Category Archives: Transhuman News

The growing application of genetic engineering across wide array of fields is driving the demand for DNA/RNA extraction kits. Botany is witnessing increasing use of genetic engineering for creating modified plant species. Researchers and agricultural companies are extracting desirable DNA from organisms which is then transplanted into the plants genome. Genetic engineering is also being used to create personalized medicines or precision medicine by analyzing an individuals genetic data. General Electric, in partnership with Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, launched a joint venture in 2016 to accelerate personalized therapies based on genetic engineering. DNA/RNA extraction is an integral part of the genetic engineering process for extraction and purification of DNA or RNA from the sample. Thus, the growing applications of genetic engineering is driving the growth of global DNA/RNA extraction kit market.

Request for Sample Copy of This Report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_sample.php?id=680

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has hit multiple countries around the world with a total tally of 31.42 million reported cases. This growing number of COVID-19 patients has inflated the demand for RNA extraction kits to perform polymerise chain reaction (PCR) testing. For instance, the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh placed a demand for for 1.16 lakh RNA extraction kits in April 2020. This rise in demand has attracted new players to enter the market. For instance, Kilpest India Ltd. got approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agency for its real-time PCR test kits in June 2020 and in the same month the company received an order of 500,000 for these kits from Government of India. Thus, the rapidly spreading COVID-19 infection and emergence of new companies is anticipated to propel the growth of global DNA/RNA extraction kit market.

In terms of revenue, global DNA/RNA extraction kit market was valued at US$ 586.56 Mn in 2018 and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 6.8% over the forecast period. The study analyses the market in terms of revenue across all the major regions, which have been bifurcated into countries.

Enquiry Before Buying @ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/enquiry_before_buying.php?id=680

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

Key Findings of the Report:

Request for Customization@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_for_customization.php?id=680

Global DNA/RNA Extraction Kit Market:

Get Full Information of this premium report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/reports/Global-DNARNA-Extraction-Kit-Market-2019-2027-680

About Us:

Absolute Markets Insights strives to be your main man in your business resolve by giving you insight into your products, market, marketing, competitors, and customers. Visit

Contact Us:

Email id: sales@absolutemarketsinsights.com

Contact Name: Shreyas Tanna

Phone: +91-740-024-2424

Read the original here:
Global DNA/RNA Extraction Kit Market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 6.8% over the Forecast Period, Owing to Rise in Demand from the field of Genetic...

Security personnel stand guard outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan as members of the ... [+] World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus make a visit to the institute in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on February 3, 2021. (Photo by Hector RETAMAL / AFP) (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)

The lab leak hypothesis about the origin of Covid-19 has been getting a lot of attention lately, and deservedly so. This is the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus accidentally escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, that conducts research on coronaviruses. Just a few weeks ago, a group of highly respected virologists and epidemiologists published a letter in the journal Science calling for a more thorough investigation, stating that the lab leak hypothesis was not taken seriously enough in earlier investigations.

The coincidence of having a major virus research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just a short distance from the live animal food market that was originally believed to be the source of the outbreak is too great to ignore. Even more curious is that WIV was actively doing research on coronaviruses in bats, including the bats that carry a strain of SARS-CoV-2 that is the closest known relative to the Covid-19 virus itself.

From the beginning of the outbreak, attention was focused on WIV, and various conspiracy theorists suggested, without any evidence, that the Covid-19 virus was either intentionally engineered, intentionally released, or both. Let me just say right off the bat that I dont believe either of those claims.

However, I do think the lab leak hypothesis is credible, and its also possible that gain of function research (more about this below) might be responsible.

In arguing against (unsupported) claims that the Chinese released the virus on purpose, a group of virologists published a paper very early in the pandemic, in March 2020, which looked at the genome sequence of the virus and concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Other studies since then have come to similar conclusions: the virus is very similar to naturally-occurring coronaviruses, and it is possible that it simply evolved naturally in the wild, probably in bats.

Even so, the lab leak hypothesis remains highly credible, regardless of whether or not the virus was genetically engineered. Heres why. First, we know that lab accidents can happen and viruses can escape, even if these accidents are rare. We also know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had thousands of viruses, including coronaviruses, in its facility. And despite claims that viruses couldnt possibly have escaped accidentally, a 2017 Nature article describing the then-new Wuhan Institute reported, perhaps prophetically, that worries surround the [Wuhan Institute of Virology], too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times.

The secrecy of the Chinese government, which has not yet allowed independent, outside scientists full access to WIV to investigate, hasnt helped matters. We need to know if any viruses in WIV are similar to the Covid-19 virus, and at this point we cant trust the Chinese governments assurances on this question. Of course, even if they allow outsiders to investigate now, we cannot know that they have preserved all the viruses that were present in the lab in the winter of 2019-2020.

Now lets talk about gain-of-function research. Gain of function, or GoF, refers to research that tries to make viruses or bacteria more harmful, by making them more infectious. This seems crazy, right? And yet its been going on for years, despite the efforts of many scientists to stop it. In the past, GoF research focused on the influenza virus, and in particular on a small number of scientists (highly irresponsible ones, in my view) who were trying to give avian influenzabird fluthe ability to jump from birds into humans. I wrote about this in 2013, and in 2017, and again in 2019, each time calling on the US government to stop funding this extremely dangerous work. The NIH did put a pause on gain-of-function research for a few years, but the work resumed in 2019.

Now, let me explain why GoF research does not require artificially engineering a virus. Viruses mutate very rapidly all by themselves, and RNA viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2 mutate even more rapidly than DNA viruses. So a GoF experiment doesnt need to engineer a virus to make it more infectious: instead, scientists can simply grow a few trillion viral particles, which is easy, and design experiments to select the ones that are more infectious. For example, some GoF research on bird flu simply sprays an aerosol mixture of viruses into a ferrets nose (influenza research often uses ferrets, since you cant ethically do this with people), and waits to see if the ferret comes down with the flu. If it does (and this has been done, successfully), the strain that succeeds now has a new function, because it can infect mammals. The viruses that are artificially selected (as opposed to natural selection) in these experiments will appear completely natural; no genetic engineering required.

We know that WIV was conducting gain-of-function experiments, and we know that its work included coronaviruses. Was the Wuhan Institute of Virology running GoF experiments on SARS-CoV-2 viruses from bats? Possibly. And if it was, these experiments could easily have produced a strain that infected humans. If a lab employee was accidentally infected with such a strain, that could have started the pandemic. And even if SARS-CoV-2 wasnt the subject of GoF experiments, a naturally-occurring strain being studied at WIV could still have infected one of their scientists and thereby leaked out into the population.

Im not saying that any of these events is likely. I am, however, agreeing with the scientists who, in their recent letter to Science, called for a deeper investigation into the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Finally, let me echo a sentiment they expressed in their letter, which is best said by simply quoting them: in this time of unfortunate anti-Asian sentiment in some countries, we note that at the beginning of the pandemic, it was Chinese doctors, scientists, journalists, and citizens who shared with the world crucial information about the spread of the virusoften at great personal cost. Rather than seeking to cast blame, we need to uncover the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, and any behaviors that led to it, as a means to help all societies prevent future pandemics.

Read the original post:
Lab Leaks And Covid-19: Why The Lab Leak Hypothesis Doesnt Mean The Virus Was Engineered - Forbes

A new project led by researchers at MUSC Hollings Cancer Centercould significantly decrease the side effects associated with CAR-T-cell therapy and make the treatment available to more patients who could benefit.

Led by Hollings hematologist and oncologist Brian Hess, M.D., and Shikhar Mehrotra, Ph.D., co-leader of Hollings Cancer Immunology Program, the project involves manufacturing a purified version of the CAR-T-cells that are currently used to treat patients with certain types of lymphoma and leukemia to reduce the side effects associated with treatment and potentially make the treatment more effective. The therapy will be given to patients as part of a clinical trial, including lymphoma and leukemia patients who dont currently have approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to receive CAR-T.

The project is supported in part by a new $50,000 grant from LOWVELO, Hollings annual community event that rallies everyone together to raise money for lifesaving cancer research. The CAR-T-cell program is one of the first programs to benefit from the fund.

The grant weve received from LOWVELO is a really great start to help us to get this project off the ground and to help us to treat our first patient, Hess said.

CAR-T-cell therapy works by collecting a patients T-cells, genetically modifying these cells to identify specific targets (CD19) on cancer cells and then infusing them back into patients to fight their disease.

CD19 directed CAR-T-cell therapy is currently approved for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) patients age 25 or younger and adult patients with specific subtypes of CD19 expressing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The clinical trial at Hollings will be open to adult patients with B-ALL up to any age and certain patients with CD19 expressing non-Hodgkin lymphoma both who are and are not currently eligible to receive the FDA-approved products.

As part of this trial, researchers at Hollings are collaborating with Loyola University Chicago researchers to build on their existing technology by utilizing a specific cytokine (protein) IL-12 in the manufacturing process of the CAR-T-cell product. In September 2018, Loyola and Loyola Medicine received a $250,000 grant from the Leukemia Research Foundation to develop purer, less toxic CAR-T-cells to treat leukemia and lymphoma.

Mehrotra, who also is the scientific director of MUSCs FACT-accredited Clean Cell Therapy Unit, said the MUSC project for developing CD19 CAR-T was initiated through a collaboration with Michael Nishimura, Ph.D., at Loyola, who worked with the researchers to generate CD19 CAR-T-cells at MUSCs clean-cell facility.

Our clinical partnership with Brian will not only help to treat patients, but we are excited to gain more understanding of the complex biology of patient responses as we track these adoptively transferred CAR-engineered T-cells. This will be an important advance for Hollings, where we strive to bring cutting-edge treatment for cancer patients, Mehrotra said. As they say, It takes a village. The different basic science and clinical expertises that we have developed over many years at Hollings are all coming together to implement new strategies for cancer care. It is a great testimony to a big team effort and institutional leadership and vision.

Hess agreed and hopes the treatment will not only improve patients outcomes but their quality of life during treatment. This new approach will hopefully improve the toxicity profile related to CAR-T-cell infusion as well as make the CAR-T-cells more effective in fighting the lymphoma or leukemia, he said. We also hope that this trial improves the availability of this dynamic therapy to patients throughout South Carolina.

Patients often are referred for CAR-T-cell therapy when they have relapsed multiple times and have few or any standard therapy options left available to them. While there are associated risks, CAR-T-cell therapy provides hope to these patients.

CAR-T-cell therapy has been able to provide durable remissions and hopefully a cure to patients who otherwise have an extremely poor prognosis, said Hess. FDA-approved CAR-T-cell therapy, as well as this upcoming trial, helps in the hope of offering cures to patients who otherwise would have very poor outcomes.

Hollings first introduced CAR-T-cell therapy to South Carolina in 2019, and it is the only center in the state with both an adult and a pediatric CAR-T-cell program. In 2020, the therapy was used to treat 14 patients. In 2021, Hollings physicians expect to treat between 40 and 50 patients, with continued growth on the horizon, thanks to new approvals to use the therapy in additional cancer types.

Nationwide, CAR-T-cell therapy currently is being tested as a possible treatment for blood, brain, breast, gastrointestinal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic and skin cancers. On March 5, it was approved by the FDA for a common type of lymphoma called follicular lymphoma, and on March 27, it was approved for multiple myeloma.

Hess said Hollings is fortunate to have access to a clean-cell facility that is necessary to manufacture these cells and the benefit of a multidisciplinary team to oversee a program of this scope.

A patients journey from evaluation for CAR-T, to infusion of cells, to the post CAR-T therapy care requires multidisciplinary expertise throughout Hollings, including cellular therapy coordinators, apheresis/cryopreservation nurses, clinic nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, quality coordinators, physicians, etc., all of whom specialize in cellular therapy. We also rely on the expertise of other departments outside of Hollings, such as a partnership with the emergency department and the medical intensive care unit, which help to manage side effects of CAR-T.

By doing this work at Hollings and taking advantage of the centers multidisciplinary team of researchers, Hess hopes to learn more about the science behind CAR-T-cell therapy to determine how to make it safer, more effective and applicable to additional cancer types, including solid tumors.

Just like we need physicians to see patients and administer CAR-T-cell therapy, we need researchers to be able to manufacture the best possible CAR-T-cell product. They are a vital partner in making this clinical trial available to patients, said Hess. Theyre also the team with whom we will collaborate to perform the science related to this study to advance the field and inform future studies.

Mehrotra sees this as the beginning of an array of promising trials. Generally, most patients T-cells are collected and sent off to commercial labs for genetic engineering. This new in-house approach involving the creation of purer CAR-T-cells could help patients to avoid serious side effects and lower the cost of treatment, making it available for more cancer patients.

These are exciting times for cellular therapies and engineering autologous T-cells with CARs to recognize tumor antigen puts us at the forefront of treating cancers, said Mehrotra. We are excited to partner with Brian and to be able to treat patients in the next six to eight months with the first in-house generated CAR-T therapy. I am sure that once we get off the ground, similar strategies can be used for targeting other cancers.

Learn how you can get involved with LOWVELO to support lifesaving research projects at Hollings by visiting the LOWVELO website. Registration is open for 2021.

Go here to see the original:
Research project aims to make CAR-T-cell therapy safer and more effective - Medical University of South Carolina

Dr V K Paul, Member (Health), NITI Aayog, has highlighted the need for due scientific process in arriving at such decisions

The UK government has reduced the gap between two doses of COVID-19 vaccines from 12 weeks to 8 weeks for the people who are in the top 9 priority groups who are yet to receive both doses. This latest development was announced on June 11, 2021 as a recent study by Public Health England (PHE) showed that two doses of the COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.

It may be noted that the Delta variant, which was first detected in India, is spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom and has quickly become the dominant strain there, and causing surges of COVID-19 in some parts of England.

While India which is just taking control of the second wave of COVID-19 and preparing for the third wave, it is looking at what the UK government has taken to control spreading of the B.1.617.2 variant.

On June 12, 2021, India has reported 84,332 Daily New Cases in the last 24 hours. The country has recorded less than 1 lakh Daily New Cases for 5 continuous days now. Out of the people infected since the beginning of the pandemic, 2,79,11,384 people have already recovered from COVID-19 & 1,21,311 patients have recovered in the last 24 hours. This constitutes an overall recovery rate of 95.07 per cent, which is showing a sustained increasing trend.

However briefing media on June 11, Dr V K Paul, Member (Health), NITI Aayog has assured that there is no need for panic on the need for an immediate change in the dosage interval.

Dr Paul has highlighted the need for due scientific process in arriving at such decisions. He has appealed to the public to respect the decision taken by National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI), where there are quite a few people who have been a part of World Health Organisation (WHO) panels and committees and are globally renowned and recognized for their eminence.

Let the decision regarding dose interval be examined by NTAGI, as per due process. The United Kingdom must have adopted due process and examined data scientifically, to revise their previous decision regarding the gap. The UK had earlier kept the gap at 12 weeks, but as per data available to us, we did not consider it safe at that point. So, let us entrust this to our scientific fora, they must be addressing it already. They will review it based on the pandemic situation in our country, depending on the extent of prevalence of the delta variant in our country and then take a comprehensive view. Whichever decision is taken by our scientific community, we will honour it.

It may be noted that India had extended the gap between two doses of COVISHIELD vaccine from 6-8 weeks to 12-16 weeks based on recommendation of COVID Working Group on May 12, 2021.

The COVID Working Group chaired by Dr N K Arora has recommended extension of the gap between the first and second doses of COVISHIELD vaccine to 12-16 weeks. Based on the available real-life evidences, particularly from UK, the COVID-19 Working Group agreed for increasing the dosing interval to 12-16 weeks between two doses of COVISHIELD vaccine. No change in interval of COVAXIN vaccine doses was recommended.

The COVID Working Group comprises of the following members: Dr N K Arora- Director, INCLEN Trust; Dr Rakesh Agarwal, Director and dean, JIPMER, Puducherry; Dr Gagandeep Kang, professor, Christian Medical College, Vellore; Dr J P Mulliyal, Retd professor, Christian Medical College, Vellore; Dr Naveen Khanna, Group Leader, International Centre For Genetic Engineering And Biotechnology (ICGEB), JNU, New Delhi; Dr Amulya Panda, Director, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi; Dr V G Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Government of India; The recommendation of the COVID Working Group was accepted by the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19 (NEGVAC), headed by Dr Paul, Member (Health) Niti Aayog in its meeting on May 12, 2021.

On June 11, Dr Paul has pointed out that We must remember that when we increased the gap, we had to consider the risk posed by the virus to those who have received only one dose. But the counterpoint was that more people will then be able to get the first dose, thereby giving a reasonable degree of immunity to more people.

Dr Paul further added that We need to balance these concerns. So, please remember, that we need to necessarily have this debate and discourse in the public domain; however, the decision has to be taken by appropriate fora comprising eminent people who are knowledgeable about this.

Let the COVID Working Group take an appropriate and quick stand regarding the gap between two doses so that it will be a win-win situation for all.

Narayan Kulkarni

(narayan.kulkarni@mmactiv.com)

Excerpt from:
Can India re-visit UK's stand on gap between two COVID-19 jabs? - BSI bureau