Category Archives: Transhuman News

By Tom Abate, Stanford School of Engineering

A decade-long effort in genetic engineering is close to creating yeast that makes palliative medicines in stainless steel vats.

For centuries poppy plants have been grown to provide opium, the compound from which morphine and other important medicines such as oxycodone are derived.

Now bioengineers at Stanford have hacked the DNA of yeast, reprograming these simple cells to make opioid-based medicines via a sophisticated extension of the basic brewing process that makes beer.

Led by Associate Professor of Bioengineering Christina Smolke, the Stanford team has already spent a decade genetically engineering yeast cells to reproduce the biochemistry of poppies with the ultimate goal of producing opium-based medicines, from start to finish, in fermentation vats.

We are now very close to replicating the entire opioid production process in a way that eliminates the need to grow poppies, allowing us to reliably manufacture essential medicines while mitigating the potential for diversion to illegal use, said Smolke, who outlines her work in the August 24th edition of Nature Chemical Biology.

In the new report Smolke and her collaborators, Kate Thodey, a post-doctoral scholar in bioengineering, and Stephanie Galanie, a doctoral student in chemistry, detail how they added five genes from two different organisms to yeast cells. Three of these genes came from the poppy itself, and the others from a bacterium that lives on poppy plant stalks.

This multi-species gene mashup was required to turn yeast into cellular factories that replicate two, now-separate processes: how nature produces opium in poppies, and then how pharmacologists use chemical processes to further refine opium derivatives into modern opioid drugs such as hydrocodone.

From Plants to Pills Today

Plant-derived opium has been used and abused for centuries, but a good place to begin the modern story is with the use of morphine during World War II.

Read more:
Bioengineers Close To Creating Painkillers Without Using Opium From Poppies

Genetically modified foods should not require distinguishing labels by Nazar Aljassar | Aug 28 2014 | 08/28/14 10:57pm

A new brand of Luddism has erupted in America. In spite of ample scientific evidence that corroborates the biosafety of genetic modification of crops, over half of Americans believe genetically modified foods are unsafe, with 93 percent in favor of mandatory labels on genetically modified food.

Part of the objection to genetically modified crops stems from a belief that natural foods are superior to unnatural foods a naturalistic fallacy. Nothing is intrinsically virtuous about consuming food crops that are grown naturally. Unfortunately, appeals to nature and tradition have hijacked the discourse surrounding genetic modification.

Its important to note that all agriculture is unnatural. Any claim about the extent to which food crops are natural is meaningless. Agriculture is the largest and most enduring human intervention into the natural world. Through selective breeding, farmers have artificially created several crops for human consumption. Kale and kohlrabi were developed from wild mustard after decades of careful heredity manipulation. Artificial selection has given rise to high-quality strains of soybeans, wheat and corn, all of which have been a boon to civilization. Artificial selection and artificial mutation through genetic engineering both alter food crops on the same microbiological level. The primary distinction is that the latter method can be used to obtain desired traits with greater speed and efficiency.

Genetic modification of organisms is not a novel concept. We have been doing it for thousands of years. Genetic modification through DNA extraction, gene cloning, gene design, transformation and backcross breeding is simply a faster, better way to achieve the results sought through traditional artificial selection.

Despite left-wing insistence that the right wing is anti-science, some of the most strident opposition to genetic modification of food crops comes from progressives. Although liberals are often stalwart supporters of clean energy laws and evolution education, many are fervently in favor of mandating labels on genetically modified foods. Vermont became the first state to enact such legislation, and pressure currently mounts for similar laws in liberal states such as New York, California, Oregon and Massachusetts.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin defended his states GMO labeling law, maintaining that consumers have the right to know what they buy. The problem with this line of thought lies in the fact that it suggests dangers immanent in genetically modified food. The scientific consensus, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is that crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. After allocating over 300 million to research, the European Union revealed in a report its findings on the safety of genetically modified crops: the main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projectsis that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. Among other organizations that have affirmed the biosafety of genetically modified crops are the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society.

For liberal legislators to yield to the publics fears about genetic modification only advances scientific misinformation about an agricultural innovation that provides plants resistant to infectious disease, superior foods with longer shelf lives and large crop yields to permit more efficient land use.

There are legitimate criticisms of genetic modification. Economically, introducing genetically modified food to market demands significant time and cost, endangering smaller farms that cannot afford to compete with large agricultural biotechnology companies. Genetic modification also presents a few environmental risks such as reduced biodiversity through genetic homogeneity and resulting from extensive monoculture crop production.

But we shouldnt ignore its efficiency because of these few flaws. Like any scientific advancement, genetic modification will continue to improve with research for which public and political support is crucial. In the face of concerns about genetic modification, we should not jettison the benefits of genetic modification of crops, nor should we propagate the falsehoods that infect scientific discussion by encouraging labels that imply biohazards associated with genetic modification.

Continue reading here:
ALJASSAR: The merits of GMOs

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

25-Aug-2014

Contact: Kathryn Ryan kryan@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, August 25, 2014In a closed-loop control approach to managing type 1 diabetes, glucose sensors placed under the skin continuously monitor blood sugar levels, triggering the release of insulin from an implantable insulin pump as needed. The aim of this closed-loop insulin delivery system is improved control of blood glucose levels throughout the day and night. But a new study in adults and adolescents found that mean blood glucose levels remained at safe levels 53-82% of the time, according to the results published in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (DTT), a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the DTT website at http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/dia.2014.0066 until September 25, 2014.

Howard Zisser, MD and an international team of researchers representing the Control to Range Study Group measured plasma glucose levels every 15-30 minutes in a group of individuals with type 1 diabetes who participated in the "Control to Range" multinational artificial pancreas study. They monitored the adults and teens over 22 hours, including three meals and periods of day and night. The authors describe the risks of hypo- and hyperglycemia, the variability between participants, and the differences in daytime/nighttime results, and also propose improvements needed in the design and implementation of closed-loop systems in the article "Multicenter Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Study Points to Challenges for Keeping Blood Glucose in a Safe Range by a Control Algorithm in Adults and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes from Various Sites".

"It appears that we are getting closer to an Artificial Pancreas option for patients with type 1 diabetes," says DTT Editor-in-Chief Satish Garg, MD, Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Colorado Denver. "The first version may need to be a hybrid system in which meals and exercise are announced with necessary dose adjustments along with Automatic Threshold Suspend for hypoglycemia."

###

About the Journal

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (DTT) is a monthly peer-reviewed journal that covers new technology and new products for the treatment, monitoring, diagnosis, and prevention of diabetes and its complications. Led by Editor-in-Chief Satish Garg, MD, Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Colorado Denver, the Journal covers topics that include noninvasive glucose monitoring, implantable continuous glucose sensors, novel routes of insulin administration, genetic engineering, the artificial pancreas, measures of long-term control, computer applications for case management, telemedicine, the Internet, and new medications. Tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (DTT) website at http://www.liebertpub.com/DTT. DTT is the official journal of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Conference.

About ATTD

Read the original:
Do closed-loop insulin delivery systems improve blood glucose control in type 1 diabetes?