Category Archives: Human Genetics

GAINESVILLE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYTH) (Cyclo Therapeutics or the Company), a clinical stage biotechnology company dedicated to developing life-changing medicines through science and innovation for patients and families living with diseases, today announced the formation of a Global Steering Committee (GSC) to guide the pivotal Phase 3 global clinical development program of Trappsol Cyclo for the treatment of Niemann-Pick Disease Type C (NPC). As the Global Principal Investigator for the TransportNPC study, Caroline Hastings, MD serves as the senior scientific and clinical expert for the trial and will also chair the GSC.

Dr. Caroline Hastings, global principal investigator for TransportNPC and chair of the GSC, has been instrumental in assembling this high caliber Global Steering Committee with representation of renowned Key Opinion Leaders and clinical experts in NPC. It is another testimony of our commitment to serve the NPC community and deliver on the unmet medical needs. I feel humbled and privileged to be working with this outstanding group of professionals who are committed to advance science and clinical trials that can bring hope and treatment benefits to so many patients and their families, commented Lise Kjems, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer of Cyclo Therapeutics.

The Companys ongoing pivotal Phase 3 study, TransportNPC, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of 2,000 mg/kg doses of Trappsol Cyclo administered intravenously and standard of care (SOC), compared to placebo administered intravenously and SOC alone, in patients with NPC1. The Phase 3 study intends to enroll at least 93 pediatric (age 3 years and older) and adult patients with NPC1 in at least 23 study centers in 9 countries. Eligible patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive either Trappsol Cyclo or a placebo. Randomization will not be constrained based on patient age, nor will patient enrollment be gated by patient age. The study duration is 96 weeks and includes an interim analysis at 48 weeks.

Dr. Hastings, Global Principal Investigator for the TransportNPC trial and member of Cyclo Therapeutics Scientific Advisory Board added, I am very grateful by the overwhelmingly positive responses as I reached out to fellow scientists and physicians to invite them to join the Global Steering Committee. I am honored to be working alongside these wonderful colleagues with outstanding knowledge and expertise and who represent the excellent investigators taking part in the TransportNPC trial. Together, we have a very unique opportunity to further refine the scientific strategy for Trappsol Cyclo and help drive this important program toward potential approval.

NPC is a devastating neurodegenerative disease that needs more effective therapies. Given the clinical course and progressive nature of this disease, novel therapeutic strategies with the potential for disease modifying effects are necessary. The TransportNPC trial is unique as it is designed to demonstrate the long-term clinical benefits and potential for disease modification, commented Professor Roberto Giugliani, MD, PhD.

I have been caring for patients with NPC for more than 25 years. These patients urgently need better treatment options that will better halt the cruel, neurodegenerative course that this disease takes. In this study with cyclodextrin intravenously, I see an opportunity to improve the therapeutic offer, added Dr. Eugen Mengel.

The members of the TransportNPC Global Steering Committee are:

For more information about the Companys TransportNPC pivotal Phase 3 study, visit http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov and reference identifier NCT04860960.

Cyclo Therapeutics received Orphan Drug Designation for Trappsol Cyclo to treat NPC1 in both the U.S. and EU and Fast Track and Rare Pediatric Disease Designations in the U.S. The Rare Pediatric Disease Designation is one of the chief requirements for sponsors to receive a Priority Review Voucher in the U.S. upon marketing authorization.

About Cyclo Therapeutics

Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to developing life-changing medicines through science and innovation for patients and families suffering from disease. The Companys Trappsol Cyclo, an orphan drug designated product in the United States and Europe, is the subject of four formal clinical trials for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C, a rare and fatal genetic disease, (www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02939547, NCT02912793, NCT03893071 and NCT04860960). The Company is planning an early phase clinical trial using Trappsol Cyclo intravenously in Alzheimers Disease based on encouraging data from an Expanded Access program for late-onset Alzheimers Disease (NCT03624842). Additional indications for the active ingredient in Trappsol Cyclo are in development. For additional information, visit the Companys website: http://www.cyclotherapeutics.com.

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains forward-looking statements about the companys current expectations about future results, performance, prospects and opportunities, including, without limitation, statements regarding the satisfaction of closing conditions relating to the offering and the anticipated use of proceeds from the offering. Statements that are not historical facts, such as anticipates, believes and expects or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results in future periods to differ materially from what is expressed in, or implied by, these statements. The factors which may influence the companys future performance include the companys ability to obtain additional capital to expand operations as planned, success in achieving regulatory approval for clinical protocols, enrollment of adequate numbers of patients in clinical trials, unforeseen difficulties in showing efficacy of the companys biopharmaceutical products, success in attracting additional customers and profitable contracts, and regulatory risks associated with producing pharmaceutical grade and food products. These and other risk factors are described from time to time in the companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, but not limited to, the companys reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. Unless required by law, the company assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events.

Read the original post:
Cyclo Therapeutics Announces Formation of Global Steering Committee Comprised of Leading Experts to Advise on the Global Phase 3 Clinical Development...

Pfizer: William Pao

William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., will join Pfizer as executive vice president and chief development officer as of March 21.

Dr. Pao will become a member of Pfizer's executive leadership team, reporting to chairman and CEO Albert Bourla. Hesucceeds Rod MacKenzie, who is retiring after 35 years at Pfizer.

At Pfizer, Dr. Pao will oversee the Companys Global Product Development organization, which is responsible for the clinical development and advancement of Pfizers pipeline of innovative medicines in inflammation and immunology, internal medicine, hospital, oncology and rare disease, as well as regulatory affairs in support of Pfizers R&D pipeline and portfolio of marketed therapies.

Dr. Pao joins Pfizer from Roche,where he most recently served as the Head of Pharma Research and Early Development (pRED) and oversaw the discovery and early development of a portfolio of new molecular entities to treat diseases related to cancer, neuroscience, ophthalmology, rare diseases, immunology, infectious diseases, and rare blood disorders, across seven global sites.

Before joining Roche, Dr. Pao simultaneously held key positions as Professor of Medicine and Director of the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Vanderbilt University, and Director of Personalized Cancer Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center.

During this time, he was co-corresponding author on the first paper to describe osimertinib (Tagrisso), a medication used to treat non-small-cell lung carcinomas with specific mutations. He also co-founded MyCancerGenome, a pioneering cancer medicine knowledge resource for physicians, patients, caregivers, and researchers.

GlaxoSmithKline plc has appointed Tony Wood as Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) designate: who will assume full accountability for R&D across GSKs portfolio and pipeline as of August.

One of the worlds pre-eminent chemists, Wood has more than 30 years of experience working across diverse disciplines of R&D to deliver innovative medicines. He joined GSK from Pfizer in 2017, as Senior Vice President, Medicinal Science and Technology, and is responsible for all science and technology platforms supporting the discovery, clinical development and delivery of new medicines across GSK.

Over his career, Wood has led large-scale global organisations in drug discovery and development in multiple therapeutic areas, including immunology, oncology and infectious diseases. He has been involved in the launch of many new medicines at GSK, includingNucala,Blenrep,Jemperli,Cabenuvaand most recentlyXevudy. Wood has also been integral to delivering the recent improvements in GSKs R&D productivity and central to developing its R&D approach focusing on science of the immune system, human genetics and advanced technologies, notably building capabilities in functional genomics, artificial intelligence and machine learning.

In his earlier career at Pfizer, Wood created and led its first global Medicinal Chemistry organisation, supporting all small molecule discovery output from Pfizers research units. Among many achievements, this group designed the antiviral molecules that led to the development of the SARS-CoV-2 medicine Paxlovid.

Wood also created and led Pfizers first Medicinal Sciences organisation. In this role he was accountable for the design and development of medicines including the JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib, JAK3 inhibitor ritlecitinib, and tofacitinib follow-on medicines. He was also responsible for the structure-based design of the Pfizer RSV vaccine, which is currently in phase III development. Prior to this, Tony co-led Pfizers research for the antiviral therapeutic area. He invented maraviroc, a CCR5 antagonist for the treatment of HIV and Pfizers first successful drug derived from high-throughput screening.

Wood will take over from current CSO, Dr Hal Barron. After this, Dr Barron will remain a member of GSKs Board transitioning to serve as a Non-Executive Director and a member of the Boards Science Committee for an initial period of three years. In addition to his Non-Executive responsibilities, Barron will also provide advice and support on scientific and asset development matters and will attend key R&D executive investment and advisory committees. He will also continue to engage with the scientific community, R&D partners and other companies, as required, in support of R&D and on behalf of GSK.

Barron will assume the position of CEO and Board Co-Chair of Altos Labs effective 1 August 2022. Altos Labs is a new, private biotechnology company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, with multiple global sites, and is focused on the biology of cellular rejuvenation programming with the goal of reversing disease.

Biopharma CDMO AGC Biologics has appointed Regina Choi-Rivera as the new General Manager of the companys large-scale biopharmaceutical mammalian production facility in Boulder, Colorado.

AGC Biologics acquired the Boulder Facility in June 2020, giving the company additional capacity and a significantly larger production scale for mammalian-based projects in the US. The Boulder site houses two 20,000-liter stainless steel cell bioreactors and has more than twenty acres of undeveloped land, creating opportunities for future expansion, including space for up to four more 20,000-liter bioreactors. The facilitys automation and cost-effective capabilities make it well-suited for high volume commercial production and high titer antibody processes.

In her new role, Choi-Tivera assumes executive oversight and leadership and will manage strategic development and facility operations. She brings more than 25 years of experience in the biotech industry with her and joins AGC Biologics after working for Samsung Biologics for eight years. While at Samsung Biologics she most recently served as vice president, Head of Drug Product Business Unit. Prior to that Ms. Choi-Rivera was vice president, Head of the Drug Substance Contract Manufacturing Business unit. Before her time at Samsung, she spent nearly a decade with Janssen Pharmaceuticals research and development division, supporting pilot plant operations and managing outsourcing activities.

CurevacsChief Technology Officer, Dr. Mariola Fotin-Mleczek, will resign from CureVac at the end of this month: after nearly 16 years of scientific leadership at the company. She leaves to pursue a family business outside the biotech industry in her home country of Poland.

Fotin-Mleczek joined CureVac in May 2006 and became a member of the management board in 2013, first as Chief Scientific Officer and as Chief Technology Officer in 2018. As a scientist trained in immunology and cell biology, Mariola was responsible for the development and preclinical testing of CureVacs mRNA technology platform across the therapeutic areas of prophylactic vaccines, oncology and molecular therapy. She is co-inventor of multiple key mRNA technology-related patents and has authored more than 30 scientific publications with a focus on mRNA technology.

Further development of CureVacs mRNA technology platform will be led by Dr. Igor Splawski, Chief Scientific Officer of CureVac, and spearheaded by Dr. Patrick Baumhof, Senior Vice President Technology, who has a 15-year scientific tenure with the company. The consolidated scientific frontend will seamlessly integrate with the subsequent clinical development of new mRNA-based vaccines and therapeutics.

Ajinomoto Bio-Pharma Services, a global provider of bio-pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing services, has appointed Tony ONeill as vice president of compliance, US Operations.

ONeill brings extensive experience leading quality, manufacturing, and operational excellence teams in the pharmaceutical and bio-pharmaceutical industry. He joins Aji Bio-Pharma after 25 years at Allergan, where he held a number of quality and operational leadership positions in biologics manufacturing and development with responsibility both in Ireland and US operations. His most recent roles include Executive Director Quality Operations and Executive Director Risk Management and Compliance, where he was responsible for leading a team in developing standard policies and processes for data management and controls across a network of 14 sites.

As we continue to expand our capacity and service offerings, including the addition of our new multi-purpose fill/finish suite, Tonys expertise will be integral in ensuring the required sterility and regulatory standards are met for both cGMP clinical and commercial manufacturing, said Nobu Shimba, President and CEO of Aji Bio-Pharma, US

Genezen, Inc., a cell and gene therapy CDMO focused on early-phase process development, GMP vector production and analytical testing services, has appointed Laura Jacanin as Senior Director of Business Development.

Previouslywith similar roles at Wuxi, Lonza, and Cytovance, Laura has over 20 years experience in the life science sector and has extensive cell and gene therapies (C>s) and biologics expertise.

Jacanin will be responsible for developing and expanding Genezens offering oflentiviral and retroviral vectors to meet the growing demands of the C> market and supporting the development and production of therapies.

Jacanin is the latest in a series of appointments at Genezen which has included: Natasha Rivas as Vice President of Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs; Raymond Kaczmarek as CEO; and Brok Weichbrodt as Vice President of Operations.

The appointments have been made to help drive the business growth alongside a new 75,000+ square foot cGMP-compliant lentiviral and retroviral vector production facility. The first phase, a process development and analytical lab, officially opened in late 2021. The next phase, with cGMP production suites, is currently underway and due to complete in early 2022.

View post:
New appointments in the biopharma industry - BioPharma-Reporter.com

The research report Monoclonal Antibodies Market includes qualitative and quantitative insights into the major drivers, restraints, opportunities, and challenges impacting worldwide market growth. The analysis contains detailed statistical market data on the major companies, as well as revenue forecasts. The Monoclonal Antibodies market study also includes information on the sales growth of many regional and country-level markets, as well as the competitive landscape and specific company analysis for the forecast period. The Market Report examines future growth factors as well as the existing status of market share, penetration of various types, technologies, applications, and geographies through 2027.

In accordance with the Monoclonal Antibodies market is set to grow at a CAGR of 10.2% over a forecast period (2022-2027).

Sample Report:

https://marketintelligencedata.com/reports/1537656/global-monoclonal-antibodies-market-growth-2022-2028/inquiry?Mode=Vaishnavi

Top Players Analysed in the Report are:

, AbbVie, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck, BMS, Eli Lilly, Formation Biologics, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, mmunogen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Stemcentrx, Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva,

Monoclonal Antibodies Market Segmentation, By Type:

Cancer

Autoimmune Diseases

Infection

Hematological Diseases

Others

Monoclonal Antibodies Market Segmentation, By Application:

Cancer

Autoimmune Diseases

Infection

Hematological Diseases

Others

Segmentation by application: breakdown data from 2016 to 2021, in Section 2.4; and forecast to 2026 in section 11.8.

Oncology

Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases

Respiratory diseases

Ophthalmology

Regional Analysis:

Global Monoclonal Antibodies Market is further classified on the basis of region as follows:

North America (USA, Canada, Mexico)

Europe (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Central and Eastern Europe, CIS)

Asia Pacific (China, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN, India, rest of Asia Pacific)

Latin America (Brazil, rest of LA)

Middle East and Africa (Turkey, CCG, rest of the Middle East)

Report Link:

https://marketintelligencedata.com/reports/1537656/global-monoclonal-antibodies-market-growth-2022-2028?Mode=Vaishnavi

Table of Contents Monoclonal Antibodies Market:

Chapter 1: Overview of Monoclonal Antibodies Market

Chapter 2: Global Market Status and Forecast by Regions and Typed

Chapter 3: Company Profiles, recent developments, and investments

Chapter 4: Market Competition Status by Major Manufacturers

Chapter 5: Major Manufacturers Introduction and Market Data

Chapter 6: Upstream and Downstream Market Analysis

Chapter 7: Cost and Gross Margin Analysis

Chapter 8: Marketing Status Analysis

Chapter 9: Market Report Conclusion

Chapter 10: Research Methodology and Reference.

Monoclonal Antibodies Market Key Points:

Define, describe, and forecast the market for Monoclonal Antibodies products by type, application, end user, and region.

Execute enterprise external environment and PEST analysis.

Develop plans for the organisation to deal with the effects of COVID-19.

Provide market dynamics analysis, such as market driving forces and market growth restrictions.

Provide market entrance strategy study for new or existing businesses, including market segment definition, client analysis, distribution model, product messaging and positioning, and price strategy analysis.

Stay track of worldwide market trends and give a study of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on key global areas.

Analyse participants market opportunities and give industry leaders with competitive landscape insights.

Customization:

The Global Monoclonal Antibodies Market report may be modified to meet your specific business needs. Because we understand what our clients want, we provide 25% customization for any of our Market Intelligence Data reports at no additional cost to all of our clients.

About Us:

Market Intelligence Data is a global front-runner in the research industry, offering contextual and data-driven research services to customers. Customers are supported in creating business plans and attaining long-term success in their respective marketplaces by the organization. The industry provides consulting services, Market Intelligence Data research studies, and customized research reports.

Contact Us:

Irfan Tamboli (Head of Sales) MARKET INTELLIGENCE DATA

Phone: +1 (704) 266-3234

Mail to: sales@marketintelligencedata.com

See the original post:
Monoclonal Antibodies Market Profitability and Leading Players To 2027 | North America, Europe, Asia and Pacific The Grundy Register - The Grundy...

Deer graze along the dunes at Robert Moses State Park in Babylon, NY.Photo: Thomas A. Ferrara/Newsday RM (Getty Images)

The Omicron variant of the coronavirus has found its way into white-tailed deer living in New York, new research released this week has found. The results are the latest to show that deer in the U.S. have become frequent carriers of SARS-CoV-2a phenomenon that could have important implications for the future of the virus and our vulnerability to new variants.

Numerous studies have found that deer can readily contract the coronavirus. Last November, for instance, researchers from Penn State University and elsewhere reported that up to a third of free-living and captive deer in Iowa carried traces of the virus from late 2020 to early 2021. Some of these same researchers from Penn State and others, including those with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, have released their latest findings this week on the preprint website bioRxiv.

The team tested blood and nasal samples from wild deer living on Staten Island that were temporarily captured as part of a sterilization program to keep the population in check. The samples were collected between December 2021 and January 2022, and the scientists performed antibody and RNA tests on them.

Overall, 14.5% of 131 deer that had their blood taken tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus, indicating a prior infection. About 10% of the 68 deer that had nasal swabs taken tested positive for an acute infection. And when the researchers sequenced the genetics of these positive samples, they found that some had caught the Omicron variant, the most transmissible version of the coronavirus to emerge yet.

The Omicron found in these deer bore a close genetic resemblance to Omicron strains found in human residents of the city, all but confirming that humans had somehow been the source of the deer infections. Its unclear how this is happening, but direct contact via hand-feeding or through exposure to contaminated wastewater or trash are possibilities. Interestingly, at least one infected deer had both an active infection and very high antibody levels, possibly indicating that it had been reinfected.

This work, the researchers say in their paper, clearly shows that Omicron can infect white-tailed deer and highlights an urgent need for comprehensive surveillance of susceptible animal species to identify ecological transmission networks and better assess the potential risks of spillback to humans.

Deer, at least in the lab with older strains of the virus, dont appear to experience much if any illness from their infections, unlike other animals such as minks. But the widespread transmission of the virus seen in these animals doesnt bode well for several reasons. The virus could mutate to become a serious health problem for deer in the U.S., which would only add to the list of infectious diseases circulating in these animals. The virus could also mutate in unpredictable ways or recombine with other coronaviruses in deer that would allow it to become more immune-evading or virulent once its transmitted back to humans.

None of this is certain, of course, and theres plenty of coronavirus already circulating and mutating in humans. But one reason why diseases like influenza are considered a pandemic threat is that flu viruses are constantly being spread back and forth between different species. Every once in a while, the genetic shuffling that this process produces can spit out a version of the flu thats both highly contagious in humans and much more deadly than the typical seasonal flu. So if the same thing can happen with SARS-CoV-2, its a risk that we have to keep an eye on as much as possible, the researcherssay.

The circulation of the virus in deer provides opportunities for it to adapt and evolve, study author Vivek Kapur, a veterinary microbiologist at Penn State University, told the New York Times. And its likely to come back and haunt us in the future.

Read the rest here:
Deer in New York Test Positive for Omicron, Researchers Warn of Future 'Spillback to Humans' - Gizmodo

Food that is organic or not organic? Grown from genetically modified (engineered) seeds or not?

How about neither genetically modifiednor organic?What aboutboth organic and genetically modified??

The first two are pretty common questions, while the latter two are almost never asked. Some people believe that within thecontinuum of macro and micro phenomenaof the natural world, deliberate and precise crop modifications at the genomic level should be prohibited, must be linked to pesticide use, and are distinctly different than the relatively random modifications achieved via traditional breeding techniques. They are virulently anti-biotechnology. A whole industry developed around these beliefs.

This limited thinking comes at a cost: We spend a greater proportion of income on food; we omit some foods out of the diet due to cost, possibly reducing nutrient quality intake. In Canada, where I live, we risk becoming a laggard nation by signaling to the pubic and businesses that we are not willing to keep up with technology; and inadvertently or note we perpetuate fear mongering agendas to result in an ignorant population.

Heres a question Ive struggled with for a long time: why are those that are pro-organic and concerned around pesticide use also not embracing GMO technology, which in some cases dramatically reduces the amount and toxicity of crop chemicals?

I believe organic GMOs should be not only accepted but actively pursued and especially by those who embrace the goal of organics to reduce the environmental impact of farming.

I know that assertion seems absurd to most people but Im going to try to explain my perspective. Keep in mind there are many layers to this topic, some outside the scope here, but Im going to try to clearly break it down step-by-step.

Almost all of the plant food you eat was processed from commercial crop varieties. Of the dozens of varieties registered and available in any given year, a farmer must then assess performance of that variety (either from past experience, or from accumulated field trial data provided by researchers), consider if the data is relevant for the farms geography/soil/latitude, as well as seed availability, production economics, and other production implications, while staying aware of what market demands are while usually trying to predict what prices will be in the coming year. For example (and assuming prices arent contractually locked-in with a buyer prior to producing it), does the buyer of his grain wantcertified organicgrain or not? This question in particular is relevant since production practices of the crop in the field are largely determined by those intended markets, especially in terms of the land being used as well as pesticides used.

Think about the chronological order of everything described so far. The way the crop is grown in the field determines whether or not the food made from it can be labelled as organic or not. Non-GMO is dependent upon the way the genetics came together prior to variety registration, years before the variety is grown in the field. Yet, the terms organic and non-GMO are used interchangeably and inseparably.

Why?

Heres an analogy. Lets say youre shopping for a new sports car, and your only must-have is that it must be powered by a BMW engine. Logically, it would make sense to start looking at BMW cars, but actually you can get other brands with BMW engines: Morgan (brand) out of the UK is a distinct brand but actually uses BMW engines:

Morgans also happen to be mostly hand-built, use wooden body panels, and their factories are mostly old brick buildings. BMW uses much automation/robotics and their factories are more modern and constructed differently. If your only must-have is the BMW engine, do you really care how the car around it was produced? Probably not.

This analogy can help us understand the controversy over growing GMO seeds organically. A widely-held but inaccurate perception of agricultural practices / food production is that they must be either one or the other of these two categories:

But this is a more accurate way of viewing it:

In other words and in most cases the method of production (growing the crop) used in the field is independent of the method used to establish the genetics of that plant (from which the food or ingredients are sourced). What is more, the way that the genetics were assembled in the crop must always precede production of the crop commodity that later becomes food.

Because the genome all genes of the plant is the blueprint for the plant, genetic changes can influence a huge diversity of traits, including (but not strictly or limited to) things like herbicide (such as glyphosate) tolerance. Conversely, not all herbicide tolerance is the result of genetic modification techniques either.

One disclaimer. I have worked for one of the big companies and I have also worked in government alongside incredibly smart people that were not secretly funded by an agricultural biotechnology company contrary to what some camps ceaselessly believe. Neither of those groups have any interest in talking about this topic. Guess why? Because theres no money in it. Thats only half an answer though, because profit in a capitalist market is the by-product of supplying a demand with a desired and affordable producta product that consumers you and me are willing to pay for.

So to ask the question again: Why dont private companies or government have an interest in talking about organic GMOs? Its because theres zero demand. But why is there zero demand? I think its because consumers are completely unaware that its even a theoretical option and thus nobody is asking for such products. In my opinion, organic GMOs have massive potential: to improve nutrition, minimize pesticide use, quickly mitigate production challenges related to climate change, increase carbon sequestration and minimize environmental damage of climate change, reduce costs along the value chain (thus reducing cost of groceries), open up an entire new branch of research, and employ highly-skilled people.

Im going to use a weird-looking square version of a Venn diagram to avoid awkward gaps between boundaries of overlapping circular borders of a normal Venn. Im going to start broad, then increasingly narrow down the details, adding layer upon layer in the diagram. There will be 3 major layers to this process as well:

Unlessan entire genome has been synthetically assembledde novo(by manually connecting millions of independent nucleotides and inserting it into an empty cell resulting in a viable life form) or, by manually editing codons of an existing genomewith alternative sequences with the same function or, unless a living organism has somehow spontaneously manifested itself out of the aether, any organism plant or animal, organic or not must be derived from existing genetics. In other words, in plants, parent genetics have to come together and produce the next generation. For the sake of this post, Im going to represent this starting pool of genetics using a giant grey square:

This is the first major layer to this discussion. So again, this grey square blob contains all the compatible genetics in nature that could possibly be combined and recombined to produce the baby plants of the next generation. (The label at the top refers to two differing and naturally-occurring plant reproductive systems, but regardless, this square still represents all available genetics). In the case of GMOs, cisgenic sources would be grouped into this pool. I didnt show it here because this illustration will become really busy as it is already, but transgenic would be a small, different shade of grey square off to the side (since those genetic modifications do become compatible but technically come from a non-compatible source organism, and make up a very small proportion of all genetic material available.

Next, lets look at the 2nd major layer to this process (As we move inwards towards the centre of this diagram, were moving further along the breeding process, step by step, until we reach the new plant variety. (The letters A, B, C and D refer to various routes to get to that end point, which Ill summarize at the end, but for now just ignore them). Note that sizes of any category are not necessarily proportional to the real amount of material established through either method, its just to illustrate the relationships.):

Since the grey represents any and all possible genetic resources from which the genetics of a new plant variety can be established, any technique, whether itstraditional breeding, or GMO, must be derived from those resources. Those genetic resources used, regardless of the methods, are thus a sub-set of that whole pool of resources available. During this process, tools to enhance the breeding process, such as MAS described earlier, may be used. (Another example might the general category of gene-editing, including techniques such as CRISPR, which are not consistently considered GMO across all regulatory jurisdictions at this time.)

Even though a plant may be the recipient of novel genes, or of engineered changes within its existing genome, these still make up a very small percentage of the entire genome of the plant. Therefore, selection must still be carried out in the field as it would be with traditional breeding. A GMO is not a completely unnatural, 100% fabricated or synthetic thing; it is actually a mostly-the-same variant of the non-GMO counterpart.

Lets look atBrassica napus, for example. This oilseed crop has848,200,303 total nucleotide base pairs(the subunit of genes, and the level at which modifications can be engineered) and a large proportion of varieties in North America are GMO. Now lets compare a GMO version ofBrassica napus,anInVigor variety: one transgene enables it to be unaffected by a herbicide called glufosinate, and a second one that influences fertility in the plant. The former is comprised of171 base pairs, the latter of90 base pairs. In total, these GMO alterations relative to the wild type progenitor account for 0.00003077% difference. Id argue the proteins expressed by the genes should be the focus of any opponent to such technologies, but even those products of the modifications are a minuscule proportion oftotal expression in the plant.

The lighter shading here represents the breeder selection for traits, such as that glufosinate tolerance, or something as straightforward as the height of the plant. Since any breeding program has multiple generations of populations at any given time, theres a lot of back and forth as far as activities go, but this depicts the progress further towards the end goal of establishing a variety:

These activities will be pretty much the same regardless of whether or not GMO techniques have been used, since as mentioned, GMO is not an entirely new thing, it is mostly the same as a non-GMO variant and must still be grown in the field like any other plant. Aside from the new trait(s) of a GMO that result from novel genes introduced, the GMO variant will respond to environmental pressures the same as any other version of it will. A few common traits selected for are highlighted below (the dotted outlines represent particulars that may be regulated differently in different jurisdictions, can cant be considered definitely a traditional or a GMO tool/process, technically speaking):

This part is super interesting, because herbicide tolerance (HT) traits are commonly assumed to always be GMO, but actually they can be established in plants via either traditional breeding, or applying GMO techniques (genetic engineering). HT gives the crop the ability to go unaffected after being sprayed by a specific herbicide which would otherwise kill it.

Ill use canola as an example again here. There are three main categories of HT canola: glufosinate-resistant (GF), glyphosate-resistant (GP), andimidazolinone-resistant(IMI). All are HT, all have functional differences relative to the wild type progenitor, however GF and GP are GMO while IMI isnotGMO since it was established via traditional breeding. In other words, a couple transgenes were deliberately introduced into parent plants chosen from the starting pool (the grey square) giving the GF and GP varieties this HT ability; in contrast, mutagenesis was used for the starting material in preceding generations for the IMI non-GMO varieties. Mutagenesis involves exposing the population to a mutagen that deliberately induces random mutations (genetic disruptions, resulting in new or different traits) in individuals of the population, from which those with ideal traits (including HT) are selected and further generations are derived from those ones. The mutagen agent is of course not carried forward in subsequent generations, but the resulting mutations (and thus resulting traits) are.

This next part is the third major phase of this concept: field production. This is the part where you see farm equipment operating in the field each year. There are two production methods that farmers can choose: conventional, or organic (but the decision will have been made months before planting and/or before acquiring seed). Conventional is a general category referring to the most modern technology (in crop production, or with field equipment), whereas organic is a technical term described in theOrganic Products Regulationswithin the Canada Agricultural Products Act.

Now keep in mind this is technically speaking: put viable seeds in the ground, and they will grow; the field conditions dont really care about whether generations previous to that seed were bred using traditional or genetic modification techniques. This is why the green representing field production practices overlaps with both breeding approaches. Heres that section outlined in the line-dash:

But, because this is regulation (i.e. power of law), this is the part where the value chain becomes somewhat incongruent with technical realities. Remember the chronological order in which these events must all happen. Up to this point, everything follows a logical flow, but suddenly one of them (the dark green, outlined shaded area) is backwards.

Why isorganic a distinct and regulated term.

In Canada, section 1.4 of Organic production systems: General principles and management standardsclearly prohibits materials or techniques in organic production and preparationall products of and materials from genetic engineering (GE), as defined in this standard, and as specified in 4.1.3, 5.1.2 and 6.2.1 of CAN/CGSB-32.311;. This is currentas of March 2021.It defines genetic engineering to produce GMOs as artificial manipulation of living cells for the purpose of altering its genome constitutes genetic engineering and refers to a set of techniques from modern biotechnology by which the genetic material of an organism is changed in a way that does not occur other than through traditional breeding by multiplication or natural recombination. The genome is considered an indivisible entity; artificial technical/physical insertions, deletions, or rearrangements of elementsof the genome constitute genetic engineering.

Lastly, lets address pesticides. This is the final square overlay.

Neither contemporary systems are perfect in this context, since there are a plethora of pesticides approved for bothconventionalandorganic systems. Of course, toxicology will differ for each but regardless, for registration and use in Canada, they are all subject to the same extensiveregulatoryprocessof the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada.

Now, look at the four letters labelling the pathways around the sides (A, B, C & D). All three, A, B, and D are technically possible, and allowed. But look at path C: plants are bred from the starting pool using genetic engineering techniques, and could very well be grown in the field with organic production methods, since production occurs after the genetics are established in a variety. Sure, you could argue there would be no point to doing that, if the assumption was that all GMO traits are herbicide tolerance, and thus to benefit from the modifications, the appropriate herbicide must be applied. However, HT is only one of many real and theoretical traits that can be conferred to an oRgaNiSm.

One last layer: A sub-category of conventionally-produced crops are those with a herbicide tolerant (HT) trait and thus a specific herbicide is to be used in the field with them.

This concept was already introduced earlier at the trait selection step in the 2nd phase of this process. To date, there are only HT varieties compatible with conventional production of GMO varieties + application of conventional herbicides (path D), and conventional production of non-GMO varieties + application of conventional herbicides (path A). Technically, path B could be possibleandpermitted under current regulation, assuming there were an organically-approved herbicide to which the crop variety were tolerant, but Im unaware of any. And HT under path C of course can never be reached within current regulation.

Its a bit tricky to depict in an illustration. to select for a trait that confers herbicide tolerance, the plants at that step of the breeding process have to be exposed to a specific herbicide (when the herbicide to be used is already defined) or to be exposed to a spectrum of different herbicides (different chemistries)

Lets put it all together. Heres the full illustration with all the details added:

And guess what: the fundamental genetic building blocks are identical whether the plant is GMO or not. Whether youre eating the plants carbohydrates, proteins or fats, the body therefore isnt concerned about how they were assembled. Either the material is digested / broken down and used in the body, or dissembled and excreted and eventually becomes fertilizer for more things to grow, thus adding to the

Considering the information presented on the Canada Organic Trade Association (COTA), the national association which protects, promotes and builds information on Canadas organic sector, it isvehemently opposedto anything GMO, stating that Genetically engineered products (GMOs) are prohibited in organic production. This means an organic farmer cant plant GMO seeds Actually, I can get on board with most ofwhat they actively promote, lets take a look:

While these are mostly noble goals, the opposition to GMOs is over-reaching and not well founded, as it rejects genetically engineered solutions with identical goals. I suppose it makes sense for an organics association to dictate what/what type of pesticides can be used to establish a specific production environment, but for the same association to take any stance on GMOs is inappropriate.I am not saying safety/practicality/feasibility of genetic engineering should not be assessed; rather, I am saying that should be an independent association/effort rather than distorting interest via the lens of a specific production system.

Genetic engineering is already used to significantly reduce the use of toxic and persistent synthetic pesticides and fertilizers while encouraging biodiversity. Consider Bt crops In this case, one gene from a bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt for short originally registered in the USA60 years agoas a biopesticide) that is naturally found in soil was genetically engineered into a corn varietys genome (and subsequently into other crops including soybeans, cotton and eggplant). Why? That gene enabled the bacteria to produce a protein that was naturally (and selectively) an insecticide to a particular insect that happens to be a pest to the corn. Instead of spending time, money, and fuel to spray a synthetic insecticide across entire fields, this modification gave the corn inherent ability to repel that insect.Bt crops eliminate the need to spray to kill insect pests, minimize pest-related crop losses and reduce the financial risksall by using tools already in that environment.

Bt corn was the first insect resistant crop rolled out, in 1995 in the United States. The seeds are now grown in many countries around the world.

Bt cropswhether corn grown in the Canada or South Africa or Brazil, or Bt eggplants grown in Bangladesh have led to a dramatic drop in the use of chemical pesticides.

Organic GMOs will become increasingly relevant in the next few years, not only to comply withglobal effortsto reduce pesticide use, but for reasons unrelated to pesticides.

Here are a few intriguing non-human-nutrition-focused benefits that GMOs could offer, assuming their progress isnt further impeded. Over the past couple decades, they havehelped to reduce pesticide (herbicide and insecticide) and indirectly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Recent efforts are investigating the ability tomodify plants(trees, maybe field crops soon) to reduce carbon emissions by increasing their capacity to store carbon in their root systems. They hint at other modifications to improve their amenability to processing for biofuel use as well, further adding to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.Other groupsbelieve GMOs are essential to quickly adapting commercial crop varieties for extreme environmental changes, such as drought, or even to produce no-carbon fuel. Check out SingaporesGardens by the Bay, one of many futures that agriculture could take.

Such technologies to combat field pests isnt perfect; some populations of the target pest can eventuallyovercomethe crops inherent insecticidal ability note that this is not unique to insects nor to genetic engineering solutions to pests. There are greater implications beyond the scope here, but briefly, implies how crucial crop rotations are (in other words, removing continuous availability of hosts), as well as taking an integrated approach to production (switching up the tools used to combat pests, and/or using 2 or more tools at once).

Another valid concern raised is that crops modified to endogenously produce pesticides means that it is dispersed throughout the plant & thus the parts that are processed for food. If prohibition of this area of research were to end, I would anticipate that the end-products would be subject to the same extensive Health Canadaregulationsas food additives currently are.

To reiterate: Im not saying this is an all-or-nothing scenario, or that GMOs offer all the answers. But these technologies and systems should be more integrated and be given more consideration as complementary rather than viewed as competition. The rapidity with which environments have changed in recent history I would think is even more reason to put all options on the table. When has prohibition of anything ever been effective?

The purpose of this article is not to declare anything as right or wrong, good or bad, best or worst; rather, it is to help non-specialists understand technical nuances and offer some new information to ponder, or cause some progressive discussion among industry. Hopefully in some way, it might help guide a more progressive, rational, sustainable and/or profitable industry. Nothing here is sponsored; it is simply my own view on current and future directions that agriculture may take.

A version of this article was originally posted at the Former Farmboy and is reposted here with permission.

View original post here:
Viewpoint: Will there ever be organic GMOs? Here's the science behind why it it's a good idea - Genetic Literacy Project

A new position paper from the European Society of Human Genetics has described the selection of embryos based on polygenic risk scores as unethical practice, insisting that patients must be properly informed on the limitations of PRS and its reliability for predicting genetically complex diseases. ESHRE shares these concerns.

In a statement, ESHRE has expressed its support for the ESHG position paper, agreeing that at present there are serious scientific and ethical concerns about PRS in embryo testing and that introduction in the clinic is highly undesirable.(3) ESHRE lists four reasons for its concerns over the reliability of PRS, while adding that, even in cases where some analytic validity of a correlation can be demonstrated, the clinical utility of PRS remains at this time low to non-existent and cannot be supported in clinical practice.

PRSs already dubbed PGT-P by some clinics - are estimates of an individuals susceptibility to a specific trait obtained by aggregating the effects of multiple (and potentially millions) of genetic variants associated with that specific trait into a single figure. Yet the ESHG report notes that such traits are highly complex, determined by a combination of genes and environmental factors, and beyond the calculation of any single score derived only from genome-wide association studies. When PRS assessments are provided as direct-to-consumer tests, warns the report, their evaluation of a patients risk may be dangerously incomplete and can lead to grave misunderstandings.

The report emphasises the distinction between embryo assessment based on PRS and that based on single gene or chromosome testing. In the latter cases PGT-M, PGT-SR - the ability of the test to predict the development of a target disease in any offspring is high. PRSs, however, are only able to capture parts of the relevant genetic component.

The ESHG report concludes that at present carrying out a PRS test for embryo selection would be premature at best, adding the critical caveat that resources would be better applied in understanding the complex interplay between PRSs for a range of conditions and the environment than in offering an inadequately evaluated test to our future children.

The ESHG report echoes many of the concerns expressed in a New England Journal of Medicine special report in July last year, which not only listed the many factors which lower the predictive value of PRS but identified too some of the clinics (all in the USA) actually offering embryo selection based on PRS.(4) One of the clinics mentioned appeared to be providing patients with a PRS for education, household income, cognitive ability, and subjective well-being as part of a research protocol.

The NEJM report listed a six-point set of recommendations for communication with patients on the expected gains which might arise from PRS embryo testing, all focused on the provision of risk estimates specific to phenotype and ancestry. The report also advised against exaggerating the benefits of screening additional embryos.

And as did the ESHG paper, the NEJM report concludes that unless and until PRS for embryo screening is more robustly regulated, companies and clinicians who insist on offering this unproved, societally risky service should channel any access to [PRS] through research protocols, at no cost to patient participants.

However, PRS remains a highly controversial subject and any lack of consensus was no better highlighted than in a keenly followed session at last years online annual meeting of ESHRE in which a moral philosopher making a case for PRS also conceded that any clinical applicability of PRS was still five to ten years away.(5) Nevertheless, as in the ESHRE and ESHG statements, the prevailing arguments against PRS were based on reliability and accuracy, with many objections from the virtual floor questioning just how accurate the prediction of an embryos putative health might be from a PRS calculated from a battery of SNPs and genome-wide association studies.

1. See https://www.eshg.org/index.php?id=910&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=35&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=1c5c9e18d572aec81caa0ab5f3fb4bff

2. Forzano F, Antonova O, Clarke A, et al. The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice. Eur J Hum Genet 2021; doi.org/10.1038/s41431-021-01000-x

3. See /Europe/Position-statements/PRS

4. Turley P, Meyer MN, Wang N, et al. Problems with using polygenic scores to select embryos. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 78-86. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr2105065

5. See https://www.focusonreproduction.eu/article/ESHRE-News-ESHRE-2021-polygenic-risk

Go here to read the rest:
Embryo selection based on polygenic risk score denounced as 'unproven, unethical' practice - ESHRE

The University of Zurich is seeking applications for anAssistant Professorship in Legal Questions Pertaining to Reproduction and Human Genetics (URPP Human Reproduction Reloaded)

to take effect from the beginning of the 2022 Fall Semester (1 August 2022), or by arrangement.

The University Research Priority Program (URPP) Human Reproduction Reloaded aims to examine the legal, philosophical, medical, and sociological dimensions of human reproduction and places a particular focus on reproductive medicine, including human genetics. The program also monitors the possible uses of CRISPR genetic scissors in a high-risk project. An express aim of the URPP is to promote young researchers, which is why two assistant professorships are planned for the duration of the project: one with a medical focus in the CRISPR project, the other in sub-project 1 at the Faculty of Law. Sub-project 1 is dedicated to the normativity of human reproduction and researches the way biological realities and historical, philosophical, and legal concepts interact with one another. The project also examines their gender-theoretical implications.

We are looking for someone who, building on a qualification in law, has interdisciplinary skills, specifically in the field of reproductive medicine and genetics, possibly as well in fields such as history, ethics, gender studies or philosophy. The qualification should be reflected in an outstanding dissertation and additional publications. The dissertation should address an area of law applicable to issues of reproductive medicine and human genetics, such as medical, family, property, or private law.

In addition to the URPP and the Faculty of Law, the assistant professorship will also be affiliated with the MERH Centre, which addresses fundamental issues of medical law. Therefore, the ideal focus would be on medical law, particularly pertaining to reproductive medicine and human genetics. A qualification in private law would be considered, but also one in public, commercial, and possibly criminal law. The reason for this is that the dimensions of human reproduction and genetics researched in the URPP raise legal questions of different denominations, which are not fully reflected in the existing legal curriculum. This particularly applies to the monitoring of the high-risk CRISPR project.

The assistant professorship in sub-project 1 of the URPP is designed as a qualification position and includes tasks in research, teaching and the administration of the URPP. The aim of the assistant professorship is to provide the appointed candidate with further qualifications to be able to obtain a professorship and thus generally speaking carry out a habilitation at the Faculty of Law. The application must therefore be accompanied by a project proposal which demonstrates that the candidate has an express interest and ability to research in depth the legal issues addressed by the URPP and develop new approaches to solving urgent legal issues in human reproduction and human genetics. The possibility of a permanent position will be examined as part of the appointment procedure with the involvement of the specialist groups concerned.

Candidates with a non-Swiss and/or foreign language background must be willing to acquire German language skills. Good knowledge of other languages, particularly English, which is intended to be the second working language of the URPP, is desirable and may replace German language skills for an initial period.

The University of Zurich strives to increase the representation of women in research and teaching, and therefore specifically welcomes applications from these candidates.

Further information relating to this job profile can be found on http://www.ius.uzh.ch/de/faculty/news/jobs.html.

Further InformationAs responsible member of the appointment committee, Professor Ulrike Babusiaux (ulrike.babusiaux@rwi.uzh.ch), is available to answer any questions and provide further information.

Please submit your application documents by 30 March 2022 online via http://www.recruiting.ius.uzh.ch/position/10158080. You may be requested to submit hard copy documents separately at a later point.

Read more from the original source:
Assistant Professorship in Legal Questions Pertaining to Reproduction and Human Genetics job with UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH | 279873 - Times Higher...

Black patients diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) of unknown cause are more likely to have family members at risk of developing the heart muscle disease than families of white patients, according to results of a multisite study led by researchers atThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterandCollege of Medicine.

Researchers studied the prevalence and risk of familial DCM in Black and white patients and their family members, noting most studies have included only whites even though Blacks with DCM have a higher risk of heart failure-related hospitalization and death. Researchers believe most of idiopathic, or unknown cause, DCM has a genetic basis.

Using mathematical modeling techniques, researchers estimated that 30% of patients with DCM seen at a typical advanced heart failure program in the U.S. had at least one first-degree family member (child, sibling or parent) with DCM. When broken down by self-identified race, an estimated 39% of Black patients and 28% of white patients had at least one first-degree family member with DCM. The study was publishedFeb.1 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Integrating Black families into this DCM study was critically important because most information has only been available for white patients. Our study shows that families of Black patients are at greater risk for DCM than those of white patients. We dont yet understand all of the reasons for this. It could be from differences in genetics, comorbidities or social determinants of health. This analysis, which only included clinical information, was unable to clarify that, but the genetic analysis being completed now will soon be available, saidDr. Ray Hershberger, a cardiologist and division director of human genetics at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center and a researcher at theDorothy M. Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute.

Hershberger is the senior author of the study and heads up theDCM Consortium, which is composed of 25 leading academic U.S. heart failure/heart transplant programs that contributed to the study.

The five-year study enrolled 1,220 patients with DCM, of which 44% were women, 43% were Black and 8% were Hispanic, along with 1,693 of their first-degree relatives. DCM is a condition in which the heart muscle weakens and the left ventricle enlarges. Its the most common cause of patients needing a heart transplant and responsible for about half of heart failure cases that result from a weakened left ventricle. Prior information has suggested that 1 in 250 Americans have DCM.

DCM can occur in family members at almost any age but the typical onset is mid 40s. The severity of the condition can vary within families, with some family members exhibiting minor symptoms while others may die of heart failure or an arrhythmia causing sudden cardiac death. Symptoms include shortness of breath with exertion, fatigue, edema of the legs and feet, an irregular heartbeat or lethal arrhythmias.

The study estimated that about 1 in 5 first-degree family members of patients with idiopathic DCM were at risk of getting the condition during their lifetime.

DCM can be silent for months to years before symptoms begin. Eventually heart failure may develop, which is late-phase disease. Since medical treatment has been shown to mitigate asymptomatic DCM, guidelines have recommended that, with a diagnosis of DCM, the patients first-degree family members undergo clinical screening including an echocardiogram so that early asymptomatic DCM can be found and treatment initiated before progression to late-phase disease, Hershberger said. For the first time, this study gives us hard numbers on how to counsel family members on their risk of developing DCM, and especially so for family members of Black patients with DCM.

In 2014, Greg Ruf, 57, of Dublin was diagnosed with DCM, and he has been raising awareness since then about the disease that led to him having a heart transplant last July at Ohio StatesRichard M. Ross Heart Hospital. Nine family members have been identified with gene mutations known to cause DCM.

Theres a million plus people in the United States that are dealing with this and unfortunately many dont know. It's really important to prevent death in your family or advanced disease by getting tested and dealing with this thing head-on, Ruf said.

The study is the first of a series based on findings by the DCM Consortium. The study also examined the genetics of patients with DCM, which will be published later in 2022.

The Dilated Cardiomyopathy Consortium was funded by a $12.4 million grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and a supplemental grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute. For this study, computational infrastructure was provided by The Ohio State University Division of Human Genetics Data Management Platform and theOhio Supercomputer Center.

See more here:
Study finds higher risk in families of Black patients with inherited heart muscle disease - The Ohio State University News

After decades of exhaustive study, scientists have concluded that human tetrachromacy is real. Some people have a truly superhuman range of color vision. In fact, there are two distinct types of tetrachromacy. In some cases, its genetic. But in some rare cases, it can also be an acquired trait. While its difficult to test, enough tetrachromats have stepped forward that scientists now have visual and genetic tests for the condition.

One percent of the worlds population is thought to be tetrachromatic. These lucky folks may be able to see a thousand times as many colors as the rest of us trichromats. In order to test that idea, researcher Gabriele Johnson devised an experiment. She used precise amounts of pigment to create shades of paint that could only be distinguished by a machine or a tetrachromat. In 2010, Johnson found a subject who was able to tell each subtle shade apart, every time just as fast as trichromats could identify the colors they saw. When you ask them to discriminate between the two mixtures, a tetrachromat can do it very quickly, she said. They dont hesitate.

Concetta Antico is a painter and art teacher with genetic tetrachromacy. Growing up in Sydney, she says, she was always a little bit out of the box, alone in her own visual dreamland. She always preferred the kaleidoscope of colors she saw when she looked at the natural world. But nobody else seemed to see it quite like she did. So she decided to paint what she saw. Im sure people just think Im high on something all the time, she said, but Im really just high on life and the beauty thats around us.

Antico leaned into her impressionist euphoria. She opened a teaching studio in California. Then in 2012, genetic tests revealed an explanation for Anticos preferences and the way she saw her world. Shes a genetic tetrachromat.

Portrait of the artist as a rainbow? Image: C. Antico

Genetic tetrachromacy means that a person has two different genes for their photopigments, both active at the same time. Up to 12% of people with two X chromosomes may have the condition. With a copy of OPN1MW on one X chromosome and a copy of OPNMW2 on the other, its possible for a person to have four separate and functional cones in their retina, instead of the usual three. But the cones response ranges overlap, so the same wavelength of visible light can saturate more than one receptor. This may explain the visual differences characteristic of this type of tetrachromacy. People with the condition can make finer distinctions between shades, because they have more combinations of color receptors to do it with.

Having the right hardware is essential for tetrachromacy, but its not sufficient. A person has to recognize the perceptual effects, and then learn to pay attention to them. Dr. Kimberly Jameson, who has studied Antico, said of the artist that In Concettas case one thing we believe is that because shes been painting sort of continuously since the age of seven years old, she has really enlisted this extra potential and used it. This is how genetics works: it gives you the potential to do things and if the environment demands that you do that thing, then the genes kick in.

Rainbows are a delight to the eye as they gleam from raindrops or a crystal prism. If Anticos art is any guide, a person with genetic tetrachromacy sees their entire world illuminated with that deep, luminous palette. Many of her works strive to capture a certain slant of light. Some, like this painting of the waters edge at La Jolla, also show her unique perception of color.

In this rendering of the morning light over the coastline at La Jolla, the highly saturated colors bring out the quality of the light. Image: C. Antico

While the bright morning light throws harsh shadows with hard edges, the muted colors in the background create depth of field. Combined, they show how mist over the water catches and holds the light. In the foaming water, greens and teals and Caribbean turquoise swirl around reflections of the amber cliffside. The nearest cliff casts a deep shadow over the water. In the shadow, Antico sees an iridescent purple shimmer, like an abalone shell.

Where the painting of La Jolla shows sunlight on a clear, hot day, the sky in this painting of Mission Hills looks like light breaking through after a thunderstorm. In the flowers and foliage, richly saturated colors leap out of the painting as though they cant contain themselves. After a good rain, sometimes the plants are just very green, and the flowers very bright.

This painting may demonstrate the ways a tetrachromat sees the world: vivid, highly saturated, almost enough to make you blink. Image: C. Antico

Overlapping activation of cones could explain the colors that seem to pop up in unexpected places. Its not just an affectation and its not artistic licence, Antico says. Im actually painting exactly what I see. If its a pink flower and then all of a sudden you see a bit of lilac or blue, I actually saw that.

Where some people have an unusual variety of cones that respond to the visual spectrum, theres another kind of tetrachromacy. Some people with tetrachromatic vision can see into the UV band, perceiving a bright purple glow where others perceive nothing at all. This is the kind of tetrachromacy that can be an acquired trait.

Normally, the lens of the human eye blocks most light below 400 nm, which is where the UV band starts. Cones that respond to the deepest violets can actually be sensitive to near UV. However, because they dont receive that light, they never have a chance to fire in response to it. This is why UV lasers are so dangerous. Even though too much UV can damage the eye, we dont see it, so we dont know to look away.

Most people dont perceive ultraviolet light at all. But all of that can change if a person doesnt have a lens (a condition called aphakia). Aphakia is mostly caused by surgical removal of the lens in order to treat cataracts. Without a lens, some UV can reach the retina and light up those deep-violet cones, which is remarkable all by itself. But aphakia can be treated by implanting an intra-ocular lens (IOL). In rare cases, recipients of a crystalline IOL called the Crystalens report a newfound ability to see into the near UV. The Crystalens permits some near UV, above 340nm.

Engineer and former Air Force officer Alek Komar has a website detailing how his color vision changed following major cataract surgery. In Komars case, however, he didnt just get his normal color vision back with the Crystalens implant. The lens allows some near UV light to hit Komars short-wavelength cones. As a result, he can now see wavelengths of light that are invisible to most humans. Komar did A/B testing with a black light and a UV flashlight. It seemed that he could see the UV as a purple glow.

An example of what its like to be able to see UV light. Because UV light stimulates the violet cones, it scans as purple light where none existed before. Image: Alek Komar.

Still skeptical, Komar secured the help of another engineer, this one from HP. To test Komars vision, they used a Monochromator, a device capable of projecting light in 10nm wavelength increments. The results confirmed his perception. Komar can see near-UV light, down to 340-350nm.

Subsequent reports indicate that hes not the only Crystalens patient to see ultraviolet wavelengths following the procedure. On his site he details anecdotal reports from people with a Crystalens IOL in only one eye, who describe a startling difference in what their left and right eyes see.

While its uncommon in humans, UV tetrachromacy is widespread elsewhere in the animal kingdom. It goes way beyond mantis shrimp. Numerous species of bird have a fourth cone that allows them to see well into the ultraviolet. As with the cryptochrome that enables them to see the Earths magnetic field, UV light may help birds navigate.

Bees also use ultraviolet cues to navigate. Under UV light, some flowers look very different from what we see in the visible spectrum. Bees use these spectral differences to choose flowers and tell them apart. For instance, check out this picture of a flower from Alek Komars backyard:

Image: Alek Komar

Taken in the visible spectrum, this simple snap shows a sunny yellow-and-orange flower as most humans see it. But the same flower looks very different when its photographed in the UV band.

Image: Dr. Klaus Schmitt, via Alek Komar.

Komar plans to continue his UV experimentation. Hes working on a test of spatial resolution, which would require an eye chart only visible in UV. And for her part, Antico is teaching less and painting more these days.My gift allows me to see the true colors of the beauty that surrounds me, my life long passion and dedication to art allows me to paint it, she says. Painting provides a medium through which I can show those colors to others too.

Personally, Im holding out for a gene therapy that lets me hot-swap my vision with a mantis shrimps. But what kind of eye chart could we possibly use to test for that?

Feature image by Thorsten Hartmann, CC BY 2.0. Image was cropped from original format.

Go here to read the rest:
Human Tetrachromacy is Real. Here's What We Know - ExtremeTech

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif., Feb. 3, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN) will host a virtual Business Review Meeting at 8:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2022. Robert A. Bradway, chairman and chief executive officer, along with other members of Amgen's management team, will present a comprehensive review of the company's strategy, operations, pipeline, research capabilities and growth outlook. The Business Review Meeting will be broadcast over the internet simultaneously and will be available to members of the news media, investors and the general public.

The webcast, as with other selected webcasts and presentations regarding developments in Amgen's business given at certain investor and medical conferences, can be accessed on Amgen's website, http://www.amgen.com,under the Investors tab.

Information regarding presentation times, webcast availability and webcast links are noted on Amgen's Investor Relations Events Calendar. The webcast will be archived and available for replay for at least 90 days after the event.

About Amgen

Amgen is committed to unlocking the potential of biology for patients suffering from serious illnesses by discovering, developing, manufacturing and delivering innovative human therapeutics. This approach begins by using tools like advanced human genetics to unravel the complexities of disease and understand the fundamentals of human biology.

Amgen focuses on areas of high unmet medical need and leverages its expertise to strive for solutions that improve health outcomes and dramatically improve people's lives. A biotechnology pioneer since 1980, Amgen has grown to beone ofthe world'sleadingindependent biotechnology companies, has reached millions of patients around the world and is developing a pipeline of medicines with breakaway potential.

Amgen is one of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also part of the Nasdaq-100 index. In 2021, Amgen was named one of the 25 World's Best Workplaces by Fortune and Great Place to Work and one of the 100 most sustainable companies in the world by Barron's.

For more information, visitwww.amgen.comand follow us onwww.twitter.com/amgen.

CONTACT: Amgen, Thousand Oaks

Megan Fox, 805-447-1423 (media)

Michael Strapazon, 805-313-5553 (media)

Arvind Sood, 805-447-1060 (investors)

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amgen-to-host-virtual-business-review-meeting-301475127.html

SOURCE Amgen

See the original post here:
AMGEN TO HOST VIRTUAL BUSINESS REVIEW MEETING | | news-journal.com - Longview News-Journal