not have children. To this day, Dr. Wexler said it is a decision that she very much regrets.

Determined to find a cause and cure, or at least a treatment, Milton Wexler started the Hereditary Disease Foundation to raise money and recruit researchers. Nancy, who received a doctorate in psychology, nonetheless decided to devote her career to Huntingtons and its genetics.

Leonore Wexlers condition worsened. She tried to commit suicide, but Milton Wexler saved her by calling an ambulance. Dr. Wexler said she thought her father later regretted that decision, because her mother suffered for years afterward, in nursing homes.

As she became increasingly ill, I dressed her, carried her, helped her brush her teeth and go to the bathroom, fed her and, mostly, held her and kissed her, Dr. Wexler wrote in an essay published in 1991. Her eyes still haunt me with their sadness and fear.

Leonore Wexler died on Mothers Day in 1978, 10 years after the diagnosis.

The following year, Nancy Wexler made her first trip to Venezuela to study a large extended family, first described in 1955 by a Venezuelan doctor, Americo Negrette. The family was thought to have the worlds highest prevalence of Huntingtons disease. She knew that to find the gene, scientists would need DNA samples from as many affected people and their healthy relatives as possible.

The scientists, arriving by boat, found patients everywhere, some of them children, with the classic writhing and flailing signs of the disease, which was known locally as el mal.

Dr. Wexler told them that she and they were related, that her family had the disease, too. She showed them a tiny scar on her arm where shed had a skin sample taken, as she was asking them to do.

I fell in love with them, she said.

For 20 years, she returned with teams that ultimately collected 4,000 blood samples. They traced the path of the disease through 10 generations in a family tree that included more than 18,000 people.

Working with Nancy in Venezuela was a real testament to how an individual can take a team and get absolutely water out of a brick, said Dr. Anne B. Young, a professor and former chief of neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, who made 22 trips to Venezuela with Dr. Wexler. She was able to take all of us and drive us, 16 hour days out in the field where it was 96 degrees and 90 percent humidity.

Dr. Wexler was a powerful presence.

She was just totally charismatic, and when you walked into the room she would hug you and look you in the eye and listen to everything you said, Dr. Young said. She never thought about herself. She was always thinking about what she could learn from the other person. People just became totally devoted to her. Everybody felt theyd take a bullet for her.

In 1983, just four years after the first trip, the team found a marker, a stretch of DNA that was not the gene itself but nearby. It took a half dozen high-powered research groups handpicked by Dr. Wexler and her father 10 more years to find the gene itself, on chromosome 4, one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes found in most cells in the body.

The discovery was a landmark in genetics, one that scientists say would never have happened without Dr. Wexler.

Biomedical research wasnt a team sport in the 1980s, not until Nancy got involved, and then it had to be, Dr. Collins said.

Dr. Wexler and her father were relentless, he said, by insisting the research groups work together.

Each group was driven by a strong-egoed principal investigator, Dr. Collins said. You can imagine things didnt always go smoothly. But there was no way you could go to Nancy and say, I cant work with this person.

Milton Wexler had been a psychotherapist to the stars, and tapped some of his celebrity clients to help his cause.

During the annual meetings in Santa Monica, there might be a dinner at Julie Andrews house or Carol Burnetts house, Dr. Collins said. We were all starry-eyed. It was quite a perk for us nerds.

Dr. Wexler brought people with Huntingtons and their family members to the research meetings, to describe what life was like with the disease. Many of the scientists had never seen Huntingtons up close.

You couldnt listen to that as a researcher and not be impressed by the seriousness of the task, Dr. Collins said. This was not some academic exercise.

Concern for Dr. Wexler herself also drove the teams.

We knew the clock was ticking for her and for Alice, Dr. Collins said. It was a matter of watching Nancy all the time and wondering if shes escaped the curse or is it going to fall on her, too.

The gene contains the blueprint for a protein that the researchers named Huntingtin. Its role in the brain is not understood. But in people with the disease, a series of three DNA building blocks represented by the letters CAG is repeated too many times. The repeats lead to an abnormal form of Huntingtin, which poisons nerve cells in the brain.

Finding the gene made it possible to develop a test that could tell people at risk whether they would develop the disease. The discovery posed a wrenching ethical and emotional quandary that persists to this day.

Do people really want to know that a disabling and fatal disease lies in wait for them, when there is no cure, not even a treatment that can slow it down?

Researchers feared that the information would make people hopeless and depressed, and even drive some to suicide.

A breakthrough therapy, making testing worthwhile so that treatment could start early to head off the disease, has yet to arrive.

Given her drive for knowledge, many people assumed that Dr. Wexler would be among the first to take the test. But she never did. Nor has her sister.

I dont think I could have lived with that knowledge, Dr. Wexler said. I think I assumed I wouldnt get it, because I was fine.

It was easier to live with ambiguity, she said, adding, Denial is important.

As she moved through middle age, she felt all eyes were on her and resented it.

Everybody watched me like a hawk, she said.

Gradually, the symptoms appeared. She became aware of them only when she saw herself on video or even in the mirror, and would think, Oh gee, why am I moving? There was no single moment of realization; there were many. It is not uncommon for people to recognize they have the disease only when they see photos or videos of themselves, Dr. Young said.

Every time I saw myself on video, I looked a little bit worse, Dr. Wexler said.

Others noticed the movements, the spilled drinks, the wobbly handwriting.

I love her so much that I had trouble convincing myself that she had it, said Dr. Young, who is an expert on the disease. I would try to make it go away in my mind. And I think a lot of people did.

But some colleagues bluntly asked Dr. Wexler if she had the disease. A few went so far as to tell her she did. She would say she did not, only to be told that denial was a symptom. If she happened to cross her legs, some accused her of trying to hide tremors. She found it infuriating.

Dr. Pardes warned the meddlers to back off. People learned to avoid the subject.

It was always the big elephant in the room, Dr. Young said. It made everything uncomfortable for all her best friends, who just withdraw a little bit because they dont want to hurt her.

Her sister encouraged her to open up.

I think that one thing her coming out about it will show is that getting a diagnosis of Huntingtons disease is not a death sentence, Alice Wexler said. Its something people can live with for a long time, if they have the right medical care and social services. She has been living her life in a productive way, and still will.

And so she is, reviewing grant applications, raising money for research and attending scientific conferences. Dr. Wexler holds out hope for the work on new drugs. There is still much to be learned, she says, and she still has a great deal of work to do.

Enjoy life while you can, she advises. Find what gives you some pleasure and go for it. Dont get kidnapped by this.

See original here:
Haunted by a Gene - The New York Times