Category Archives: Transhuman News

Genetic engineering has been a topic of varying contention for years. Recently, though, there was new fuel thrown on the fire with a series of experiments done with Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR. CRISPER is commonly used to refer to a variety of systems that can target specific stretches of DNA allowing scientists to delete particular portions of the genetic code or insert new genetic material into a previously existing genome. The precision of CRISPR allows geneticists to permanently modify an organisms genetic code with previously unheard of accuracy. This technology is based on the naturally occurring abilities of some bacteria.

Even though debate has surrounded genetically engineered crops and genetic experiments in animals, for most people, the controversy surrounding genetic experimentation has been largely ignored. The ethics of genetic engineering, however, are back in the spotlight.

Early this year, a team of scientists successfully performed genetic modification on a fertilized human embryo using CRISPR. In vitro fertilization and gene therapy have involved elements of genetic engineering nearly since their conception, but the CRISPR experiments are the first time humanity has been confronted with human germline genetic modification. Germline modification is used to refer to genetic changes that would be passed down to an organisms offspring. Any genetic alterations done to a parent would appear in children and grandchildren. Naturally, this has once again raised the question of whether genetic engineering is ethical.

Books have been written on the ethics of all sorts of genetic engineering, but the controversy reignited by the CRISPR studies focuses on genetic modification of humans. For decades, accurate and feasible human genetic engineering was something out of a science fiction novel. Depending on a persons opinion on genetic modification, genetically engineered humans were a distant fantasy or specter that loomed centuries down the road.

The CRISPR experiments did not use viable embryos and so no child has resulted from the study, but the CRISPR team proved that genetically modified humans were possible. The ethics of human genetic engineering is no longer a question to be dealt with in some remote future, but a debate that is very relevant now. So, what are the benefits and dangers of human genetic engineering?

Genetic testing is not terribly new. Amniocentesis has been a staple of modern pregnancies for many years, and many at-risk people choose to be tested for genetic diseases such as Huntingtons disease. Improved genetic testing would lead to earlier diagnosis of such diseases. Earlier diagnoses would allow people destined to develop genetic diseases to make the most of their healthy years. Those who did not carry a genetic disease would be able to set their minds at ease.

Human genetic engineering has the potential to do more than identify a faulty gene. Improvements in technologies such as those used in CRISPR have the potential to correct the genetic errors that cause genetic diseases in the first place. Furthermore, germline genetic engineering could lead to the eradication of certain genetic diseases all-together.

Opponents of human genetic engineering argue that some faulty genes actually serve important purposes. The classic example of a useful genetic defect is sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease, also known as sickle cell anemia, is caused by a genetic flaw that causes some red blood cells to be sickle shaped. The sickle shaped cells are prone to causing blockages in the circulatory system resulting in pain, stroke, cardiac arrest and death. Sickle cell disease, though, only presents if a person carries two copies of the sickle cell gene. If a person only has one copy, they have normal red blood cells and some protection against malaria. Were the sickle cell gene to be universally corrected, malaria-related deaths would increase dramatically.

Critics of genetic modification in humans also point out that genetic engineering is still relatively new. The potential long-term consequences of altering the human genome are still unknown. Changes to the human genetic code could potentially create new genetic diseases or genetic defects that, in the case of germline engineering, would persist for generations.

The specter of designer babies is commonly raised by opponents of human genetic engineering. Advancement in genetic modification techniques could allow parents to influence their childs eye color, hair color, height, intelligence and athleticism. It sounds like something out of a dystopian sci-fi story, but the possibility of designer babies is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Researchers have isolated genes that influence a persons ability to gain muscle mass, and professional athletic associations have struggled to control gene-doping, the non-therapeutic use of cells, genes or genetic elements to enhance performance. Parents can already select the sex of their child in certain areas of the world and, while the genetics of intelligence have not yet been determined, they have long been a topic of interest in the scientific community.

This ability to design a child, genetic engineering critics argue, would lead to a generation of children whose very make-up was shaped by parental whims, market forces, constantly shifting standards of beauty and societal preferences. It could lead to a constantly deepening divide between those who were genetically enhanced or improved and those who were not. This divide might follow current class lines depending on the monetary cost of genetic engineering. This incorporation of a genetic component to the haves and have nots could also lead to a new form of eugenics or even the split of humanity into two distinct species.

Proponents of genetic engineering, however, argue that such claims have little basis in fact. Sex is based entirely on the presence or absence of the Y chromosome while traits such as hair and eye color are controlled by many different genes. Furthermore, the genetics of intelligence are still something of a mystery.

Some genetic diseases have a very high potential of being inherited. A person with Huntingtons disease, for example, has a 50 percent chance of passing the faulty gene on to their child. In such situations, parents may decide not to have children due to a fear of passing on the genetic disorder regardless of how much they wish to have a child. Human genetic engineering has the potential to lower the risks for such couples. Improvements in technology such as CRISPR could allow scientists to correct a faulty gene. Genetic engineering could also be used to lower the dangers of high-risk pregnancies by insuring the genetic health of the fetus.

Those who are against human genetic engineering argue that alternatives exist for parents with a highly inheritable genetic disease. Surrogacy and adoption are options that do not involve invasive changes to an embryos genome.

Opponents of human genetic engineering claim that genetic modification could eventually become a tool of discrimination and prejudice. Researchers have long been curious what genetic predispositions, if any, influence a persons tendency toward anger, violence, hatred and addiction. Genetic tests for such undesirable, but non-medical, traits could lead to discrimination against a person who carried a violence gene, regardless of whether or not the person has ever acted in a violent manner. Furthermore, if genes linked to such social undesirables were found in higher concentrations in certain ethnic groups, racial prejudice would suddenly have a genetic rationalization.

Proponents of human genetic modification argue that genetic testing could be kept confidential to avoid discrimination against individuals. Genetic information would be part of a persons medical record and therefore privileged information.

Despite the potential abuses, those who favor genetic engineering argue that research into genetic influences on violence and addiction should continue. Identifying genetic predispositions towards addiction could help people with a high likelihood of developing a substance abuse problem manage their risks more effectively. Studying genetic links to violence could also lead to the identification of the gene pattern responsible for psychopathy as current research points to the disorder having a hereditary component.

Human genetic engineering has the potential to lead to a longer average lifespan. Researchers have identified the portion of human chromosomes responsible for determining how many times a cell can divide and, thus, how long an organism will live. Human genetic modification could alter this portion of the chromosomes, extending a persons lifespan.

Opponents of human genetic modification point out that the earth is already struggling to support a population of 7.2 billion people. Lengthening the average human lifespan would place even greater stress on an already overburdened planet.

This is one of the most expected controversies in human genetic research. Human genetic experimentation requires the use of human DNA. As with stem cell research, that DNA is usually found in donated eggs, sperm and embryos. This, naturally, runs headlong into the explosive question that has kept the debate over abortion raging for years: when does human life begin?

People who believe that human life begins at conception see the use of fertilized human embryos in medical research, such as the CRISPR study, as abhorrent. To those who hold that life begins at conception, experimentation on a fertilized human embryo is nothing short of sickening violation if not torture.

The use of human embryos in genetic experiments is not universally supported by those who believe that an embryo cannot be considered human until later in development. As of now, embryos used in genetic research are destroyed when the study is complete. This is in part because the scientists working on such research recognize that the long-term consequences of genetic modification are not yet understood. The knowledge required for a woman to safely carry a genetically engineered child to term simply does not exist yet. Still, the waste of human embryos or donated eggs grates on people, especially those who struggle to conceive. Some who rely on fertility treatments or in vitro fertilization see the use of embryos in medical research as a waste of viable eggs.

Proponents of genetic research are quick to point out that the embryos used in the CRISPR experiments were not truly viable. Had any one of the embryos been implanted in a womans womb, the embryo would not have survived to term. Some scientists argue that healthy, viable embryos would not be involved in such genetic modification research until closer to clinical trials. The waste of some viable embryos would be inevitable but would not seriously begin until science was preparing to implant a genetically modified embryo in a woman.

This comes up in nearly every argument involving genetic engineering, regardless of whether it is corn or cows or children being modified. Some people who believe that human beings especially have a right to be unmodified, maintain that altering the human genome is equivalent to playing God. Playing God has a different meaning to every individual with some people claiming than any genetic modification involves a moral and spiritual trespass. On the other side of the spectrum are religious authorities who claim that genetic experimentation is within Gods gift to mankind of dominion over the earth. So far, few religious authorities see the question of genetic engineering as black-and-white. Most allow for genetic engineering that would preserve human life but frown upon the use of genetic modification for non-medically necessary uses such as sex selection.

The ability to select for or against specific traits could affect the genetic diversity of the human species. Opponents of genetic modification argue that germline human genetic engineering would decrease the genetic diversity of the human species as certain traits would be seen as more desirable than others. This decrease in biodiversity would leave the population as a whole more vulnerable to diseases and changes in the environment.

Supporters of human genetic modification argue that genetic engineering could be used to increase genetic diversity. Geneticists could select for traits that would normally be lost in the random shuffle of genes. Human genetic engineering could also theoretically be used to create entirely new traits thus increasing genetic diversity beyond its original starting point.

Regardless of whether human genetic engineering is a marvel or an abomination, the technology to achieve it exists. Human genetic modification is possible and the world knows it. Proponents of human genetic engineering argue that human genetic modification is now inevitable. Someone, somewhere will improve and use the technology. Banning further research, testing and eventual usage would keep the technology from being done in a safe environment. Genetic modification would be driven underground and sold on the black market. Permitting human genetic engineering would also allow organizations to regulate the technologys usage rather than leaving it to become part of the medical tourism industry. Men and women already travel internationally to receive risky surgeries, cheaper pharmaceuticals or procedures illegal in their home countries. The same thing would happen to human genetic modification.

Experiments involving the human genetic modification have revealed information about the human genome that would not have otherwise been discovered. The CRISPR studies, for example, revealed that a human embryo can sometimes repair its own faulty DNA without medical intervention. This phenomenon had never been observed before and scientists had not imagined it was possible. Such discoveries increase geneticists understanding of the human species and genetics as a whole. Further studies of the phenomenon of self-repaired DNA alone could lead to revolutionary treatments for diseases such as Huntingtons, Tay-Sachs and dozens of types of cancer. For proponents of genetic engineering, the information gained through human genetic research is invaluable. Opponents of human genetic modification, however, argue that the ends do not always justify the means.

Both opponents and proponents of human genetic engineering have valid points and strong arguments defending their position. There is a great deal of good to be gained from research into human genetic engineering, but there is also enormous potential for abuse. A genetically engineered human being is not yet safely possible, but the CRISPR studies have taken the concept out of science fiction and planted it squarely in todays reality. What society will decide to do with the potential to modify the human species at its fundamental level has yet to be determined, but the debate over genetic engineering has been reignited, and it suddenly has far more personal consequences for mankind.

The rest is here:
Is Genetic Engineering Ethical | Genetic Engineering Debate ...

Over the past decade there has been a small cottage industry of published books that address the ethical issues arising from new developments in biotechnology. They cover genetically modified food, transgenic animals, biological weapons, and a subject that accounts for the most volumes, the genetic modification of human beings. As a matter of historical interest, the ethical discussion around creating an uber mensch or in the contemporary jargon, a trans-human or genetically enhanced person, preceded the genetic engineering revolution of the early 1970s. French biologist Jean Rostand's book, Can Man be Modified? was translated into English in 1959.[1] Without knowing anything about cloning or stem cells, Rostand wrote:

If a biologist takes any fragment of tissue from the freshly dead body there is no absolute reason why we should not imagine the perfect science of the future remaking from such a culture, the complete person, strictly identical to the one who had furnished the principle.[2]

Rostand was speculating about the powers of science 50 years into the future and inquiring about the ethical conundrums they would create. Now we are there. In many respects, the science is still ahead of the ethics. Take, for example, the decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to deny a patent for the production of a chimera by cell fusion that combines the chromosomes of a human and a non-human animal into a viable embryo. The USPTO denied the patent on the grounds that the hybrid organism was too similar to a human being. Even though the chimera had not been created, to be seriously considered, the patent design had to have been sufficiently persuasive so that anyone familiar with the art of making animal chimeras would be able to make the human-animal embryo. While human beings cannot be patented, the processes used to genetically modify humans can be and have been patented. Whether and how those processes should be used is the subject of The Ethics of Genetic Engineering.

Roberta M. Berry has written a creative book on how ethics can inform individual decisions and social policy on human genetic engineering. The book focuses primarily on germline genetic modification. The discussions and analyses are largely aimed at prospective parents who wish to bring into the world a "more perfect" child, not by education or through nurturance of the child's creativity, but by engineering the child's genomes at the point of gestation. Perfection means being more resistant to disease or having other phenotypes that provide more than average advantages in society. Berry applies her skills as a trained philosopher to analyze issues that have been discussed largely by bioethicists in think tanks, university seminars, and professional journals, as well as among NGOs seeking to warn society about the new science of reproductive genetics looming on the horizon.

Whimsically, we might speak about this book as a philosopher's guide to Gattaca, the 1997 film about a future when genetic engineering makes possible the creation of biologically superior humans (known as "valids"), who enter positions of power and prestige.

When the human genome project got underway in the early 1990s and personalized genetics was seen as the next medical frontier, scientists and many bioethicists constructed an ethical firewall between somatic cell and germline gene therapy. The former was seen as a practical extension of drug therapy, although in this case the therapeutics is in the form of genetic materials that are delivered into the patient's cells. Germline gene therapy (or enhancement) was connected to eugenics because it involved planned genetic changes to future generations. This was a short-lived distinction as scientists broke away from any constraints on research. Berry's book, which assumes that germline gene enhancement of humans will eventually take place, prepares readers for new personal and societal choices that will be available to prospective parents. Beyond that the book offers readers a useful exegesis in practical ethics.

The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 offers a broad brushstroke look into the early developments of genetic engineering leading to what the author refers to as "fractious problems", complex and divisive ethical problems resulting from breakthroughs in biomedical science. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 explore how the classical philosophies (utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics) provide clarity and wisdom to the ethical choices associated with human germline genetic engineering or the genetic selection of embryos. In Chapter 5 the author explores the viewpoints of modern philosophers including John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor and Ronald Dworkin on changing the genetic architecture of humans. Berry also argues the case that virtue ethics provides the best framework for addressing the issues. "But it does not follow that a utilitarian calculus of welfare maximization or a deontological assessment of duties or rights is well-suited to parental or policy decision-making about revising the genomes of our future children."[3] When science is capable of circumventing the genetic lottery of biological meiosis between sperm and egg, we are faced with new personal and normative reproductive decisions, which become the focus of the book.

There are two qualities that distinguish this book from the pack. First, the author has a richer understanding of ethical theory than most writing in the field of "genome ethics." She uses a broad tapestry of ethical theories as lenses for analyzing problems. And second, Berry applies a creative form of dialogue between one person who personifies a physician, bioethicist and/or genetics counselor and two other individuals who are prospective parents. The dialogues are reminiscent of the Platonic and Galilean dialogues where different philosophical or scientific perspectives appear in the personages who question each other on issues of great public concern. From a teaching standpoint, Berry's dialogues will be useful in reaching students who may have difficulty in applying ethical theory to contemporary problems.

For example, the Kantian counselor explores the parents' right to do whatever is in their power (including genetic modification) to produce a superior child. The counselor says: "Although [your] purpose would be to gain additional opportunities for [your] children, the result of everyone extending their children's lives in an effort to gain a greater share of available opportunities would remain constant and even diminish over time."[4] Applying Kant's Categorical Imperative, the counselor concludes that the prospective parents cannot, without reaching a contradiction to their goals, universalize the maxim "I should act to genetically modify the ovum of my future child to gain additional opportunities." If, for example, height were the phenotype desired, and everyone was afforded the same opportunity to modify the ovum for greater height, there would be no advantage. While this is good Kantianism, it may not convince most people who wish to exercise every available advantage for their children. There are other considerations that are subsumed to the authority of science, namely, that safe genetic modification of the human genome is a myth that, if attempted, is likely to result in dangerous human pathologies.

The conclusion reached by Berry as to how society will resolve the problems brought on by the expected scientific capacity to engineer the human genome is optimistic but philosophically weak. It is based on the faith that a society which devotes itself to virtue (in education and practical life) will use appropriate forms of casuistry to navigate safely through the bramble bush of ethical conflicts. Berry writes that

Virtue ethics invites us to embrace all [ways of understanding] and it trusts that this will enable us to see not just a booming buzzing confusion, but what practical wisdom requires under all the facts and circumstances so we can be as accomplished at acting from the virtues in making choices about genetic engineering as we are in making choices about other practical problems that we confront in daily life.[5]

Some would argue this is what currently exists as we cross the frontier of genetics and reproductive technology, namely ethical and social anarchism.

[1] Jean Rostand. Can Man be Modified? Translated from the French by Jonathan Griffin. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

[2] Rostand, 1959, pp. 13-14.

[3] Robert M Berry. The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. New York: Routledge, 2007, p. ix.

Read more here:
The Ethics of Genetic Engineering | Reviews | Notre Dame ...

Every year between 2004 and 2013, swathes of cabbage grown in fields and greenhouses across New York were attacked by a lethal bacteria that severely wilted the leaves, sometimes making the vegetables appear scorched. For over a century, little was known about this untreatable plant epidemic called black rot, which threatens food security worldwide.

But a group of scientists in Singapore has, for the first time, identified how this "crop killer" bacteria hijack plants at the molecular level and cripple their immune systems.

Their findings will pave the way for plant biologists to better treat infected plants and find ways to rear bacteria-resistant crops without using genetic engineering, said the study's lead, Associate Professor Miao Yansong from Nanyang Technological University's (NTU) School of Biological Sciences.

"For some of the devastating disease in agriculture, the whole field has to be burnt," he said.

Prof Miao and his team found that the black rot-causing bacteria, called Xanthomonas, inject toxic proteins into plant cells. The surface of plant cells contains substances that activate an immune response against diseases.But the toxic proteins form a sticky network, adhering to the cell surface and hijacking the plant's defense mechanisms.

Read the complete article at http://www.straitstimes.com.

Read the original here:
Singapore scientists uncover secret of the black rot in vegetable crops - hortidaily.com

New research by scientists at North Carolina State University (NC State) has demonstrated that genes are capable of identifying and responding to coded information in light signals, as well as filtering out some signals entirely. Their study findings showed how a single mechanism can trigger different behaviors from the same gene. The fundamental idea here is that you can encode information in the dynamics of a signal that a gene is receiving, said Albert Keung, PhD, an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at NC State. So, rather than a signal simply being present or absent, the way in which the signal is being presented matters.

The researchers say there are practical applications for their work in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors. In biomanufacturing, you often want to manage both the growth of cells and the rate at which those cells are producing specific proteins, said Jessica Lee, PhD, research assistant at NC State. Our work here can help manufacturers fine-tune and control both of those variables. Lee is first author, and Keung is corresponding author of the teams published paper in Cell Systems, which is titled, Mapping the dynamic transfer functions of eukaryotic gene regulation, and in which they concluded, This work directly demonstrates thesignal processing potential of a single individual gene and develops molecular and computational tools that can be used to harness it.

There is plenty of evidence that biological information can be encoded in the dynamics of signaling components, and not just in their biochemical identities, the authors noted. This has been implicated in a range of physiological processes, such as the stress response, stem cell differentiation, and oncogenesis. Cells, with a limited number of components, utilize dynamic signal processing to perform sophisticated functions in response to complex environments, the researchers stated. Transcription factors (TFs) may be a particularly important archetype for this typeof information transmission, as they are relatively low in diversity but must command many distinct and complex geneexpression programs.

For their reported study, the researchers developed a platform that combined optogenetics and flow cytometry to map the protein expression response to different dynamic inputs. They modified a yeast cell to express a gene that produces fluorescent proteins when the cell is exposed to blue light. The promoter region of the gene is responsible for controlling the genes activity, and in the modified yeast cells, a specific protein binds to the promoter region of the gene. When blue light is shone on that protein, it becomes receptive to a second protein. When the second protein binds to the first protein, the gene becomes active. And thats easy to detect, because the activated gene produces proteins that glow in the dark.

The researchers exposed these yeast cells to 119 different light patterns. Each light pattern differed in terms of the intensity of the light, how long each pulse of light was, and how frequently the pulses occurred. The researchers then mapped out the amount of fluorescent protein that the cells produced in response to each light pattern.

We may tend to think of genes being turned either on or off, butless like a light switch and more like a dimmer switcha gene can be activated a little bit, a lot, or anywhere in between. So, if a given light pattern led to the production of a lot of fluorescent protein, that meant the light pattern made the gene very active. If the light pattern led to the production of just a little fluorescent protein, that meant the pattern only triggered mild activity of the gene.

We found that different light patterns can produce very different outcomes in terms of gene activity, said Lee. The big surprise, to us, was that the output was not directly correlated to the input. Our expectation was that the stronger the signal, the more active the gene would be. But that wasnt necessarily the case. One light pattern might make the gene significantly more active than another light pattern, even if both patterns were exposing the gene to the same amount of light.

The researchers found that all three light pattern variablesintensity of the light, frequency of the light pulses, and how long each pulse lastedcould influence gene activity, but they also found that controlling the frequency of light pulses gave them the most precise control over gene activity.

We also used the experimental data here to develop a computational model that helped us better understand why different patterns produce different levels of gene activity, said Leandra Caywood, co-author of the paper and a PhD student at NC State. For example, we found that when you bunch rapid pulses of light very closely together, you get more gene activity than you would expect from the amount of light being applied. Using the model, we were able to determine that this is happening because the proteins cant separate and come back together quickly enough to respond to every pulse. Basically, the proteins dont have time to fully separate from each other between pulses, so are spending more time connected meaning that the gene is spending more time activated. Understanding these sorts of dynamics is very useful for helping us figure out how to better control gene activity using these signals.

Our finding is relevant for cells that respond to light, such as those found in leaves, Keung added. But it also tells us that genes are responsive to signal patterns, which could be delivered by mechanisms other than light.

So how might this work in cells? A cell may receive a chemical signal. The presence of the chemical cant be patternedits either present or it is not. However, the cell can respond to the presence of the chemical by creating a patterned signal for the target gene. The cell does this by controlling the rate at which the protein that binds to the promoter region enters and exits the nucleus of the cell. We could think of controlling the presence and absence of this protein as sending a Morse code message from the cell to the gene. Depending on a suite of other variablessuch as the presence of other chemicalsthe cell can fine-tune the message it sends to the gene in order to modulate its activity.

This tells us that you can use the same protein to give different messages to the same gene, Keung said. So the cell can use one protein to have a gene respond differently to different chemicals.

In a separate set of experiments, the researchers found that genes were also able to filter out some signals. The mechanics of this are both straightforward and mysterious. The researchers could tell that when a second protein attached to the promoter region of the gene, some frequencies of light pulses did not trigger the production of fluorescent proteins. In short, the researchers know the second protein ensured that a gene responds only to a specific suite of signalsbut they dont know exactly how the second protein accomplishes that.

The researchers also found that they could control the number of distinct signals a gene could respond to by manipulating the number and type of proteins attached to the promoter region of the gene.

For example, you could attach proteins to the promoter region that serve as filters to limit the number of signals that activate the gene. Or you could attach proteins to the promoter region that trigger different degrees of activation of the gene.

One additional contribution of this work is that weve determined we can communicate about 1.71 bits worth of information through the promoter region of a gene with just one protein attachment, Lee said. As the authors explained, This system revealed tunable gene expression and filtering behaviors and provided a quantification of the limit to the amount of information that can be reliably transferred across a single promoter as ~ 1.7 bits. Lee continued, In practical terms that means that the gene, without a complex network of protein attachments, is able to distinguish between more than three signals without error. Previous work had set that baseline at 1.55 bits, so this study advances our understanding of whats possible here. Its a foundation we can build on.

The researchers say their work will enable future studies that help scientists to understand the dynamics of cell behavior and gene expression. This work directly demonstrates the signal processing potential of a single individual gene and develops molecular and computational tools that can be used to harness it, they wrote. There are many avenues to expand into and explore. In our work, we relied on endpoint measurements that could be rapidly measured by flow cytometry. However, information can also be stored in the dynamics of the output signal, e.g., the production rate, time delay of repression/activation, or oscillatory behavior. High throughput approaches that can track the output dynamics of thousands of cultures would unlock this potential space for investigation.

And while the reported study focused on a single promoter, different promoter structures would likely confer distinct transfer functions, the investigators further noted. Continued advances in experimental and computational systems that can handle the large parameter space of dynamic signals will unlock our ability to measure, quantify, and understand information transmission in biological systems and reveal the underpinnings of how limited numbers of components can give rise to the rich complexity of biological functions.

Original post:
Findings Show Gene Behavior Depends on Coded Info in Signals and Could be Harnessed to Fine-Tune Biotech - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology...

OTS 2021 Virtual Conference

OTS 2021 Virtual Conference

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Oligo Meeting is purposefully designed to bring people together to share incredible advancements in the field of oligonucleotide therapeutics. While still unable to come together in person, OTS leadership believes in the power of sharing science and the dedicated organizing committee has planned a professional, outstanding, and exciting event in which attendees will join leading scientists from around the world.

Last year's virtual meeting was extraordinarily successful, and this year's virtual conference has been carefully planned to be even more seamlessly engaging and productive. All the components of the in-person annual meeting will be included: sessions, short talks, posters, exhibitors, and networking, which will be accessed through one online platform. Recorded talks and posters can be viewed on-demand through December 31, 2021, for all registered delegates. A fun and interactive networking tool will be available throughout the entire four days of the meeting, 24 hours a day.

Session topics feature Nucleic Acid Chemistry, Rare Diseases, 20th Anniversary of Mammalian RNAi, Delivery, Genome and RNA Editing, Bob Letsinger, PhD - 100 Years of History, and the Awards Presentation. The final sessions include two Oligonucleotide Preclinical sessions and finish with the highly anticipated Clinical Studies session.

This year's featured event speakers include an outstanding lineup of leading experts covering a broad range of oligonucleotide-based disciplines.

Stanley T. Crooke, MD, PhD, Founder and CEO of n-Lorem Foundation and founder, former CEO, and Chairman of the Board at Ionis led the scientific development of a new platform for drug discovery: antisense technology. He engineered the creation of one of the largest, more advanced development pipelines in the biotechnology industry.

John Maraganore, PhD, is the CEO and Director of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which has led the translation of RNA interference from Nobel Prize-winning discovery into an innovative, entirely new class of medicines.

Story continues

Marie Wikstrm Lindholm, PhD, SVP and Head of Molecular Design at Silence Therapeutics built and leads a skilled team at Silence focusing on fine-tuning the design of their proprietary GalNAc-conjugated siRNA technology and exploring siRNA delivery outside the hepatocyte.

Craig Mello, PhD, is a joint winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of RNA interference. He has been involved in several RNAi-based biotechnology companies and recently co-founded Atalanta Therapeutics.

Kelvin K. Ogilvie, PhD, a leading expert on biotechnology, bioorganic chemistry, and genetic engineering, invented the drug Ganciclovir and developed a general method for the chemical synthesis of large RNA molecules, which is still the basis for RNA synthesis worldwide.

Laura Sepp-Lorenzino, PhD oversees all drug research across in vivo and engineered cell therapy areas as Chief Scientific Officer at Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., a company developing curative genome editing treatments to positively transform the lives of people with genetic diseases.

These are just a few of the many experts that attendees will hear from as they present interesting and cutting-edge topics. Last year's virtual conference received rave reviews from participants and this year's virtual meeting is expected to be even more spectacular.

Those wishing to attend can register here.

Media Contact:

Geri Beaty

Phone: (619)795-9458

Email: info@oligotherapeutics.org

Related Images

OTS 2021 Virtual Conference

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at Newswire.com.

Attachment

Originally posted here:
The Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Society Presents the 2021 Virtual Conference - Yahoo Finance

DBMR has added a new report titled CRISPR Gene-Editing Market with data Tables for historical and forecast years represented with Chats & Graphs spread through Pages with easy to understand detailed analysis. . Report is structured with the meticulous efforts of an innovative, enthusiastic, knowledgeable and experienced team of analysts, researchers, industry experts, and forecasters. This market report also offers an in-depth overview of product specification, technology, product type and production analysis considering major factors such as revenue, cost, and gross margin. Two of these major tools of market analysis are SWOT analysis and Porters Five Forces Analysis. The finest CRISPR Gene-Editing Market report is generated with a nice combination of advanced industry insights, practical solutions, talent solutions and the use of latest technology which gives an excellent user experience.

Market definition covered in the reliable CRISPR Gene-Editing Market report studies the market drivers and market restraints with which businesses can get idea of whether to increase or decrease the production of a particular product. With the studies, insights and analysis mentioned in the report, get comprehensible idea about the marketplace with which business can take decisions quickly and easily. The research and analysis conducted in this supreme CRISPR Gene-Editing Market report helps clients to predict investment in an emerging market, expansion of market share or success of a new product with the help of global market research analysis.

Global CRISPR Gene-Editing Market By Therapeutic Application (Oncology, Autoimmune/Inflammatory), Application (Genome Engineering, Disease Models, Functional Genomics and Others), Technology (CRISPR/Cas9, Zinc Finger Nucleases and Others), Services (Design Tools, Plasmid and Vector, Cas9 and g-RNA, Delivery System Products and Others), Products (GenCrispr/Cas9 kits, GenCrispr Cas9 Antibodies, GenCrispr Cas9 Enzymes and Others), End-Users (Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Companies, Academic & Government Research Institutes, Contract Research Organizations and Others), Geography (North America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa) Industry Trends and Forecast to 2026

Global CRISPR gene-editing market is rising gradually with a healthy CAGR of 23.35 % in the forecast period of 2019-2026. Growing prevalence of cancer worldwide and expanding the application of CRISPR technology by innovative research from the different academic organizations are the key factors for market growth.

Get a Free Sample Copy of the Report @ (Use Corporate email ID to Get Higher Priority) @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-crispr-gene-editing-market

Few of the major competitors currently working in the global CRISPR gene-editing market are Applied StemCell, ACEA BIO, Synthego, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, GenScript, Addgene, Merck KGaA, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc, Cellectis, Precision Biosciences, Caribou Biosciences, Inc, Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc, OriGene Technologies, Inc, Novartis AG, New England Biolabs among others

Global CRISPR Gene-Editing Research Methodology

Data Bridge Market Research presents a detailed picture of the market by way of study, synthesis, and summation of data from multiple sources. The data thus presented is comprehensive, reliable, and the result of extensive research, both primary and secondary. The analysts have presented the various facets of the market with a particular focus on identifying the key industry influencers.

Market Drivers

Market Restraints

Complete report is available (TOC) @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-crispr-gene-editing-market

Key Developments in the Market:

In April 2019, GenScript has launched Single-stranded DNA Service for CRISPR-based Gene Editing which help the key researchers to have access on the high quality, pure ssDNA for CRISPR-based gene insertion and hence can accelerate the development of gene as well as cell therapy for cancer immunotherapy

In February 2018, Cellectis has received two U.S. patents (US#9,855,297 and US#9,890,393) entiled as Methods for engineering T cells for immunotherapy by using RNA-guided CAS nuclease system for CRISPR Use in T-Cells. The U.S. grant of these patents, the company can generate revenue by out-licensing the products to the pharma companies that are ready to use CRISPR technologies in T-cells

Competitive Analysis:

Global CRISPR gene-editing market is highly fragmented and the major players have used various strategies such as new product launches, expansions, agreements, joint ventures, partnerships, acquisitions, and others to increase their footprints in this market. The report includes market shares of CRISPR gene-editing market for Global, Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, South America and Middle East & Africa.

Contact:

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Corporatesales@databridgemarketresearch.com

About Data Bridge Market Research:

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

See the article here:
CRISPR Gene-Editing Market Report- Growth in Future with Size, Share, Growth, and Key Companies Analysis Eudaemonia - Eudaemonia