Category Archives: Transhuman News

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 17, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Century Therapeutics (NASDAQ: IPSC), an innovative biotechnology company developing induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived cell therapies in immuno-oncology, today announced that it will be added to the small-cap Russell 2000 Index as a part of the 3Q21 Russell Indexes IPO additions, effective at US market open on September 20, 2021, according to the preliminary list of IPO additions to the Russell indexes.

Centurys inclusion in the Russell 2000 Index is an important milestone that reflects our continued progress toward advancing our lead therapeutic program, CNTY-101, into the clinic and to patients in need, said Lalo Flores, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Century Therapeutics. We are pleased to join the Russell Index and look forward to sharing our potential future growth with a broader audience of investors."

The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity market. Membership in the Russell 2000 Index, which remains in place until the next reconstitution, is based on membership in the broad market Russell 3000 Index. Russell indexes are widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for active investment strategies. Approximately $10.6 trillion in assets are benchmarked against Russell's US indexes. Russell indexes are part of FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.

For more information on the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell indexes reconstitution, visit the FTSE Russell website.

About Century Therapeutics

Century Therapeutics is harnessing the power of adult stem cells to develop curative cell therapy products for cancer that we believe will allow us to overcome the limitations of first-generation cell therapies. Our genetically engineered, iPSC-derived iNK and iT cell products are designed to specifically target hematologic and solid tumor cancers. We are leveraging our expertise in cellular reprogramming, genetic engineering, and manufacturing to develop therapies with the potential to overcome many of the challenges inherent to cell therapy and provide a significant advantage over existing cell therapy technologies. We believe our commitment to developing off-the-shelf cell therapies will expand patient access and provides an unparalleled opportunity to advance the course of cancer care. For more information, please visit http://www.centurytx.com.

Story continues

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of, and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of, The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release, other than statements of historical facts or statements that relate to present facts or current conditions, including but not limited to, statements regarding our our clinical development plans are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as may, might, will, should, expect, plan, aim, seek, anticipate, could, intend, target, project, contemplate, believe, estimate, predict, forecast, potential or continue or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this press release are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, including, among others: our ability to successfully advance our current and future product candidates through development activities, preclinical studies, and clinical trials; our reliance on the maintenance of certain key collaborative relationships for the manufacturing and development of our product candidates; the timing, scope and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, including final regulatory approval of our product candidates; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations; the performance of third parties in connection with the development of our product candidates, including third parties conducting our future clinical trials as well as third-party suppliers and manufacturers; our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and develop sales and marketing capabilities, if our product candidates are approved; and our ability to maintain and successfully enforce adequate intellectual property protection. These and other risks and uncertainties are described more fully in the Risk Factors section of our most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at http://www.sec.gov. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in a dynamic industry and economy. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties that we may face. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

Investor Contact:

Elizabeth Krutoholowinvestor.relations@centurytx.com267.857.1080

Media Contact:

media@centurytx.com

Read the rest here:
Century Therapeutics Announces Its Addition to the Russell 2000 Index - Yahoo Finance

The UK is gearing up to diverge from the EU and make it easier to research and commercially cultivate genetically engineered crops and animals after a key advisory body said the EUs current approach is inhibiting useful innovation.

Loosening current restrictions on altered organisms could mean British farmers face barriers selling genetically engineered produce to the EU.

But the UK Regulatory Horizons Council, an independent expert advisory body set up last year to scope regulatory change in fields ranging from fusion energy to artificial intelligence in healthcare, believes the risks are worth it, in part because there are signs Brussels may be softening its stance on genetically engineered products.

Earlier this month the council released a report enthusing that a new wave of gene editing techniques has the potential to create healthier, more disease resistant crops that need less pesticide and contribute less to climate change.

The report has a sort of pro-innovation, pro-gene editing bias to it, said David Rose, professor of agricultural innovation at Reading University. It tells us that DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs] is minded to try to change the regulations to allow gene editing as quickly as possible.

Responding to the councils report, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng agreed there are substantial opportunities for the UK from genetic technologies and it is by ensuring a proportionate regulatory approach that we can fully take advantage of these.

Our exit from the EU provides the perfect opportunity to achieve [benefits] for the products of genetic technologies, he said.

The prospect of loosening rules around gene editing is seen by many UK scientists as one of the few silver linings to Brexit. EU rules have been rolled over in the UK, meaning the same restrictions apply as before, but in January DEFRA opened a consultation on changing the law.

At the heart of the debate is a distinction between first generation genetic technologies, which involve introducing marker genes from other organisms to show a particular transformation has taken place, and gene editing, such as through Crispr, which can make precise modifications to a plant or animal genome, without the need to introduce any foreign DNA.

Speeding up traditional breeding

This is seen by advocates of gene editing as being a more precise, faster and targeted way of carrying out traditional breeding, as has been practiced for thousands of years.

But as things stand, a controversial 2018 European Court of Justice ruling holds that gene edited organisms should be classified as genetically modified, and so be subject to strict limits on research and commercialisation.

In DEFRAs view, organisms generated by gene editing should not be regulated as GMOs if they could have been produced by traditional breeding methods.

The report from the Regulatory Horizons Council says the UK should establish a new regulatory regime for gene editing that balances, precaution about future hazards with ambition to gain future benefits

Regulatory data requirements should be proportionate to the nature and scale of potential risks and data that do not relate to a clearly specified policy should not be collected.

Currently, running field trials of genetically engineered and modified crops in the UK is possible but can be difficult, said Nigel Halford, a crop scientist at Rothamsted Research. The application process is lengthy and expensive, with an application fee of 5,000.

Last month, Halford and colleagues won approval for what will be the first field trials of Crispr edited wheat in Europe or the UK. The wheat has been modified to produce lower levels of a particular amino acid that is known to be carcinogenic.

Applications for field trials go to the UK government, but requests for full commercial cultivation have to be approved at EU level, and are routinely rejected, Halford said. Because thats so difficult, you cant get investment from companies to support the research.

Only one GMO, a pest-resistant form of maize approved in 1998, is grown in the EU. The EU does allow imports of GM crops, but these are largely for animal feed, such as soybeans, and only a small amount is for human consumption.

The risk is that if the UK allowed widespread cultivation of gene edited crops, British farmers could lose access to EU markets.

If we deregulate such that we allowed gene editing and the EU didnt, that would be problematic for exporting, said Rose.

But according to the report, this is a risk worth taking. There may be negative impacts on trade with the EU, the report warns. However, trading opportunities with most of the rest of the world beyond the EU will be opened up and, given the current lack of EU trade in products of genetic technologies, the balance for the UK is likely to be positive.

The council also predicts that the EU may start to loosen its rules, saying, There are also increasing pressures for regulatory change within the EU that could result in their future alignment with most other countries.

It points to a Commission report released in April that concluded current legislation is not fit for purpose for certain gene editing techniques, and that it needs to be adapted to scientific and technological progress.

As net importers of food, the UK and EU will probably (most likely definitely) have to deal with a world where genetic engineering becomes the norm with respect to the food supply chain, said Murray Grant, a food security researcher at Warwick University.

Read the rest here:
UK gears up to diverge from EU on targeted genetic modifications in farming - Science Business

Remember thatscene in Jurassic Park where mosquito blood is extracted for dinosaur genes? Now turn it on its raptor skull. Instead of bringing back extinct prehistoric species, what if invasive ones like malaria-carrying mosquitoes could be wiped out?

Bloodsucking insects are hardly the only cause for concern. Invasive species like mosquitoes can potentially harm endemic species and ruin ecosystems. The Galpagos islands are being strangled by 1,700 of these unwanted invaders. Cane toads, originally brought to Australia to get rid of sugarcane beetles, are so toxic that no predators can eat them to control the population, unless you count the cane toad cannibalism that has been going on.

There could be a way to get rid of organisms that never belonged somewhere in the first place. It would be impossible to trap every single infected mosquito in an outsize bug-zapper, or load every cane toad in the cargo hold of a ship headed for the regions of South and Central America where they were brought over from. What we do have is gene drive. Isla Nublar might not exist, but there is an island similar to the fictional one where experiments could be carried out to see whether certain invasive species would end up extinct if their genes were messed with.

It seems like an incredible idea. Imagine halting the spread of malaria, preventing crops from being ravaged or saving critically endangered species from having their food sources taken away by much more common, but invasive, ones. Gene drives usedirected gene repair editing (such as CRISPR) to force certain genes into a population. CRISPR has often been used to cut DNA to correct faulty genes, but it may soon have another use. The genes in proteins tell cells how to build those proteins. The proteins in the cells of an organism heavily influence traits.

For extinction experiments, parent organisms would be given genes that code for the CRISPR proteins that cut a strand of DNA along with a gene to spread sterility throughout the invasive species. Both genes would be inserted into the DNA strand where it is intended to be cut. CRISPR would make the cut in that strand and the new gene would be inserted into it right away. Inducing sterility would give those genes the highest chance of being passed down to offspring that would end up completely sterile in a few generations and die out.

So why is something that sounds like such an easy solution, which could happen in as little as a decade and doesnt involve toxic insecticides or herbicides, being ethically questioned?

What is now known as synthetic biology after a the recentInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress in Marseille includes methods like gene drive. It seems that each invasive species needs to be investigated first. There is the possibility that organisms carrying sterility genes could have a detrimental impact on endemic species that they are able to breed with. An invasive rat species carrying the genes may produce offspring with an endemic rat and irreversibly damage its gene pool. Biodiversity could be threatened.

There are proponents for using gene drive to get rid of an invasive species because of potential positive effects. If an invasive species is investigated and found to have absolutely no positive effects in the area it has taken over, and cannot breed successfully with anything but members of its own species, genetic engineering could actually save biodiversity. The technology cannot just be unleashed like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. Each invasive species needs to be carefully examined to see whether the positives outweigh the negatives before doing anything in a lab.

Unfortunately, there is no universal path for minimizing the potential detrimental effects and maximizing the potential benefits of synthetic biology for biodiversity conservation, the IUCN website says.

If humans are going to do this, we had better get it right, because unlike watching the fictional dinosaur invasion that wrecked Isla Nublar, we wont be able to press rewind.

Read more from the original source:
If we pulled a Jurassic Park and messed with genes, would we be in more danger than the movie? - SYFY WIRE

Who doesnt want a lush, green lawn? One Clemson University professor is using transgene technology to create grass strains that can thrive in adverse conditions while at the same time protecting wild plants in the environment.

Hong Luo, a professor in the College of Sciences Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, is researching the use of microRNA genes to develop a cost-effective new system for transgene self-containment in switchgrass and turfgrass. He received a four-year grant totaling $500,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agricultures Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program for the work.

Using genetic engineering for trait modification in plants is pretty popular, especially in annual crops; for example, corn, soybeans and cotton, Luo said, but there has never been research into genetic-engineered products for perennial-grass species. The reason for this is the publics concern about the possible consequences of releasing them into the environment and what the consequences could be of transgenes escaping into the wild to untransformed species.

Luos solution is to use miRNA that can serve double duty in plants enhancement and male or total sterility.

The major objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a novel approach that explores the use of different miRNA genes taking advantage of their dual roles in plant reproductive development and beneficial agronomic trait improvement, he explained.

One proven way to stop the escape of transgenes into the wild is to make the plants sterile, an additional modification that usually must take place simultaneously with the introduction of genes to bring about specific trait modifications.

That process is not only complicated, but Luo said it can also cause an accumulation of unwanted foreign DNAs in modified grass strains. By contrast, Luo involves the gene miR396, which regulates both plant sterility and abiotic stress responses, in combination with three additional miRNA genes that Luo said are positive regulators of plant abiotic stress responses.

Luos work isnt aimed just at making beautiful lawns. It could also have important applications for a wide range of crops. He also noted that breakthroughs with switchgrass could impact the energy industry, as switchgrass is a species that has been explored for use in biofuel production.

Read more here:
Perennial Grass Research Means Lusher Lawns May Be in the Future | - Southern Farm Network

HENRIETTA, N.Y. (WROC) A company and project called Colossal has received $15 million dollars in funding, according to CNN, to do one thing with a big goal: Resurrect the woolly mammoth.

The project hopes that the reintroduction of the animal that has been extinct for more than 4,000 years can reform the Artic, tundra, and the Steppes to help combat climate change.

Colossals website has this to offer: It is a science that has been developed and mastered by George Church, Ph.D. and his lab. With a 99.6% genetic match in the Asian elephant, intact Mammoth DNA, and modern genetic engineering, the task is well underway.

This comes on the heels of a full genetic sequence taken from a discovered mammoth fossil, and the project says that they can use CRISPR technology to essentially pick which genes were present in the mammoth and then splice them into the Asian elephant genome.

Our goal is to have our first calves in the next four to six years, said tech entrepreneur Ben Lamm, a backer of Colossal also said to CNN.

To offer some perspective and insight on this project, Robert Rothman, RIT Professor Emeritus of Life Sciences who is both familiar with the project and the technology used in this project discussed with News 8 his reaction to the feasibility of the project, its mission, practicality, the amount of funding, and more.

To get funding quickly out of the way:

I would say seems pretty slim, right? he said. Just to sequence it and and the cloning is probably going to require a lot of manpower I would guess thats barely scratching the surface of what it would cost.

And as for the mission itself, Rothman gives an overview for us.

Its an idea called rewilding, Rothman said. The goal is to replace a missing keystone organism to re-introduce a modern population [and] if thats not possible to introduce either a closely related species or a species that fills a similar ecological niche.

Rothman equates it to the re-introduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone Park animals that were there, but the project increased the number or in his area of expertise, tortoises on the Galapagos. While both of these projects invovled extant, rather than extinct, animals, Rothman draws parallels to the captive breeding programs, as well as their timelines and difficulty.

He discusses the Espanola tortoise, which at one point only had 15 remaining animals. They were all brought back to a station in 1971, and over 30 years later, the population he says is over 2,000. But that was a decades-long process, unlike the 4-5 timeline the Colossal project laid out.

So thats kind of the comparison that I look at now, if you put this in the context of the elephants, it takes about two years for a fertilized egg to mature into a baby elephant, Rothman said.

He credits the Colossal team for being well-researched and having exceptional ability to do the actual gene splicing work with CRISPR, but says that birthing these mammoth-esque animals has other complications, namely how the animal will develop, specifically how it will be rasied and socialized.

If its born in a tube, how will it grow up and socialize? If the fertilized egg with the mammoth analogue, would the Asian elephant be willing to raise its alien offspring? Rothman says theres no way to answer these questions until the project begins.

He also adds that in the case of the tortoises, since they were a product of the captive breeding program and thanks to an industrious tortoise named Diego, who according to the Galapagos National Parks may have sired around 40% of the new population the current population is fairly homogenous, and may lead to inbreeding issues down the line.

As for the overall goal itself, Rothman has his doubts. While he cited two examples that have worked, rewilding doesnt always work, saying that often solutions to one problem create others.

The classic example are cane toads in Australia, he said. I think its a huge problem (They) were introduced about a hundred years ago to deal with pest insect pests that attacking sugar cane, but the frog population exploded. And theyre poisonous. If you touch them, I think you you get a bad reaction, but if a dog (eats) one (it can get) sick or die.

But with these examples, these creatures are extant; they currently exist on Earth, and are moved someplace else, or their numbers are increased. In this case The woolly mammoth has not trundled across the Steppes in 4,000 years. Rothman says mammoths arent around for a reason, saying that they were animals who thrived in cold weather, and with a warming planet, their odds of survival dont intuitively feel promising.

Finally, Rothman addresses the ethical concerns of recreating species, and extensively editing the genes of current ones. He points out that some say that this technology is so powerful that it could be possibly be used to help current elephants populations, but instead being used to recreate old ones. He does add one more philosophical concern of many:

We shouldnt play God,' he said, echoing those concerns.

Original post:
RIT professor on $15M effort to resurrect the wooly mammoth by Harvard scientists - RochesterFirst

EAGAN, Minn., Sept. 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Makana Therapeutics today received a $650,000 KidneyX Artificial Kidney Prize for their work to increase the supply of kidney donor organs through pig-to-human xenotransplants. Xenotransplantation is the process of transplanting organs or tissues between members of different species into humans, thus addressing the crisis of organ shortage we are facing today.

"We see a future where xenotransplantation will allow end-stage renal disease patients who need a kidney transplant to have one immediately, without the years of waiting and uncertainty they currently face," said Matt Tector, chief scientific officer of Makana Therapeutics.

Every year more than 100,000 new patients are deemed to need some form of renal replacement, yet fewer than 25,000 kidney transplants are performed annually due to a shortage of suitable donors.

To meet this increasing demand, Makana has developed a "triple knockout" pig with kidneys viable for human transplant by inactivating three separate genes to reduce expression of pig molecules on the transplanted kidney that are targeted by human antibodies. By eliminating these three genes from pigs, it is possible to reduce, and in some cases, eliminate human antibody binding to the pig cells which typically lead to organ rejection or other complications. Makana estimates the "triple knockout" pig will be a suitable kidney donor for as many as 70 percent of kidney failure patients.

Makana, a subsidiary of Minneapolis-based life-sciences company Recombinetics, is strategically placed to bring this innovation to market leveraging both Makana's strong intellectual property and pre-clinical success as well as Recombinetics leadership in large animal genetic engineering and animal husbandry expertise.

"We believe there are no remaining scientific unknowns for us to get to our clinical trial. Our remaining efforts will be geared towards gaining FDA approval for the trial and continuing to improve our technology so we can meet our goal of providing a transplant to every patient in need," said Dr. Joe Tector, founder of Makana.

Story continues

As a pre-clinical stage company, Makana expects its first-in-human trial to commence as early as 2022 and could be to market as soon as 2025.

About The Artificial Kidney Prize

The Kidney Innovation Accelerator (KidneyX), a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), is accelerating innovation in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of kidney diseases.

The Artificial Kidney Prize is a competition to accelerate the development of continuous kidney replacement therapies that provide transformational treatment options beyond current dialysis methods. For this competition, artificial kidneys may be wearable, implantable, bioengineered, developed as a xenotransplant or chimera organ, or other approaches not yet conceived.

About Makana Therapeutics

Founded in 2009, Makana Therapeutics is focused on developing swine with reduced xenoantigen expression, making human transplantation of cells, tissues and organs from these animals possible. Makana's focus on simplified genetics, optimized pig cloning techniques and careful patient selection is expected to streamline product development and result in safer more efficacious products.

About Recombinetics

Founded in 2008, Recombinetics Inc. is a recognized global leader in the development, deployment, and commercialization of genetically engineered animals. Its three subsidiaries, Regenevida, Surrogen, and Acceligen, have delivered hundreds of animals to: enable drug, device, and therapeutic discovery; generate transplantable cells, tissues, and organs; and provide improved health, well-being, and productivity in agricultural animals.

PR/Media ContactContact: Nikki Rockstroh, 318939@email4pr.com 612.727.2000

Cision

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/makana-therapeutics-awarded-kidneyx-artificial-kidney-prize-for-innovation-in-xenotransplantation-301376910.html

SOURCE Recombinetics Inc

Continued here:
Makana Therapeutics Awarded KidneyX Artificial Kidney Prize for Innovation in Xenotransplantation - Yahoo Finance

Scientists at Ohio State University provide evidence that members of a class of proteins called serine incorporator proteins, best known for curbing HIV infection also promote other antiviral activities that increase the production of type I interferons and proinflammatory cytokines. By promoting these signaling pathways of innate immunity, the SERINC restriction factors SERINC3 and SERINC5, protect cells from infection by HIV-1, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), and Zika virus.

The authors show SERINC5, usually present in the cell membrane, moves to the outer mitochondrial membrane protein where it forms a protein complex with an adapter protein, MAVS (mitochondrial antiviral signaling), and TRAF6, an E3 ubiquitin ligasean enzyme that degrades proteins.

Reducing the expression of SERINC5 in target cells, the authors note, increases cellular infection by HIV-1, VSV and an endemic Asian strain of Zika virus. This demonstrates SERINC5 mediates direct antiviral activities in host cells in addition to the indirect inhibition of HIV-1 reported in earlier studies. Probing further into the mechanism, the authors show SERINC5s antiviral activity depends on its ability to stimulate the expression of type I interferons and NF-kB inflammatory signaling.

These findings are reported in the Science Signaling article, SERINC proteins potentiate antiviral type I IFN production and proinflammatory signaling pathways.

Senior author of the paperShan-Lu Liu, PhD, professor of virology in theDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences at The Ohio State University says, Viruses can get around direct antiviral effects, but if this protein can also modulate key pathways without acting directly on the virus, then a virus may have limited capacity to counteract it.

Restriction factorsproteins produced by host cells to restrict viral infectioninterfere either with the entry of virus particles into healthy cells or viral replication mechanisms in the host cell. Earlier studies have shown the restriction factor SERINC5, found in the host cell membrane incorporates into HIV-1 virus particles, blocking their entry into the host cell.

The current study notes SERINC5 also inhibits viral infections by promoting intracellular innate signaling pathways that involves its binding to the adaptor protein MAVS at the mitochondrial membrane. This binding results in MAVS oligomerization and activation of downstream transcriptional regulators that promote the expression of genes that encode antiviral type I IFNs and proinflammatory cytokines like NF-kB.

The aggregation of these proteins means they need each other, says Liu. A big complex like this can recruit additional molecules, enhancing the efficiency of the signal transduction pathway.

The researchers are currently testing whether this function is also effective against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

If this family of molecules can do this in animals and humans, then you may think about whether it could be used in a broad antiviral therapy, says Liu. He is optimistic that the efficacy of SERINC proteins in inhibiting viral infection will extend to suppressing the COVID-19 virus.

Read more:
HIV, VSV, and Zika Virus Suppression in Just One Protein - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News