Archive for the ‘Crispr’ Category

On March 23rd Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") filed its Reply to Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") Motion No. 2 in Opposition to Broad's Substantive Motion No. 2 to Substitute the Count.

Broad's proposed Count 2 is:

A method, in a eukaryotic cell, of cleaving or editing a target DNA molecule or modulating transcription of at least one gene encoded by the target DNA molecule, the method comprising:contacting, in a eukaryotic cell, a target DNA molecule having a target sequence with an engineered and/or non-naturally-occurring Type II Clustered Regularly lnterspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR associated Cas) (CRISPR-Cas) system comprising: a) a Cas9 protein, and b) RNA comprising i) a targeter-RNA that is capable of hybridizing with the target sequence of the DNA molecule or a first RNA comprising (A) a first sequence capable of hybridizing with the target sequence of the DNA molecule and (B) a second sequence; and ii) an activator-RNA that is capable of hybridizing to the targeter-RNA to form an RNA duplex in the eukaryotic cell or a second RNA comprising a tracr sequence that is capable of hybridizing to the second sequence to form an RNA duplex in the eukaryotic cell,wherein, in the eukaryotic cell, the targeter-RNA or the first sequence directs the Cas9 protein to the target sequence and the DNA molecule is cleaved or edited or at least one product of the DNA molecule is altered.

The distinction Broad made was between embodiments of CRISPR methods that are limited to "single-molecule guide RNA" (aka "fused" or "covalently linked" species), versus embodiments that encompass single-molecule and "dual molecule" species (wherein in the latter versions, the "targeter-RNA" and "activator-RNA" as recited in the proposed Count are not covalently linked). Broad argued that its Proposed Count 2 should be adopted by the Board because it "properly describes the full scope of the interfering subject matter between the parties because both parties have involved claims that are generic, non-limited RNA claims." The brief also argued that Proposed Count 2 "sets the correct scope of admissible proofs [i.e., their own] for the breakthrough invention described by the generic claims at issue in these proceedingsthe successful adaption of CRISPR-Cas9 systems for use in eukaryotic environments," which Broad contended current Court 1 (in either alternative) does not.

Broad's argument in support of its motion was that Count 1 is too narrow for encompassing just a subset of the parties' involved claims. In particular, the brief asserted that most of Broad's involved clams encompass "non-limited" RNA systems and methods. Similarly, the brief argued that CVC itself has many claims directed to non-limited RNA systems and methods and has entire applications that do not recite claims to non-limited RNA systems and methods. Broad asserted that Count 1 does not permit Broad to rely on its earliest and best proofs of invention, which the brief stated is "plainly unfair." This unfairness would preclude Broad from establishing what the brief termed "the fundamental breakthrough - the invention of use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells" (emphasis in brief). Failing to substitute the Count would instead improperly focus the priority question on who invented the single molecule modification. Colorfully, the brief declared that "[a]llowing the interference to proceed with Count 1 would permit the (single molecule RNA) tail to wag the (breakthrough use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells) dog."

CVC in its Opposition argued that Proposed Count 2 "goes far beyond converting Count 1 into a generic-guide count." Instead, according to CVC, "it transforms Count 1 into a method so broad that it no longer requires formation of the DNA-targeting complex that includes crRNA, tracrRNA, and Cas9." In addition, according to CVC, Proposed Count 2 does not require that the CRISPR-Cas9 complex even have an effect on the target DNA; rather, it recites that "'a product of the DNA' is altered in some unspecified way" (emphasis in brief), which could include (according to CVC) "alterations to RNA or protein caused by processes that are unrelated to the activity of CRISPR-Cas9" including contamination. And the changes the Broad has effected in Proposed Count 2 "have nothing to do with whether the RNA limitation is single-molecule or generic, Broad's only purported reason for needing a new count" according to CVC.

CVC further argued that the Broad's motion is contrary to the provisions of precedential Board decision, Louis v. Okada, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1073 (B.P.A.I. 2001). Under Louis, a party must satisfy a three-prong test: "'(1) should make a proffer of the party's best proofs, (2) show that such best proofs indeed lie outside of the scope of the current count, and (3) further show that the proposed new count is not excessively broad with respect to what the party needs for its best proofs.'" CVC's position (explicated in the brief) is that the Broad failed to provide what Louis required for the "significant alterations" made to Count 1 resulting in Count 2.

The brief summarizes these unnecessary changes as:

"first, Broad has inexplicably eliminated structural and functional limitations that specify the formation of the three-component DNA-targeting complex that includes crRNA, tracrRNA, and Cas9."

"Second, Broad has inexplicably eliminated the requirement that this complex have activity with effects at the DNA level (e.g., cleaving or editing or modulating transcription of DNA). Rather, Proposed Count 2 encompasses merely altering a "productof the DNA molecule" in unspecified ways. Problematically, this breadth includes alterations to downstream products of DNA, such as RNA and protein, that have nothing to do with the activity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system."

"Third, Broad has inexplicably converted Count 1 from a 'cell' or 'system' to a 'method.'"

"Fourth, Broad has inexplicably eliminated the alternative language in CVC's part of Count 1 reciting 'ora nucleic acid comprising a nucleotide sequence comprising . . . .'"

CVC further asserts that the Broad has not shown that Proposed Count 2 is patentable over the prior art.

In its Reply, Broad asserts that CVC did not dispute that the "major advance" at issue is which party invented successful CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, and that this "breakthrough" was not limited to single RNA embodiments of the technology. The brief asserts that current Count 1 "precludes reliance on dual-molecule proofs" (unfairly to Broad) but at the same time this Count "puts at risk all of Broad's claims," which might be considered paradoxical until it is realized that Broad submitted other Motions asking that many if not most of Broad's claims would not correspond to Proposed Count 2.

The brief characterizes CVC's arguments as "nitpick[ing]" and alleges that in CVC's interpretation CRISPR as recited in Count 1 is "so broad it no longer requires a targeting complex 12 that includes crRNA, tracrRNA, and Cas9" (an interpretation that CVC's expert allegedly does not share, which would be curious at least). But even though Broad characterizes these nitpicks as "immaterial" it states that "addressing them would require only small adjustments that could easily be adopted sua sponte by the PTAB." With regard to CVC's purported attempt to limit the scope of the interference to single-molecule embodiments, Broad also asserts that CVC's argued that Broad's 2011 experiments were limited to such embodiments, again arguing that CVC's expert testified to the contrary and characterizing CVC's assertions as being "only attorney argument." The basis for CVC's incorrect arguments in this regard Broad asserts to be an incorrect interpretation of the term "guide RNA" as being limited to single-molecule RNA species.

Broad's synopsis of its reasons for its Motion No. 2 should be granted is:

Broad requests the PTAB to adopt Proposed Count 2 to ensure that, should this interference go forward, claims directed to the broad invention of use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, as at issue here, are awarded to the party that first invented use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells. CVC seeks an interference where claims to use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells (regardless of type of RNA used) are awarded not to the first inventor of that subject matter, but rather to the party that first created one specific embodiment for which CVC believes it has the best proofs (a single-molecule RNA embodiment). Failing to substitute a generic count for Count 1 would be unjust to Broad and antithetical to the purpose of the Interference, to determine "which of the competing parties was the first to invent the duplicative subject matter." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of 15 Regents of Univ. of Wash., 334 F. 3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [all emphasis in brief].

Turning to specific arguments against particular features of CVC's brief with which Broad takes issue, the brief (as it must) cites these particular arguments chapter and verse (or more accurately, page and line). The first is that all Broad's claims are directed towards single-molecule embodiments, supported according to Broad solely by attorney argument. Broad argues that both parties have involved claim "indisputably directed to generic RNA guides" (i.e., both single- and dual-molecule guide RNA embodiments). Broad asserts that CVC's misinterpretation of "guide RNA" ignores the plain meaning and "misreads the intrinsic evidence," despite (according to Broad) the use of the term in the Jinik 2012 reference (which Broad states was "perhaps the most important CRISPR publication up to that point and widely read by skilled artisans") as referring to the naturally occurring guide RNA. Broad also asserts that CVC misinterpreted disclosure in its involved patent, which disclosure "does not rise to an 'expression of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope,'" citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

The brief also broadly characterizes CVC's criticisms of Proposed Count 2 as "baseless" regarding the four "alleged" differences that "have nothing to do with the single-molecule format of the RNA." Broad says in response that its Proposed Count 2 is "materially the same" as current Count 1 with regard to these four aspects, enumerating the its differences with CVC's interpretation for each:

First, that Proposed Count 2 requires contacting a DNA target with all three components of the CRISPR system (Cas9, crRNA, and tracrRNA) (citing "specific language" of Proposed Count 2 in support);

Second, that Proposed Count 2 requires the occurrence of effects at the target DNA ("cleaving or editing or modulating transcription of DNA") (again relying heavily on CVC's expert's testimony purportedly contrary to CVC's arguments);

Third, that the change from "cell" or "system" in Count 1 to "method" is "immaterial":

Fourth, that eliminating language in Count 1 from Proposed Count 2, recited in the alternative, "a nucleic acid comprising a nucleotide sequence" does not narrow the Count.

Broad also argues that CVC's allegation that Proposed Count 2 is broader than the claims in interference is "based on its erroneous interpretation" of the Proposed Count, which is that the Count does not require tracr RNA (which Broad asserts it does).

With regard to Broad's burden in being granted the relief requested by the PTAB, Broad argues that CVC's challenge regarding Broad's "best proofs" corresponding better to Proposed Count 2 than the current Count are "legally and factually incorrect." Broad supports this allegation by returning to its earlier argument that CVC was wrong in asserting that Broad's earliest eukaryotic application of CRISPR technology was performed with single-molecule guide RNA (calling it "meritless"). The brief sets forth a portion of Inventor Zhang's declaration to illustrate the point:

As Broad argues, this diagram shows three components of CRISPR: Cas9, and separate tracr and crRNAs.

The brief also challenges CVC's argument that Broad had not shown its best proofs are outside the scope of Count 1 (as it is required to so to obtain the requested relief) and that CVC is wrong to assert that Broad was obligated to prove its dual-molecule guide RNA experiments before its single-molecule guide RNA experiments.

The brief specifically addresses CVC's citation of Louis v. Okada, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1073 (B.P.A.I. 2001), by asserting that Louis explicitly was not adopted as part of the Board Rules despite a proposal to do so and even if CVC was correct Broad's proffer was sufficient under the rules the PTAB actually adopted.

Finally, Broad argues that CVC did not establish that Broad had failed to show Proposed Count 2 to be patentable; that CVC had not even contested that Broad is not entitled to the benefit of the Zhang B1 reference (its earliest provisional application); and that contrary to CVC's argument a single-molecule Count would not be patentably distinct from a non-limited count.

Follow this link:
Broad Reply No. 2 to CVC's Opposition No. 2 to Broad's Motion No 2 to Substitute the Count - JD Supra

SENVEST MANAGEMENT LLC bought a fresh place in At Home Group Inc. (NYSE:HOME). The institutional investor bought 3.8 million shares of the stock in a transaction took place on 3/02/2020. In another most recent transaction, which held on 3/17/2020, CAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC bought approximately 1.6 million shares of At Home Group Inc. In a separate transaction which took place on 3/31/2020, the institutional investor, NISA INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC bought 11.6 thousand shares of the companys stock.

In the most recent purchasing and selling session, At Home Group Inc. (HOME)s share price decreased by -3.06 percent to ratify at $1.90. A sum of 1441416 shares traded at recent session and its average exchanging volume remained at 2.62M shares. The 52-week price high and low points are important variables to concentrate on when assessing the current and prospective worth of a stock. At Home Group Inc. (HOME) shares are taking a pay cut of -92.34% from the high point of 52 weeks and flying high of 58.33% from the low figure of 52 weeks.

At Home Group Inc. (HOME) shares reached a high of $1.985 and dropped to a low of $1.75 until finishing in the latest session at $1.90. Traders and investors may also choose to study the ATR or Average True Range when concentrating on technical inventory assessment. Currently at 0.43 is the 14-day ATR for At Home Group Inc. (HOME). The highest level of 52-weeks price has $24.81 and $1.20 for 52 weeks lowest level. After the recent changes in the price, the firm captured the enterprise value of $1.95B. The liquidity ratios which the firm has won as a quick ratio of 0.10, a current ratio of 0.80 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.78.

Having a look at past record, were going to look at various forwards or backwards shifting developments regarding HOME. The firms shares fell -2.06 percent in the past five business days and shrunk -6.86 percent in the past thirty business days. In the previous quarter, the stock fell -68.39 percent at some point. The output of the stock decreased -80.90 percent within the six-month closing period, while general annual output lost -91.77 percent. The companys performance is now negative at -65.45% from the beginning of the calendar year.

According to WSJ, At Home Group Inc. (HOME) obtained an estimated Hold proposal from the 9 brokerage firms currently keeping a deep eye on the stock performance as compares to its rivals. 0 equity research analysts rated the shares with a selling strategy, 8 gave a hold approach, 0 gave a purchase tip, 0 gave the firm a overweight advice and 1 put the stock under the underweight category. The average price goal of one year between several banks and credit unions that last year discussed the stock is $2.76.

CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) shares on Mondays trading session, jumped 3.97 percent to see the stock exchange hands at $53.46 per unit. Lets a quick look at companys past reported and future predictions of growth using the EPS Growth. EPS growth is a percentage change in standardized earnings per share over the trailing-twelve-month period to the current year-end. The company posted a value of $0.97 as earning-per-share over the last full year, while a chance, will post -$4.96 for the coming year. The current EPS Growth rate for the company during the year is 134.10% and predicted to reach at -10.00% for the coming year. In-depth, if we analyze for the long-term EPS Growth, the out-come was 54.00% for the past five years.

The last trading period has seen CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) move -27.76% and 65.51% from the stocks 52-week high and 52-week low prices respectively. The daily trading volume for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (NASDAQ:CRSP) over the last session is 1.08 million shares. CRSP has attracted considerable attention from traders and investors, a scenario that has seen its volume jump 6.1% compared to the previous one.

Investors focus on the profitability proportions of the company that how the company performs at profitability side. Return on equity ratio or ROE is a significant indicator for prospective investors as they would like to see just how effectively a business is using their cash to produce net earnings. As a return on equity, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (NASDAQ:CRSP) produces 11.70%. Because it would be easy and highly flexible, ROI measurement is among the most popular investment ratios. Executives could use it to evaluate the levels of performance on acquisitions of capital equipment whereas investors can determine that how the stock investment is better. The ROI entry for CRSPs scenario is at 4.90%. Another main metric of a profitability ratio is the return on assets ratio or ROA that analyses how effectively a business can handle its assets to generate earnings over a duration of time. CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) generated 9.60% ROA for the trading twelve-month.

Volatility is just a proportion of the anticipated day by day value extendthe range where an informal investor works. Greater instability implies more noteworthy benefit or misfortune. After an ongoing check, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) stock is found to be 5.84% volatile for the week, while 7.59% volatility is recorded for the month. The outstanding shares have been calculated 59.15M. Based on a recent bid, its distance from 20 days simple moving average is 22.91%, and its distance from 50 days simple moving average is 13.27% while it has a distance of 4.89% from the 200 days simple moving average.

The Williams Percent Range or Williams %R is a well-known specialized pointer made by Larry Williams to help recognize overbought and oversold circumstances. CRISPR Therapeutics AG (NASDAQ:CRSP)s Williams Percent Range or Williams %R at the time of writing to be seated at 15.52% for 9-Day. It is also calculated for different time spans. Currently for this organization, Williams %R is stood at 14.52% for 14-Day, 13.69% for 20-Day, 26.55% for 50-Day and to be seated 43.87% for 100-Day. Relative Strength Index, or RSI(14), which is a technical analysis gauge, also used to measure momentum on a scale of zero to 100 for overbought and oversold. In the case of CRISPR Therapeutics AG, the RSI reading has hit 65.53 for 14-Day.

Visit link:
Growth May Be Waiting: At Home Group Inc. (HOME) and CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) - BOV News

Humanity is currently facing a huge challenge imposed by the coronavirus. Borders are being shut down, planes grounded, and factories closed. At the same time, scientists and public health professionals are working on tests, treatments, and vaccines to soon provide a medical response. Coping with corona might be one of the largest tests humans have faced in the past decades but it wont be the last virus we need to defeat. It is time to embrace bioscience and allow more research and applications of genetic alteration methods.

For the layman, all this technobabble about mutagenesis and genetic engineering is difficult to comprehend and it took me personally a good amount of reading to start grasping what different methods exist and how these can massively improve our quality of life.

Lets first look at the four most common ways to alter the genes of a plant or animal:

This can be even done in grown humans that are alive, which is a blessing for everyone who suffers from genetic disorders. We are able to repair genes in live organisms. Gene editing is also thousands of times more accurate than just bombarding seeds with radiation. Some applied examples are deactivating the gene responsible for generating gluten in wheat: The result is gluten-free wheat. There are several methods that achieve this. One of the most popular ones these days is the so-called CRISPR Cas-9. These scissors are usually reprogrammed bacteria that transmit the new gene information or deactivate defunct or unwanted genes. Many science fiction novels and movies show a future in which we can deactivate genetic defects and cure humans from terrible diseases. Some examples of stories in which CRISPR-like techniques have been used are movies such as GATTACA, Star Treks Wrath of Khan, or the Expanse series in which gene editing plays a crucial role in growing crops in space.

Synthetic biologists have started usingCRISPR to synthetically create partsof the coronavirus in an attempt to launch a vaccine against this lung disease and be able to mass-produce it very quickly. In combination with computer simulations and artificial intelligence, the best design for such a vaccine is calculated on a computer and then synthetically created. This speeds up vaccine development and cuts it from years to merely months. Regulators and approval bodies have shown that in times of crisis they can also rapidly approve new testing and vaccination procedures which usually require years of back and forth with agencies such as the FDA?

CRISPR also allows the search for specific genes, also genes of a virus. This helped researchersto build fast and simple testing proceduresto test patients for corona.

In the long term, gene editing might allow us to increase the immunity of humans by altering our genes and making us more resistant to viruses and bacteria.

While the coronavirus seems to really test our modern society, we also need to be aware that this wont be the last pathogen that has the potential to kill millions. If we are unlucky, corona might mutate quickly and become harder to fight. The next dangerous virus, fungus, or bacteria is probably around the corner. Hence we need to embrace the latest inventions of biotechnology and not block genetic research and the deployment of its findings.

Right now a lot of red tape and even outright bans are standing between lifesaving innovations such as CRISPR and patients around the world. We need to rethink our hostility towards genetic engineering and embrace it. To be frank: We are in a constant struggle to fight newly occurring diseases and need to be able to deploy state of the art human answers to this.

Fred Roeder is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Follow him on Twitter @FredCyrusRoeder

A version of this article was originally published at Consumer Choice Center and has been republished here with permission. The center can be found on Twitter @ConsumerChoiceC

Read more from the original source:
What comic book super heroes and villains tell us about plant and human gene editing and the coronavirus - Genetic Literacy Project

Researchers say they've developed a low-cost swab test that can diagnose Covid-19 infections in about 45 minutes.

The CRISPR-based test which uses gene-targeting technology and requires no specialised equipment could help relieve testing backlogs in the United States as Covid-19 continues to spread, the scientists said.

The US Food and Drug Administration has not approved the test, but clinical assessments are being conducted in an effort to fast-track approval. The test is described in a paper published on 16 April in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

"The introduction and availability of CRISPR technology will accelerate deployment of the next generation of tests to diagnose Covid-19 infection," co-lead developer Dr Charles Chiu said in a University of California, San Francisco news release. He is a professor of laboratory medicine at the university.

The new test dubbed SARS-CoV-2 DETECTR is among the first to use CRISPR gene-targeting technology to test for the presence of the novel coronavirus.

CRISPR can be modified to target any genetic sequence, so test developers "programmed" it to zero in on two sequences in the genome of SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19.

One sequence is common to all SARS-like coronaviruses, while the other is unique to SARS-CoV-2. Checking for both sequences ensures that the new test can distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and closely related viruses, Chiu and his team explained.

Like other tests, this one can detect coronavirus in samples from respiratory swabs from patients. It provides results in about 45 minutes, compared with roughly four hours for widely used tests based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques.

The researchers said that another advantage of the new test is that it can be performed in virtually any lab, using off-the-shelf chemical agents and common equipment. PCR-based tests require specialised equipment, limiting them to well-equipped diagnostic labs.

The new test is also easy to interpret. Much like a store-bought pregnancy test, dark lines appear on test strips to indicate the presence of coronavirus genes.

While the new test is slightly less sensitive than PCR-based tests, researchers said that's unlikely to have much impact in diagnosis because infected patients typically have high viral loads.

As they work to validate the new test for FDA approval, researchers are making tweaks so that it can be used in field testing at locations such as airports, schools and small clinics.

READ MORE | Physical distancing might need to be practised intermittently until 2022 - study

READ MORE | Coronavirus: The chloroquine debate: Two experts weigh in

READ MORE | Could a measles vaccine help in the fight against Covid-19?

See original here:
New Covid-19 test could give results in under an hour - but it's yet to be approved - Health24

Pairwise will blend CRISPR gene-editing technology with germplasm of existing berries to create new varieties. Plant Sciences, Inc. (PSI), a berry breeder and ag research company in California, will be Pairwises germplasm provider.

As a result of this fruitful partnership, consumers could see new varieties of black raspberries, red raspberries and blackberries in the supermarkets produce aisle within a few years.

Together, Pairwise and PSI aim to improve berries taste and convenience while also increasing their shelf life and off-season availability.

PSI will use its commercial nurseries to initially grow the new crop plantlets. Pairwise and PSI ultimately will license farmers to plant, grow and produce the new berries.

At Pairwise, we want to make healthy eating easier, said the companys CEO Tom Adams, Ph.D. Now, more than ever, people are focused on their food options and looking for ways to make healthy choices at home. Through the collaboration with PSI, we are moving from science partnerships to product partnerships that will bring new berries to market.

Gene editing and berry (trait) pickingWith CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene-editing technology, Pairwise will modify the DNA sequences of berry germplasm supplied by PSI. Pairwise will pick (or retain) good traits and dispose of less desirable traits to cultivate new berry variations.

Pairwise has licensing agreements with Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard for the CRISPR gene-editing technology that makes its berry breeding possible. Pairwise has the exclusive license to specific MGH CRISPR technology for developing agricultural applications.

In a previous interview with the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Adams explained genomics and data science enable the company to breed the best berry. It is not developing genetically modified, or GMO, berries, which could include adding genes from different organisms.

We really have a mission to drive up consumption of fruits and vegetables through improvements of the crops and making them more available to people, said Adams.

For example, black raspberries have a limited growing season and are not widely available to American consumers. They naturally have five times more antioxidants than blueberries. With genetic modification, black raspberries could grow year-round and become much more available.

The Pairwise/PSI collaboration builds on a unique public/private partnership Pairwise and PSI previously established with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and several leading academic institutions to identify diverse, novel types of berries that are not broadly bred for commercial sale today.

Pairwise is one of the Triangle areas fast-growing agriculture and food biotech companies. Founded in 2018, Pairwise credits the North Carolina Biotechnology Center for being a supportive partner during its startup days.

Now the company is garnering national attention. Its even featured in a new documentary from CNBC Digital,How Scientists Create New Fruits & Vegetables, in which Chief Business Officer Haven Baker is featured in some of the interview segments.

For more information:www.ncbiotech.orgpairwise.comwww.plantsciences.com

More here:
Improving berries through CRISPR - hortidaily.com

One of the major limitations of the first-generation rDNA-based GM methods is the randomness of DNA insertions into plant genomes, just as the earlier mutagenesis methods introduced mutations randomly. The newer methods increase the specificity and precision with which genetic changes can be made. Known under the general rubric of sequence-specific nuclease (SSN) technology or gene/genome-editing, this approach uses proteins or protein-nucleic acid complexes that bind to and cut specific DNA sequences.1 SSNs include transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), and meganucleases.2

[This is part three of a four-part series on the progress of agricultural biotechnology. Read part one, part two and part four.]

The DNA cuts made by SSNs are repaired by cellular processes that often either change one to several base pairs or introduce deletions and/or insertions (aka indels) at the target site. Another recently added technology capable of editing gene sequences is termed oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM) and uses short nucleic acid sequences to target mutations to selected sites.3

The hottest and the coolest

What is rapidly emerging as the most powerful of the SSN technologies is known by the uninformative acronym CRISPR/Cas, which contracts the unwieldy designation clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)CRISPR-associated protein (Cas9). Its based on a bacterial defense system against invading viruses and promises extraordinary versatility in the kinds of genome changes that it can make.1,4

The CRISPR/Cas editing molecular machine is comprised of an enzyme (Cas9 and other variants) that binds an RNA molecule (called the guide RNA or gRNA) whose sequence guides the complex to the matching genomic sequence, allowing the Cas9 enzyme to introduce a double-strand break within the matching sequence. The CRISPR/Cas system can be used to edit gene sequences, to introduce a gene or genes at a pre-identified site in the genome, and to edit multiple genes simultaneously, none of which could be done with rDNA methods.1,5

Many of the genetic changes created using either SSN or ODM are indistinguishable at the molecular level from those that occur in nature or are produced by mutation breeding. Since both spontaneous mutants and chemical- and radiation-induced mutants have been used in crop improvement without regulation, there is no scientific rationale for regulating mutants produced by the newer methods. In hopes of creating a distinction that will permit exemption of gene-edited crops from regulation, the newer methods are increasingly referred to as new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs or just NBTs).

Quick successes for NBTs?

Prime targets of gene editing are cellular proteins that are involved in pathogenesis.6 Virus reproduction requires the recruitment of cellular proteins for replication, transcription and translation. There can be sufficient redundancy in the requisite protein infrastructure so that partial or complete virus resistance can be achieved by disrupting genes that code for proteins required for viral replication without damaging crop productivity.

For example, work with mutants of the model plant Arabidopsis identified translation initiation factor eIF4E as required for potyvirus translation. CRISPR/Cas-induced point mutations and deletions have recently been reported to enhance viral resistance not only in Arabidopsis, but in cucumber and cassava, as well.7

The many ways that plants and their bacterial and fungal pathogens interact offer opportunities to use gene editing to enhance plant disease resistance and reduce agricultures dependence on chemical control agents.6 The two main strategies are to inactivate genes whose products render the host plant sensitive to pathogen invasion and to enhance the ability of the host plant to resist invasion by providing functional resistance factors they lack.

An example of the former is provided by the mildew resistance resulting from the inactivation of all three homeoalleles of the mildew resistance locus (MLO) of hexaploid wheat.8 The efficiency of targeting both multiple alleles and multiple loci has taken a further jump with the development of multiplexed gene editing using vectors carrying several gRNA sequences capable of being processed by cellular enzymes to release all of them. This allows the gRNAs to edit multiple genes simultaneously.9

The second approach is to capitalize on the formidable arsenal of resistance genes residing in plant genomes.10 Fungal resistance genes have long been a major target of breeders efforts and have proved frustratingly short-lived, as pathogens rapidly evolve to evade recognition.11 While desirable resistance genes missing from domesticated crops still reside in wild relatives, extracting them by conventional breeding methods can be time-consuming or impossible.

European academic researchers created transgenic potatoes resistant to the late blight (Phytophthora infestans) that caused the Irish potato famine by inserting resistance (R) genes cloned from wild potato species into commercial potato varieties.12 A blight-resistant variety, called the InnateTM Generation 2 potato, is being commercialized by J.R. Simplot company in the U.S. and Canada and is already being marketed in the U.S. as the White Russet TM Idaho potato.13 Transgenic disease-resistance traits have been introduced in other crops, but have yet to be commercialized.14

Plant genomes contain hundreds to thousands of potential R genes, but it is not yet possible to determine whether a given one will confer resistance to a particular pathogen. Methods are currently being developed to accelerate the identification and cloning of active ones.14 Once identified, CRISPR/Cas can be used to introduce cassettes carrying multiple R genes, making it possible to create more durable resistance than can be achieved by introducing a single R gene through conventional breeding14. Finally, direct editing of resident inactive R genes using a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) strategy that avoids creating a transgenic plant may prove useful, although no such products appear to be in the pipeline to commercialization at present.15,16

Multiplexed editing has proved particularly useful for editing genes in polyploid species. For example, Cas9/sgRNA-mediated knockouts of the six fatty acid desaturase 2 (FAD2) genes of allohexaploid Camelina sativa was reported to markedly improve the fatty acid composition of Camelina oil.17 Using a different approach, Yield10 Biosciences is moving toward commercialization of a high-oil Camelina developed by editing a negative regulator of acetyl-CoA carboxylase.18

As of this writing, the only gene-edited product that has been commercialized is a soybean oil with no trans-fat, trademarked CalynoTM, developed by Calyxt.19 Gene-edited crops that have been approved but not commercialized or are still in the regulatory pipeline include miniature tomatoes, high-fiber wheat, high-yield tomatoes, improved quality alfalfa, non-browning potatoes and mushrooms, as well as high starch-content and drought-resistant corn, most being developed by small biotech companies.19

Getting beyond the low-hanging fruit

It is becoming increasingly clear that yield increases in our major crops by traditional breeding approaches are not keeping pace with demand.20 The gap is likely to widen as climate warming moves global temperatures farther from those prevailing when our crops were domesticated.

Overexpression of stress-related transcription factors has been reported to increase yields under water-stress conditions, but such increases are generally not maintained under optimal conditions.21 Monsantos drought-tolerant (Genuity DroughtGardTM) corn hybrids are based on the introduction of bacterial chaperone genes.22 Fortunately, research into drought stress tolerance in wheat and other grains continues apace, although no drought-tolerant varieties have yet reached farmers.23

Real progress on crop yield is slow. What stands in the way is that we have so limited an understanding of how plants work at the molecular level. At every level of analysis, organisms are redundant networks of interconnected proteins that adjust their manifold physical and enzymatic interactions in response to internal signals and external stimuli, then send messages to the information storage facilities (DNA) to regulate their own production and destruction rates.

As well, many genes are present in families of between two and hundreds or thousands of similar members, making it difficult to determine either the function or the contribution of any given member to a complex trait such as stress tolerance or yield. That said, gene family functions are identifiable and some, such as transcription factor genes, encode proteins that influence multiple other genes, making them among the likeliest candidates for manipulation. Indeed, studies on the genetics of domestication often point to changes in transcription factor genes.24

But while there have been reports that constitutive overexpression of single transcription factor gene can increase grain yield in both wheat and maize, none appear to have been commercialized yet.25 The challenge of developing a yield-improved variety by simply overexpressing transcription factor genes is illustrated by a recent report from Corteva.26 It describes a tour-de-force involving generation and testing of countless transgenic plants to identify a single transcription factor gene, ZMM28, that reproducibly increased yield when incorporated into 48 different hybrids and tested over a 4-year period in 58 locations.26

Getting there by a different route

Might gene-editing facilitate the task of generating and identifying yield-enhancing genetic variation? While the CRISPR/Cas toolkit is growing at dizzying speed, its utility in crop improvement has so far been limited to the simple traits controlled by individual genes, albeit including multiple alleles.1,27

Crop domestication and plant breeding have vastly narrowed genetic diversity because the very process of selecting plants with enhanced traits imposes a bottleneck, assuring that only a fraction of the ancestral populations genetic diversity is represented in a new elite variety. This, in turn, limits what can be done by mutagenizing existing elite varieties, a process that is also burdened with the necessity to eliminate deleterious mutations through back-crossing.

But to widen the genetic base and to modify genes that contribute to quantitative traits, it is still first necessary to identify the genes that contribute to agronomically important traits. Identifying such genes is currently a slow and tedious process of conventional and molecular mapping.28 A recent report describes a method for combining pedigree analysis with targeted CRISPR/Cas-mediated knockouts that promises to markedly accelerate the identification of the individual contributing genes in the chromosomal regions that are associated with quantitative traits, technically known as quantitative trait loci (QTLs).29

Even as the QTL knowledge gap narrows, gRNA multiplexing is extending the power of SSNs to understanding and modifying complex traits in crop plants. For example, using multiplexed gRNAs, Cas nuclease was simultaneously targeted to three genes known to be negative regulators of grain weight in rice.30 The triple mutants were reported to exhibit increases in the neighborhood of 25% in each of the three grain weight traits: length, width and thousand grain weight.

In another study, 8 different genes affecting rice agronomic traits were targeted with a single multiplexed gRNA construct and all showed high mutation efficiencies in the first generation.31 Conversely, it has been reported that editing the same QTLs gives different outcomes in different elite varieties, improving yield in some but not other.32

Mutations affecting the expression of regulatory genes, such as transcription factors genes, account for a substantial fraction of the causative genetic changes during crop domestication.33 Multiplexed gRNAs constructs targeting cis-regulatory elements (CREs) have been used to generate large numbers of allelic variants of genes affecting fruit size in tomato, mimicking some of the mutations accumulated during domestication and breeding of contemporary tomato varieties.34

Knowledge of domestication genes can also be used to accelerate domestication of wild plants that retain traits of value, such as salt tolerance, as reported for tomato.35 This opens the possibility of rapidly domesticating wild species better adapted to the harsher climate conditions of the future.

While the above-described advances have been based on the CRISPR/Cas-mediated deletions, approaches to more precise sequence editing are developing as well. While Cas-generated cuts in the DNA are most commonly repaired by the non-homologous end joining pathway (NHEJ), the less frequent homology-directed repair pathway (HDR) has been shown to edit sequences at useful frequencies using Cas-gRNA ribonucleoprotein complexes.15,36

As well, mutant Cas9 proteins lacking nuclease activity have been fused with base-editing enzymes such as cytidine and adenosine deaminases to direct gene editing without DNA cleavage.37,38 This approach can change single base pairs precisely in both coding and non-coding regions, as well alter mRNA precursor processing sites.38 Finally, the sequence targeting properties of the CRISPR-Cas system can be used to deliver other types of hybrid proteins to target sequences to regulate gene expression and DNA methylation.27

In sum, the many variations on gene editing now developing hold the promise of revolutionizing crop breeding, prompting several colleagues to whimsically title a recent review of CRISPR/Cas-based methodology: Plant breeding at the speed of light.39 And indeed, the new methods make it possible to replace chemicals with biological mechanisms in protecting plants from pests and disease, as well as increase their resilience to stress.

That said, extraordinary progress in increasing grain yields has already been accomplished by what are now considered to be traditional breeding methods and increased fertilizer use. Further improvements continue, but will likely be harder won than the many-fold increases in corn, wheat and rice yields of the last century and its Green Revolution. But there is a persistent disconnect between what can be done to accelerate plant breeding using the new gene-editing toolkit and what is actually being done by both the public and private sectors to get varieties improved by these methods out to farmers.

1Zhang Y et al. (2019). The emerging and uncultivated potential of CRISPR technology in plant science. Nature Plants 5:778-94.

2Podevin N et al. (2013). Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding. Trends Biotechnol 31:375-83.

3Sauer NJ et al. (2016). Oligonucleotidedirected mutagenesis for precision gene editing. Plant Biotechnol J 14:496-502.

4Zhang D et al. (2016). Targeted gene manipulation in plants using the CRISPR/Cas technology. J Genet Genomics 43:251-62.

5Cong L et al. (2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339:819-23.

6Borrelli VM et al. (2018). The enhancement of plant disease resistance using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Frontiers Plant Sci 9:Article 1245.

7Chandrasekaran J et al. (2016). Development of broad virus resistance in nontransgenic cucumber using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Molec Plant Pathol 17:1140-53; Pyott DE et al. (2016). Engineering of CRISPR/Cas9mediated potyvirus resistance in transgenefree Arabidopsis plants. Molec Plant Pathol 17:1276-88; Gomez MA et al. (2019). Simultaneous CRISPR/Cas9mediated editing of cassava eIF 4E isoforms nCBP1 and nCBP2 reduces cassava brown streak disease symptom severity and incidence. Plant Biotechnol J 17:421-34.

8Wang Y et al. (2014). Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nature Biotechnol 32:947.

9Xie K et al. (2015). Boosting CRISPR/Cas9 multiplex editing capability with the endogenous tRNA-processing system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:3570-5; Wang W et al. (2018). Transgenerational CRISPR-Cas9 activity facilitates multiplex gene editing in allopolyploid wheat. The CRISPR J 1:65-74.

10Petit-Houdenot Y and Fudal I (2017). Complex interactions between fungal avirulence genes and their corresponding plant resistance genes and consequences for disease resistance management. Frontiers Plant Sci 8:1072.

11Bebber DP and Gurr S (2015). Crop-destroying fungal and oomycete pathogens challenge food security. Fungal Genet Biol 74:62-4; van Esse HP et al. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytol 225:70-86.

12Jones JD et al. (2014). Elevating crop disease resistance with cloned genes. Phil Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 369:20130087; Haesaert G et al. (2015). Transformation of the potato variety Desiree with single or multiple resistance genes increases resistance to late blight under field conditions. Crop Protection 77:163-75.

13Halsall M. Innate outlook. Spudsmart, 24 April 2019 https://spudsmart.com/innate-outlook/

14Dong OX and Ronald PC (2019). Genetic engineering for disease resistance in plants: recent progress and future perspectives. Plant Physiol 180:26-38.

15Svitashev S et al. (2016). Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPRCas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nature Communications 7:1-7.

16Mao Y et al. (2019). Gene editing in plants: progress and challenges. Nat Sci Rev 6:421-37.

17Morineau C et al. (2017). Selective gene dosage by CRISPRCas9 genome editing in hexaploid Camelina sativa. Plant Biotechnol J 15:729-39; Jiang WZ et al. (2017). Significant enhancement of fatty acid composition in seeds of the allohexaploid, Camelina sativa, using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Plant Biotechnol J 15:648-57.

18Yield10 Bioscience (Jan 16, 2020 ). Yield10 Bioscience submits Am I Regulated? letter to USDA-APHIS BRS for CRISPR genome-edited C3007 in Camelina to pave the way for U.S. field tests. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/01/16/1971418/0/en/Yield10-Bioscience-Submits-Am-I-Regulated-Letter-to-USDA-APHIS-BRS-for-CRISPR-Genome-Edited-C3007-in-Camelina-to-Pave-the-Way-for-U-S-Field-Tests.html

19Genetic Literacy Project (2020). Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-crops-food/

20Ray DK et al. (2013). Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PloS One 8:e66428.

21Rice EA et al. (2014). Expression of a truncated ATHB17 protein in maize increases ear weight at silking. PLoS One 9:e94238; Araus JL et al. (2019). Transgenic solutions to increase yield and stability in wheat: shining hope or flash in the pan? J Experimental Bot 70:1419-24.

22Castiglioni P et al. (2008). Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in maize under water-limited conditions. Plant Physiol 147:446-55.

23Mwadzingeni L et al. (2016). Breeding wheat for drought tolerance: Progress and technologies. J Integrative Agricult 15:935-43; Sallam A et al. (2019). Drought stress tolerance in wheat and barley: Advances in physiology, breeding and genetics research. Internat J Mol Sci 20:3137.

24Swinnen G et al. (2016). Lessons from domestication: targeting cis-regulatory elements for crop improvement. Trends Plant Sci 21:506-15.

25Nelson DE et al. (2007). Plant nuclear factor Y (NF-Y) B subunits confer drought tolerance and lead to improved corn yields on water-limited acres. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:16450-5; Qu B et al. (2015). A wheat CCAAT box-binding transcription factor increases the grain yield of wheat with less fertilizer input. Plant Physiol 167:411-23; Yadav D et al. (2015). Constitutive overexpression of the TaNF-YB4 gene in transgenic wheat significantly improves grain yield. J Experiment Bot 66:6635-50.

26Wu J et al. (2019). Overexpression of zmm28 increases maize grain yield in the field. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:23850-8.

27Chen K et al. (2019). CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture. Annu Rev Plant Biol 70:667-97.

28Cavanagh C et al. (2008). From mutations to MAGIC: resources for gene discovery, validation and delivery in crop plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11:215-21.

29Huang J et al. (2018). Identifying a large number of high-yield genes in rice by pedigree analysis, whole-genome sequencing, and CRISPR-Cas9 gene knockout. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:E7559-E67.

30Xu R et al. (2016). Rapid improvement of grain weight via highly efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated multiplex genome editing in rice. J Genet Genom 43:529.

31Shen L et al. (2017). Rapid generation of genetic diversity by multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in rice. China Sci Life Sci 60:506-15.

32Shen L et al. (2018). QTL editing confers opposing yield performance in different rice varieties. J Integrative Plant Biol 60:89-93; Zhou J et al. (2019). Multiplex QTL editing of grain-related genes improves yield in elite rice varieties. Plant Cell Rep 38:475-85.

33Meyer RS and Purugganan MD (2013). Evolution of crop species: genetics of domestication and diversification. Nature Rev Genet 14:840-52.

34Rodrguez-Leal D et al. (2017). Engineering quantitative trait variation for crop improvement by genome editing. Cell 171:470-80. e8.

35Li T et al. (2018). Domestication of wild tomato is accelerated by genome editing. Nature Biotechnol 36:1160-3; Zsgn A et al. (2018). De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nature Biotechnol 36:1211-6.

36Puchta H et al. (1996). Two different but related mechanisms are used in plants for the repair of genomic double-strand breaks by homologous recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:5055-60; Zhang Y et al. (2016). Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA. Nature Communications 7:1-8.

37Komor AC et al. (2016). Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533:420-4; Hua K et al. (2019). Expanding the base editing scope in rice by using Cas9 variants. Plant Biotechnol J 17:499-504.

38Kang B-C et al. (2018). Precision genome engineering through adenine base editing in plants. Nature Plants 4:427-31.

39Wolter F et al. (2019). Plant breeding at the speed of light: the power of CRISPR/Cas to generate directed genetic diversity at multiple sites. BMC Plant Biol 19:176.

Nina V. Fedoroff is an Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Penn State University

Read the original:
Next-generation gene-editing technology: Path to a second Green Revolution? - Genetic Literacy Project

Despite centuries-long efforts to develop cures for cancer, various forms of the disease will kill about 630,000 people in the U.S. in 2020. But hopes are rising for cell therapies sometimes called living medicines that can boost and adapt the natural cancer-fighting potential of the immune system in ways that conventional cancer treatments cannot match.

UC San Francisco researchers now have reported a new method to design and test cell therapies, one they expect will speed the development of new life-saving treatments not only for cancer, but for other diseases, too.

Cell therapy for cancer is a type of immunotherapy. Immune-system cells known as T cells are isolated from a patients blood and genetically modified in the lab, inserting or removing genes so the cells will better recognize and destroy tumors. These modified T-cells are grown in culture until they number in the hundreds of millions, and are then infused back into the patient through an IV drip.

One form of cell therapy, known as CAR-T-cell therapy, is already approved for certain blood cancers, but so far cell therapies have not been effective against the solid tumors that affect the breast, colon, brain, lung, and other tissues.

In 2018, a UCSF team led by immunologist Alex Marson, MD, PhD, along with Theo Roth, an MD/PhD student in the UCSF Medical Scientist Training Program, developed a breakthroughtechnique in which they used pulses of electricity (a method called electroporation) to enable CRISPR gene-targeting technology to quickly and efficiently reprogram T-cells with new functions.

Now, in a study published April 16, 2020 in Cell, the team hasadvanced this technique to power a high-throughput platform to evaluate the specificity and potency of many different potential cell therapies simultaneously comparable to the approach already widely used in industry to quickly screen large batches of small molecules to assess whether they would make effective drugs.

The UCSF researchers evaluated a library of 36 different DNA sequences, a selection based on educated guesses about which bits of genetic material, when spliced into T cells, might alter cell function to better fight cancer. They inserted the different sequences into different T cells to compare their best guesses head to head in the lab.

Rather than pursuing one educated guess at a time, we wanted a systematic way to compare different potential therapeutic edits head to head, said Marson, who serves as scientific director of biomedicine at the UCSFUC Berkeley Innovative Genomics Institute (IGI) and is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Investigator. The ability to iterate fast and test different candidates against each other is what the field needs to move forward and have a discovery engine for next-generation cell therapies.

Many solid tumors express proteins that shield them from T cell attacks, so the researchers evaluated not only the modified cells ability to find cancer cells, but also their ability to accumulate robustly within tumors. Using a distinctive DNA barcode to track the modified T cells, the researchers raced them against one another in lab dishes and in vivo cancer models. This allowed them to identify specific gene modifications that give T cells the best ability to kill off solid-tumor cells in a lab dish and also more effectively fight a type of human skin cancer grown in mice.

Their new methods also enable researchers to measure specific patterns of gene activation within individual T cells to gain insight into how cellular functions have changed in the modified cells that fare best against tumors.

We now are working to further scale up and optimize this screening platform, said Roth, who with Marson is a co-founder of Arsenal Biosciences, a company funded in part by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy that is focused on producing and testing new cell therapies. We believe this cell therapy development platform will make it possible for academics and industry to begin generating all sorts of genetically programed T cells targeted to specific cancers as well as other medical applications.

Visit link:
CRISPR-Based 'Discovery Engine' for New Cell Therapies to Advance Cancer Treatments - UCSF News Services

Are you baking bread this weekend? (Hot tip: Even if you cant find yeast at the store, theres a simple way to make your own at home.)

In between your dough prooves is a great time to catch up on your latest dose of food tech news. This week weve got stories on fresh varietals of gene-edited berries, a new Nordic FoodTech VC fund, Burger Kings trouble over its plant-based burger ads in the UK, and more.

Pairwise partners to breed new type of berriesAgriculture and biotech company Pairwise forged a partnership with Plant Sciences Inc (PSI) this week to create new types of berries (via WRAL TechWire). Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. Pairwise uses CRISPR gene editing to develop new varietals of food that are optimized for nutrition, have longer shelf lives or grow more quickly. First up, Pairwise and PSI will focus on black and red raspberries, as well as blackberries. Theyre hoping to have their first round of berries on shelves within the next few years.

Lyft launches delivery program for orgs affected by COVID-19Rideshare and last-mile logistics company Lyft launched a new COVID-19-related initiative this week. Essential Deliveries is a program that partners with businesses and nonprofits to help them deliver staple goods like groceries, prepared meals, and cleaning and medical supplies (h/t Techcrunch) to consumers. Partners can tap into Lyfts platform to set up deliveries or schedule rides. The program will be available in at least 11 cities nationwide and drivers will be alerted about the nature of the goods theyre delivering. All deliveries will be contact-free.

Nordic FoodTech VC launches with 24.55 millionNordic FoodTech VC, a new venture fund targeting early-stage tech companies making the food system more sustainable and nutritious, has launched this week. The fund will begin investing with 24.55 million ($26.7 million USD) in capital. Its the first fund in the Nordic countries and plans to invest in dozens of companies innovating to improve the global food system.

Burger Kings plant-based Whopper ads banned in UKThree ads from Burger King in the UK promoting its Rebel Whopper have now been banned by the UKs Advertising Standards Authority. Burger King launched the Rebel Whopper, which features a plant-based burger from Unilever-owned Vegetarian Butcher, back in January 2020. Since then, complaints came in stating that the ad was misleading consumers by suggesting that it could be eaten by vegetarians, vegans, and people with egg allergies, despite the fact that its cooked on the same grill as meat products and features mayonnaise. The ASA has sided with the complaints, stating that the small print at the bottom of BKs ads stating that the Rebel Whopper is cooked alongside meat products was not sufficiently in informing consumers.

Related

Go here to see the original:
Food Tech News: CRISPR Blackberries and a New Nordic FoodTech Fund - The Spoon

Most readers would already be aware that CRISPR Therapeutics' (NASDAQ:CRSP) stock increased significantly by 30% over the past month. But the company's key financial indicators appear to be differing across the board and that makes us question whether or not the company's current share price momentum can be maintained. Particularly, we will be paying attention to CRISPR Therapeutics' ROE today.

Return on equity or ROE is an important factor to be considered by a shareholder because it tells them how effectively their capital is being reinvested. In simpler terms, it measures the profitability of a company in relation to shareholder's equity.

See our latest analysis for CRISPR Therapeutics

Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula:

Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) Shareholders' Equity

So, based on the above formula, the ROE for CRISPR Therapeutics is:

7.1% = US$67m US$939m (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2019).

The 'return' is the income the business earned over the last year. That means that for every $1 worth of shareholders' equity, the company generated $0.07 in profit.

Thus far, we have learnt that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. Based on how much of its profits the company chooses to reinvest or "retain", we are then able to evaluate a company's future ability to generate profits. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that dont share these attributes.

On the face of it, CRISPR Therapeutics' ROE is not much to talk about. Next, when compared to the average industry ROE of 19%, the company's ROE leaves us feeling even less enthusiastic. Therefore, it might not be wrong to say that the five year net income decline of 24% seen by CRISPR Therapeutics was probably the result of it having a lower ROE. We reckon that there could also be other factors at play here. For instance, the company has a very high payout ratio, or is faced with competitive pressures.

That being said, we compared CRISPR Therapeutics' performance with the industry and were concerned when we found that while the company has shrunk its earnings, the industry has grown its earnings at a rate of 24% in the same period.

NasdaqGM:CRSP Past Earnings Growth April 18th 2020

Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. One good indicator of expected earnings growth is the P/E ratio which determines the price the market is willing to pay for a stock based on its earnings prospects. So, you may want to check if CRISPR Therapeutics is trading on a high P/E or a low P/E, relative to its industry.

CRISPR Therapeutics doesn't pay any dividend, meaning that the company is keeping all of its profits, which makes us wonder why it is retaining its earnings if it can't use them to grow its business. So there could be some other explanations in that regard. For instance, the company's business may be deteriorating.

Story continues

In total, we're a bit ambivalent about CRISPR Therapeutics' performance. While the company does have a high rate of reinvestment, the low ROE means that all that reinvestment is not reaping any benefit to its investors, and moreover, its having a negative impact on the earnings growth. That being so, the latest industry analyst forecasts show that analysts are forecasting a slight improvement in the company's future earnings growth. This could offer some relief to the company's existing shareholders. Are these analysts expectations based on the broad expectations for the industry, or on the company's fundamentals? Click here to be taken to our analyst's forecasts page for the company.

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Read the original post:
CRISPR Therapeutics AG's (NASDAQ:CRSP) Financials Are Too Obscure To Link With Current Share Price Momentum: What's In Store For the Stock? - Yahoo...

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi: Feluda will now detect if you are infected with Covid-19. Or, to be precise, a new paper-based test strip named after the beloved detective character created by Bengali filmmaker-author Satyajit Ray will soon be able to find the novel coronavirus in just a few minutes.

The Feluda test strip has been invented by a team led by two Bengali-origin scientists Dr Souvik Maiti and Dr Debojyoti Chakraborty at the Council of Scientific & Industrial Researchs Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (CSIR-IGIB) in New Delhi.

The simple paper-based test strip could also reduce Covid-19 testing costs the real-time polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) used currently requires machinery worth lakhs of rupees and its price is capped at Rs 4,500 in private labs, but the Feluda test could cost as little as Rs 500. It can be used in a way similar to pregnancy test strips widely available over the counter.

This strip will be similar to a pregnancy test strip, and will not require any specialised skill and machines to perform, as is the case with other PCR-based tests. This strip will just change colour, and can be used in a simple pathological lab. The most important part is it will be 100 per cent accurate, CSIR Director-General Shekhar C. Mande told ThePrint.

Normally, scientists take two to three years to develop this type of kits, but we are among the three or four countries leading the way in developing it, alongside Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US, said Mande, head of Indias largest umbrella organisation for scientific research.

Also read: Harsh Vardhan asks scientists to hurry up: Deliver Covid-19 weapons before the war is over

Dr Chakraborty of IGIB explained how his team had developed the kit.

We were experimenting on sickle cell anaemia for the last two years. When Covid-19 cases rose in China, we started to experiment to see how mutations take place in the coronavirus. For the last two months, we have been working 20 hours a day to develop it, he told ThePrint.

Asked why they named it after Rays fictional detective, Chakraborty said: It will detect the presence of a virus in a just few minutes,like Feluda.

The team is currently testing the sensitivity of the Feluda strip. Now, we are at a stage where we can say it will be a major breakthrough for testing in a short time. Regulatory validation is in process, and we hope we will be ready for technology transfer in few weeks. We are in touch with several manufacturers for the technology transfer, Chakraborty said.

Mande added that the strip has been tested on the samples with CSIR, and is now being tested on samples from elsewhere to find out its sensitivity.

Also read: FDA has approved saliva test to detect Covid-19 that lowers infection risk for health staff

Mande and Chakraborty said their test kit uses CRISPR gene-editing technology to get results, though the difference to the kits being developed at Stanford and MIT is in the proteins used.

CRISPR technology recognises specific genetic sequences and cuts them in short time. The CRISPR reaction is specific, and can be done in 5-10 minutes. It is a powerful technique that worked in detecting the Zika virus too.

(Our strip) uses cutting-edge gene-editing CRISPR-CAS-9 technology to target and identify genomic sequence of the novel coronavirus in suspected individuals. No other laboratory in India is developing test kit using CRISPR technology, Mande said.

Chakraborty added: Unlike Stanford and MIT, which use CAS-12 and CAS-13 proteins to detect the presence of the novel coronavirus, our kit uses CAS-9 protein technology. And unlike the PCR test, there is no need for probes.

Anurag Agrawal, director of CSIR-IGIB, explained the difference between the Feluda paper strip test and others being carried out around the world.

A few other labs have been developing test kits, but they are largely based on PCR technology. The problem with PCR is that it is costly one machine costs Rs 14-15 lakh, and imported probes have to be used, of which there is a shortage. It takes several hours, Agrawal said.

Our paper strip does not require any level 2 or level 3 lab to test, unlike most PCR-based tests. This can be done in any simple pathological lab. We have imported serological rapid test kits, but this paper test technology is different, Agrawal added.

Also read: US begins clinical trial of an artificial antibody for Covid-19 treatment

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

More:
Satyajit Rays Feluda will soon detect coronavirus in minutes, thanks to CSIR scientists - ThePrint

Mammoth Biosciences and researchers at the University of California, San Francisco are working on a coronavirus test that could run multiple samples at once, with results in 35-40 minutes. Even better, they say, it doesn't require the sophisticated, expensive equipment used in other tests for the virus. Mammoth Biosciences hide caption

Mammoth Biosciences and researchers at the University of California, San Francisco are working on a coronavirus test that could run multiple samples at once, with results in 35-40 minutes. Even better, they say, it doesn't require the sophisticated, expensive equipment used in other tests for the virus.

Being able to test for coronavirus infections is a critical component to reopening society even a little bit after the initial wave of COVID-19. So there is an urgent need for faster, cheaper tests than the ones available at present.

One approach to the next generation of tests is being developed by the University of California, San Francisco Medical School and Mammoth Biosciences. In a paper released Thursday in the journal Nature Biotechnology, researchers describe a test based on a new technology known as CRISPR.

CRISPR systems have been widely used by researchers to modify the genetic material in living cells. In this case, a system known as CRISPR-Cas12 is used to recognize genetic signatures of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and then make cuts in it to release a fluorescent molecule that will show whether the virus is present.

Like the test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this CRISPR-based test can run multiple samples at once. And while the CDC version delivers answers in hours, the test from UCSF and Mammoth Biosciences is faster providing results in 30-45 minutes.

The test is self-contained, so it doesn't require sophisticated, expensive equipment that is used in other tests for the virus.

"I can run it now myself at home," explains Dr. Charles Chiu, professor of laboratory medicine at UCSF and co-lead developer of the new test although he notes it does require some expertise to conduct it. He says he and his colleagues hope to submit the current version of their test next week for FDA approval. But it probably won't be the final iteration.

"What we really want to develop is something like a handheld, pocket-sized device using disposable cartridges," says Chiu something that could even be use by nonexperts as a home-based test. Chiu is confident such tests could be manufactured at a scale that would be widely available.

Other labs, including two at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass., are also working on CRISPR-based diagnostic tests.

Sara Sawyer, a virologist at the University of Colorado, is trying to go one step further in the testing world. She's trying to develop a low-cost test people could use at home that would reveal whether they are infected days before they show any symptoms.

"For two years, we've been working on trying to develop a diagnostic that can pick up on the earliest stages of common respiratory diseases," Sawyer says. Her test doesn't look for the virus itself. Instead, it looks for a response to the virus by the cells of a person who is infected.

The idea is that once cells in the nose and throat are infected, certain genes are switched on that aren't normally switched on. Sawyer says it's possible to detect those "up-regulated" genes in saliva instead of the nasal swab other coronavirus tests rely on. The question is, can she distinguish the new coronavirus from other viruses. She thinks she can.

But do others agree?

"The answer is maybe," says Benjamin tenOever, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. He says yes, infection by the virus that causes COVID-19 results in different genes being up-regulated, compared with flu or other viruses. He's just skeptical the technology exists to be able to detect those differences.

"I'd say theoretically it is possible," tenOever says. "She's a very smart scientist. And so if she says she can do it, I would give her the benefit of the doubt."

Sawyer has formed a company to build her test kit. If society is to reopen, she says, there will have to be easy ways for people to check their infection status. She's in the process of designing and raising money for a study to validate her test's accuracy.

"We think saliva is the key to moving these tests out of the doctor's office," Sawyer says, because all people would have to do to collect a sample is spit in a cup. No blood draws, no nasal swabs. Easy.

If it works.

See the article here:
Next Generation Of COVID-19 Virus Tests Could Get Faster And Cheaper With CRISPR : Shots - Health News - NPR

The potential of fish and shellfish production to feed a growing global population could be significantly enhanced through advances in genetics and biotechnology, researchers have said.

Many species of fish and shellfish have been domesticated relatively recently compared with most livestock species, and so have diverse gene pools with major potential for selective breeding, according to the review paper in Nature Reviews Genetics.

The development of tools to gain insight into the genetics of these species, and apply such tools for breeding and management, provides opportunities to release that potential, researchers say.

Most aquaculture species can produce many offspring, and large populations with improved genetics can be bred quickly for improved production performance.

The benefits may include improved growth, resistance to disease or robustness in diverse farming environments.

Farmed fish is on course to overcome wild fish as the main source of seafood, and consequently genetic tools and expertise are in high demand to increase the efficiency and sustainability of aquaculture systems, which currently rely mostly on unselected stocks.

Insight into the genomes of species can enable careful selection of a farming population with desirable traits, and monitoring genomic variation will help maintain genetic diversity as farm populations develop.

In the future, technologies such as genome editing could be used to introduce desirable traits, such as disease resistance, into farmed species, and surrogate breeding could be employed to support production of preferred species.

The review paper, collaboration between experts from Universities of Edinburgh, Exeter, Stirling, and Aberdeen, is an output of the AquaLeap consortium project.

AquaLeap is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre, in partnership with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Hendrix Genetics, Xelect, The National Lobster Hatchery, Tethys oysters, and Otter Ferry SeaFish.

Environmental Biologist Dr Eduarda Santos, from the University of Exeter and co-author of the study said: The rapid expansion of aquaculture has contributed to increased food security across the globe, however, issues related to domestication of desired species and emergence of diseases, limit its further development.

Genomics has the potential to offer solutions to many of these limitations by improving our knowledge of the genomes of cultured organisms, genetic selection, and better understanding of the dynamic interactions between genes and the environment, to maximise food production.

Dr Jamie Stevens, also from the University of Exeter and co-author added: We only have to look at the example of Atlantic salmon to see the immense value of a sequenced genome to the relatively recent optimisation of a wild species for the aquaculture market.

Similarly, we anticipate the delivery of a genome for other species, including the European lobster, will offer similar opportunities to develop molecular tools with which to rapidly increase the potential of lobster as an aquaculture species and improve the sustainability of its wild populations.

Professor Ross Houston, the Roslin Institute: There is a timely opportunity to harness the potential of farmed aquatic species, to ensure food security for a growing population. Genomic selection and biotechnology can speed up this process, and recent developments in these fields will soon be translated to benefit aquaculture production for many of these species across the world.

Read the original post

See more here:
CRISPR could speed growth and increase disease resistance in farmed fish, boosting aquaculture sustainability - Genetic Literacy Project

Before CRISPR became a household name as a tool for gene editing, researchers had been studying this unique family of DNA sequences and its role in the bacterial immune response to viruses. The region of the bacterial genome known as the CRISPR cassette contains pieces of viral genomes, a genomic memory of previous infections. But what was surprising to researchers is that rather than storing remnants of every single virus encountered, bacteria only keep a small portion of what they could hold within their relatively large genomes.

Work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides a new physical model that explains this phenomenon as a tradeoff between how much memory bacteria can keep versus how efficiently they can respond to new viral infections. Conducted by researchers at the American Physical Society, Max Planck Institute, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Toronto, the model found an optimal size for a bacterias immune repertoire and provides fundamental theoretical insights into how CRISPR works.

In recent years, CRISPR has become the go-to biotechnology platform, with the potential to transform medicine and bioengineering. In bacteria, CRISPR is a heritable and adaptive immune system that allows cells to fight viral infections: As bacteria come into contact with viruses, they acquire chunks of viral DNA called spacers that are incorporated into the bacterias genome. When the bacteria are attacked by a new virus, spacers are copied from the genome and linked onto molecular machines known as Cas proteins. If the attached sequence matches that of the viral invader, the Cas proteins will destroy the virus.

Bacteria have a different type of immune system than vertebrates, explains senior author Vijay Balasubramanian, but studying bacteria is an opportunity for researchers to learn more about the fundamentals of adaptive immunity. Bacteria are simpler, so if you want to understand the logic of immune systems, the way to do that would be in bacteria, he says. We may be able to understand the statistical principles of effective immunity within the broader question of how to organize an immune system.

Because of CRISPRs role in the bacterial immune response, the researchers were interested in developing a physical model that could describe the role of the CRISPR cassette during a viral infection. They were specifically interested in why bacteria tend to store only 50-100 viral DNA snippets, or spacers, from past infections when their genomes could easily hold thousands. The puzzle is that the bacteria go to the trouble of implementing this memory system, but they keep a shallow memory, says Balasubramanian. You would think that remembering more would be better.

As the researchers developed a mathematical model to look at bacterial survival, they could adjust the models parameters, such as the number of viruses the bacteria encountered and the number of spacers held within the genome, to see how these factors affect the bacterias overall chance of survival. They found that there was an optimal amount of memory that, surprisingly, only consisted of a few dozen spacers.

Why is having less memory more optimal? Memory is useless unless you have a way to use it, says Balasubramanian. This is because the spacers must be transcribed and attached onto the Cas proteins that mount an immune response, and there are only so many Cas proteins to go around. This means that there is an opportunity cost to keeping too much memory, which results in a trade-off between how much memory can be stored and how quickly bacteria can respond to a new infection. Cells are full of molecular machines, and all machines have constraints. Because that machinery is limited, bacteria only keep whats most useful, he says.

Another insight that was a key for their model was the need for multiple Cas protein recognitions of new viral infections. To prevent the bacteria from making mistakes, multiple Cas proteins are required to bind to and recognize a virus before mounting an immune response. By incorporating this requirement into the model, the researchers were able to understand the importance of limited resources, in this case Cas proteins, in determining the optimal amount of bacterial immune memory.

The researchers now plan to look at how other immune mechanisms affect how deep a bacterias memory should be. They also plan to study how bacteria use their relatively shallow memory to protect themselves from different types of viruses to see if, for example, bacteria keep more memory of viruses that are more dangerous or more common.

This work represents a unique, physics-based approach to study a biological mechanism that has become a widely used tool in biotechnology but still still remains poorly understood in terms of its natural function. As theorists, we think about the principles underlying function, says Balasubramanian. This is one of the first papers to try to establish the computational principles underlying CRISPR-based immunity, and it comes to an interesting conclusion.

Vijay Balasubramanian is the Cathy and Marc Lasry Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania.

This research was supported by the Simons Foundation (Grant 400425) and National Science Foundation Center for the Physics of Biological Function (Grant PHY-1734030).

Go here to read the rest:
The optimal immune repertoire for bacteria - Penn: Office of University Communications

The CRISPR technology market is expected to grow from USD 562 million in 2018 to USD 1,715 million by 2023, at a CAGR of 25%.

The report"CRISPR Technology Marketby Product (Enzymes, Kits, gRNA, Libraries, Design Tools), Service (gRNA Design, Cell Line Engineering), Application (Biomedical, Agricultural), End User (Pharma & Biopharma Companies, Academics, CROs) - Global Forecast to 2023", The CRISPR technology market is expected to grow from USD 562 million in 2018 to USD 1,715 million by 2023, at a CAGR of 25% during the forecast period. The major factors driving the CRISPR technology market include the rising funding from government and private organizations and the high adoption of CRISPR technology.

Browse132 market data Tables and24 Figures spread through163 Pages and in-depth TOC on"CRISPR Technology Market"

Speak to Analyst @ http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/speakto=134401204

The CRISPR products segment is expected to command the largest share of the CRISPR technology market during the forecast period.

The CRISPR technology market, by product and service, is estimated to be dominated by the products segment in 2018. This is attributed to the fact that the CRISPR technology is being adopted quickly by academics and researchers, pharma and biotech companies.

The enzymes segment is expected to account for the largest share of the products market, being one of the key ingredients in the CRISPR process. Companies like Merck KGaA and Thermo Fisher Scientific are providing hands-on training to researchers, which will increase the demand for CRISPR products in the future.

Download PDF Brochure @www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdown=134401204

Biomedical applications to occupy the majority of the market, by application, and grow at the fastest rate during the forecast period.

The biomedical applications segment is projected to be the fastest-growing segment of the market, by application, during the forecast period. Developments in gene therapy, drug discovery, and diagnostics, due to the application of CRISPR, are driving the growth of this biomedical segment.

Many companies have also invested in drug discovery and gene therapy companies that are using CRISPR technology.

North America is projected to account for the largest share of the CRISPR technology market, by region, during the forecast period.

North America is estimated to account for the largest share of the market in 2018. The large share of CRISPR technology in this region is majorly attributed to the rising government and private funding, presence of major pharma and gene therapy companies, and the adoption of CRISPR in a number of applications.

Crops that are treated with CRISPR-based gene editing are not considered as GMOs in the US, which has attracted the attention of agricultural companies to the commercialization of CRISPR-edited crops.

Request for Sample Pages @www.marketsandmarkets.com/request=134401204

Leading Companies

Prominent players in the CRISPR Technology market are Cellecta, Inc. (US), Thermo Fisher (US), GeneCopoeia, Inc.

(US), Applied StemCell (US), Synthego Corporation (US), OriGene Technologies (US), Horizon Discov

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read more here:
Growing Application Areas of CRISPR Technology Market Driving Growth in Healthcare Sector - WhaTech Technology and Markets News

We are currently living in a situation of extreme uncertainty, and if you are like me, you may have noticed yourself feeling extra anxious lately. Maybe you feel a constant ache it in your shoulders and neck. Maybe you are compulsively checking your phone, unable to tear your eyes away from Twitter and Facebook, or maybe you're extra irritable. According to medical professionals, these are very normal responses to the coronavirus pandemic.

Luckily there are lots of things you can do on your own to help ease the stress. Here are a few that work for me personally (note: I am not a medical professional). Not all of these will work for everyone, so don't beat yourself up if you try something to lessen your anxiety and it doesn't do much. Each of us is unique in our experiences and reactions to stressors!

Create something: Make something with your hands. You can cook or bake, put together a puzzle, color or draw, work in your garden or yard (if you have one), or even clean out your car. Whatever you choose, try to really focus on what you are doing instead of letting your mind wander. Don't worry about making something perfect just enjoy the process!

Go outside or get moving inside: Unless you are currently under lockdown, and assuming you stay at least 6 feet from others, it is safe to go outside. Exercise can help you redirect nervous energy. It also gets your feel-good neurotransmitters flowing. By the way, dancing in your living room counts as exercise!

Step away from your phone: Put the phone down. Leave it in another room while go about your other activities. It will feel weird, but I promise you that logging off Twitter and other social media for half an hour will not harm you. To be clear, your phone isn't the root cause of your anxiety, but a constant barrage of COVID-19 related news isn't helpful, either.

Give yourself a break: If you are really feeling anxious and it is keeping you from your daily activities, try just letting yourself be. A lot of times the pressure we put on ourselves to stay productive, keep working, clean the house, and so on keeps us paralyzed. Banish the word "should" from your vocabulary for now, and just do the best you can. Sometimes just giving yourself permission to slack off is enough to get your motivation and focus back.

Try mindfulness: Mindfulness seems like the hip, hot thing to do lately, but there's a reason for that it works. There are tons of online resources and apps for learning mindfulness. I am most familiar with Headspace, and the thing I like most about it is that students (including grad students!) can get access to the full app for $10/year (usually $70). There is a lot of material in the app, and in my opinion it's worth it.

If full-on mindfulness isn't for you, but you need a way to stay calm when it feels like the world is falling apart around you, the 54321 method of grounding yourself is a good place to start. Take a deep breath, then look around you for five things that stick out to you in the moment, and say them out loud. Then repeat that with four things you can feel, three sounds you hear, two things you can smell, and one thing you can taste. Then take another deep breath.

We're all in this together. While you may have to stay physically distant from people right now, don't forget to connect socially in any way you can. And if you are feeling totally overwhelmed or depressed, please reach out to a mental health professional.

Read the original post:
First patient of a landmark clinical trial to treat a genetic eye disorder with CRISPR gene therapy receives treatment - Massive Science

Just because you've watched Jurassic Park doesn't mean you know that gene editing is bad

COURTESY OF FLICKR

Gene editing is an important area for further research.

Gene editing is the future and we should embrace it. I dont mean a wholehearted approval of the technique but to recognize that its here. We must be thoughtful about its applications and aware of its potential.

Weve been gene editing all throughout history. Selectively breeding animals and crops to promote the traits that are desirable or helpful to us. But todays gene editing is much different.

We use CRISPR-Cas9, which can target specific gene sequences to edit, said Samantha Noll, a bioethicist with the Functional Genomics Initiative.

CRISPR, a gene editing tool taken from bacterial defenses against viruses, allows molecular biologists here at WSU to alter specific genes in big animals. Compared to CRISPR, selective breeding is crude and inaccurate, only using phenotypic traits, such as eye or hair color, as the roadmap for which animal to breed or not. Selective breeding attempts to manipulate the genome by prioritizing expressed traits whereas CRISPR allows the manipulation of the genome by access to the entire gene pool.

Charlie Powell, the public information officer for WSUs school of Veterinary Medicine, mentioned multiple ways this gene editing technique can be applied positively.

At any given moment here in the US there are a million pigs in transit. A certain percentage of those animals will develop upper respiratory diseases as a result of the stress, Powell said. If we could make those pigs resistant instead of vaccinating them then we have the possibility of limiting those losses in the industry. This involves adding back the wild-type genes that they originated with.

This suggests ethical solutions by way of medical intervention. Lingering just on livestock application, how much animal suffering could be eliminated by well-applied selective gene editing? Instead of injecting tons of antibiotics, genetic immunity may be the way to go.

Fostering the path to healthier and happier livestock could be inroads to alleviating human challenges such as hunger and poverty. Abundance of sustainable and ethically produced meats could ease food demand, and resilient healthy livestock could be a valuable investment for underprivileged individuals.

Being a land-grant university, WSU research is primarily aimed at helping the local community, hence the focus on big animals and local agriculture. One of the research programs seeks to knock out the genes responsible for horns in cattle. This avoids the painful horn removal process for the animals and prevents accidental injury between cattle, which cost time and money.

Though these are promising initiatives, we cant be short-sighted either. William Kabasenche, a bioethicist focusing on the therapeutic applications of CRISPR, described what he called off-target effects.

Its called pleiotropy, when one gene influences multiple phenotypes, Kabasenche said.

Phenotypes are just the expressed traits. The information for those traits is stored in the gene. Off-target effects occur when a gene has unaccounted phenotypes, meaning that the manipulation of that gene produced an unforeseen or undesirable change in a phenotype.

This is why we have to be very careful when gene editing. Yes, the potential is huge both for scientific discovery as well as the well-being of conscious entities but we must guard against a utopic vision of the technology. There are trade-offs involved. Changing one gene may produce the desired effects, but drastically impact an unrelated but necessary function.

This stresses the need for research and the role of ethics in research. We should all want this work to be done, but we cannot simply focus on positive outcomes and draw the conclusion that it justifies its good. We must also consider how these outcomes are achieved.

We must also consider the harmful potential of gene editing. How we choose to engage our resources, the decisions and norms we set in research will in some part determine how well apply this technology. These norms are being born at research institutions like WSU.

Its a promising start that WSU includes ethicists, educators and biologists to tackle these difficult issues.

See the original post:
OPINION: Support gene researchers - The Daily Evergreen

Chicago, United States: The global CRISPR Technology Market is expected to surge at a steady CAGR in the coming years, states the latest Report Hive Research. The publication offers an insightful take on the historical data of the market and the milestones it has achieved. The report also includes an assessment of current market trends and dynamics, which helps in mapping the trajectory of the global CRISPR Technology market. Analysts have used Porters five forces analysis and SWOT analysis to explain the various elements of the market in absolute detail. Furthermore, it also studies the socio-economic factors, political changes, and environmental norms that are likely to affect the global CRISPR Technology market.

The CRISPR Technology market study published in the report is in a chapter-wise format to ease of the readability and complexity of the data covered. Each chapter is further categorized into its respective segments containing well-structured data. The competitive scenario displayed includes major market player details such as, company profile, end-user demand, import/export volume, sales data, etc. The report also covers the business strategies applied by different players, which will be a great addition for smart business decisions.

Get a Sample PDF Report: https://www.reporthive.com/request_sample/2243315

Top Key players cited in the report:

Thermo Fisher ScientificMerck KGaAGenScriptIntegrated DNA Technologies (IDT)Horizon Discovery GroupAgilent TechnologiesCellecta, Inc.GeneCopoeia, Inc.New England BiolabsOrigene Technologies, Inc.Synthego CorporationToolgen, Inc.

In this report, we analyze the CRISPR Technology industry from two aspects. One part is about its production and the other part is about its consumption. In terms of its production, we analyze the production, revenue, gross margin of its main manufacturers and the unit price that they offer in different regions from 2020 to 2025. In terms of its consumption, we analyze the consumption volume, consumption value, sale price, import and export in different regions from 2020 to 2025. We also make a prediction of its production and consumption in coming 2019-2024.At the same time, we classify different CRISPR Technology based on their definitions. Upstream raw materials, equipment and downstream consumers analysis is also carried out. What is more, the CRISPR Technology industry development trends and marketing channels are analyzed.

The research report is committed to giving its readers an unbiased point of view of the global CRISPR Technology market. Thus, along with statistics, it includes opinions and recommendation of market experts. This allows the readers to acquire a holistic view of the global market and the segments therein. The research report includes the study of the market segments on the basis of type, application, and region. This helps in identifying segment-specific drivers, restraints, threats, and opportunities.

The scope of the Report:The research report on the global CRISPR Technology market is a comprehensive publication that aims to identify the financial outlook of the market. For the same reason it offers a detailed understanding of the competitive landscape. It studies some of the leading players, their management styles, their research and development statuses, and their expansion strategies.

The report also includes product portfolios and the list of products in the pipeline. It includes a through explanation of the cutting-edging technologies and investments being made to upgrade the existing ones.

Global CRISPR Technology Market: Competitive RivalryThe chapter on company profiles studies the various companies operating in the global CRISPR Technology market. It evaluates the financial outlooks of these companies, their research and development statuses, and their expansion strategies for the coming years. Analysts have also provided a detailed list of the strategic initiatives taken by the CRISPR Technology market participants in the past few years to remain ahead of the competition.

Global CRISPR Technology Market: Regional Segments

The chapter on regional segmentation details the regional aspects of the global CRISPR Technology market. This chapter explains the regulatory framework that is likely to impact the overall market. It highlights the political scenario in the market and the anticipates its influence on the global CRISPR Technology market.

CRISPR Technology Segmentation by Product

EnzymesKitsgRNALibrariesDesign Tools

CRISPR Technology Segmentation by Application

BiomedicalAgricultural

Get Customized PDF template of this report: https://www.reporthive.com/request_customization/2243315

Strategic Points Covered in TOC:

Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product scope, market risk, market overview, and market opportunities of the global CRISPR Technology market

Chapter 2: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the global CRISPR Technology marketwhich consists of its revenue, sales, and price of the products

Chapter 3: Displaying the competitive nature among key manufacturers, with market share, revenue, and sales

Chapter 4: Presenting global CRISPR Technology marketby regions, market share and with revenue and sales for the projected period

Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: To evaluate the market by segments, by countries and by manufacturers with revenue share and sales by key countries in these various regions

Speak to Research Analyst: +1-312-604-7084

About Us:Report Hive Research delivers strategic market research reports, statistical survey, and Industry analysis and forecast data on products and services, markets and companies. Our clientele ranges mix of United States Business Leaders, Government Organizations, SMEs, Individual and Start-ups, Management Consulting Firms, and Universities etc. Our library of 600,000+ market reports covers industries like Chemical, Healthcare, IT, Telecom, Semiconductor, etc. in the USA, Europe Middle East, Africa, Asia Pacific. We help in business decision-making on aspects such as market entry strategies, market sizing, market share analysis, sales and revenue, technology trends, competitive analysis, product portfolio and application analysis etc.

The rest is here:
CRISPR Technology Market 2020 Sales and Revenue Analysis by Region, 2020-2025 | Thermo Fisher Scientific, Merck KGaA, GenScript, Integrated DNA...

One key to stopping the spread of Covid-19 is knowing who has it. A delay in reliable tests and Covid-19 diagnostics in the United States has painted an unreliable picture of just how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving. But new testing options are now becoming available and the information from these diagnostics will help guide decisions and actions important for public health.

McGovern Institute research scientists Omar Abuddayeh and Jonathan Gootenberg have been developing CRISPR technologies to rapidly diagnose Covid-19 and other infectious diseases. They recently described the current state of Covid-19 testing.

Q: How do Covid-19 tests work?

A: There are three main types of tests. The first uses the detection of nucleic acid. These tests directly test for the RNA genome of the virus in a variety of sample types, such as nasopharyngeal swabs or sputum. These tests are most commonly performed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which can amplify a small part of the virus RNA sequence billions-of-fold higher to allow detection with a fluorescence measuring instrument. These types of tests are highly sensitive, allowing for early detection of the virus days after infection. PCR tests require complex instrumentation and are usually performed by skilled personnel in an advanced laboratory setting. An alternative method is SHERLOCK, a nucleic acid-based test developed here at MIT stemming from the CRISPR gene editing tool that does not need complex instrumentation and can be read out using a paper strip akin to a pregnancy test, without any loss of sensitivity or specificity. The test is also low-cost and can be performed in less than an hour. Because of these features, we are hoping to gain FDA approval that allows deployment at the point of care or at home testing with our Covid-19 SHERLOCK test kit.

The second type of Covid-19 test detects viral proteins. Some tests use a paper strip that have antibodies against Covid-19 proteins. These allow for easy detection of the virus in less than an hour but are at least a million-fold less sensitive than nucleic acid-based tests because there is no amplification step. This makes them less ideal for screening purposes, as many patients will not have enough viral load in sputum or swabs and will receive false negative results.

The third category is serology tests that detect antibodies against the virus. These tests can also be used as a paper strip with antibodies that detect other antibodies that develop in someones blood in response to Covid-19 infection. Antibodies do not show up in blood until one to two weeks after symptoms present, so these tests are not great for catching infection at early stages. Serology tests are more useful for determining if someone has had the infection, recovered, and developed immunity. They may serve a purpose for finding immune people and deciding whether they can go back to work, or for developing antibody-based therapies.

Q: Why arent there more Covid-19 tests available?

A: The difficulties in getting nucleic acid detection tests stem from a confluence of multiple factors, including limited supplies of tests, limited supplies of other consumables needed for testing (such as nasal swabs or RNA purification kits), insufficient testing bandwidth at sites that can perform tests (often due to bottlenecks in labor or instruments), and complications behind the logistics of assigning tests or reporting back results. As a result, just producing more testing material would not solve the issue outright, and either more instrumentation and labor is required, or newer, more rapid tests need to be developed that can be performed in a more distributed manner with reduced dependence on equipment, centralized labs, or RNA purification kits.

Q: What kind of Covid-19 test are you developing now?

A: We are working on a nucleic acid-based test that does not require complex instrumentation, rapidly returns results (with a goal of under one hour), and can be performed at a point-of-care location without trained professionals. We hope to accomplish this using a combination of techniques. First, we are incorporating isothermal amplification technologies, which, unlike current PCR-based tests, do not require intricate heating and cooling to operate. We are combining this with our CRISPR-based diagnostics, allowing for sensitive detection and readout in a simple visual format, akin to a pregnancy test. We hope that this test will significantly lower the barrier for accurate diagnosis and provide another approach for Covid-19 surveillance.

Excerpt from:
3 Questions: How Covid-19 tests work and why they're in short supply - MIT News

Base editors, which convert one nucleotide to another without a double-strand DNA break, have the potential to treat diseases caused by mutant genes. One drawback, though, is that the DNA that encodes CRISPR base editors is longtoo long to fit in the adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) most commonly used for gene therapy. In a study published in Molecular Therapy on January 13, researchers split the DNA encoding a base editor into two AAV vectors and injected them into a mouse model of inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The strategy disabled the disease-causing gene, improving the animals symptoms and prolonging their lives.

Wed like to be able to make gene editing tools that can fit inside an AAV vector. Unfortunately, some of the tools are so big that they cant fit inside, so in this study, they were able to come up with a solution to that by using a split protein, says David Segal, a biochemist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the work. Its not the first time that that system has been used, but its the first time its been applied to this kind of base editor.

Pablo Perez-Pinera, a bioengineer at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and colleagues developed a strategy to split the base editor into two chunks. In a study published in 2019, they generated two different AAV vectors, each containing a portion of coding DNA for an adenine-to-thymine base editor. They also included sequences encoding so-called inteinsshort peptides that when they are expressed within proteins stick together and cleave themselves out, a bit like introns in RNA. The researchers built the inteins into the vectors such that when the inteins produced by the two vectors dimerized, bringing the two base editor parts together, and then excised themselves, they left behind a full-length, functional base editor.

When Perez-Pinera told Thomas Gaj, also a bioengineer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, about the strategy, Gaj tells The Scientist,they immediately set out to test it in a mouse model of ALS. The transgenic mice have about 25 copies of the human gene, superoxide dismutase 1(SOD1), with mutations that cause ALS in people. The animals display motor neuron loss and muscle atrophy, plus their neurons accumulate inclusionsdense spots in the gray and white matter of their spinal cords that include SOD1 proteinbefore dying at about four months of age on average. The symptoms and life expectancy in the 20 percent of ALS patients with mutations in SOD1vary based on which mutation they have, but most have muscle weakness and motor neuron death, as well as inclusions containing SOD1 protein.

Instead of using the adenine-to-thymine base editor, the researchers developed a cytosine-to-thymine converter using the coding sequence of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 and a guide RNA that targets both wild type and mutant human SOD1 to create an early stop codon. This doesnt affect the mouse SOD1. In human cells, the split base editor seemed to be even more efficient than when the editor was transfected at full length, hitting about 29 percent of the target sites, compared to the full-length editors 19 percent.

Next the authors packaged their split base editor into two AAV backbones and injected them or a control AAV into the animals lumbar cerebrospinal fluid when they were around two months old. The vectors ended up primarily in astrocytes, as well as in neurons and microglia. While the researchers didnt see a difference in symptom onset at around three months, the mice that received the base editor maintained their weight and lived about 10 percent longer than controls. The treated mice also had fewer SOD1-positive inclusions and healthier motor neurons.

In this cross section of the spinal cord of a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), researchers delivered a CRISPR base editing system (yellow) to astrocytes (red) in order to disable the expression of a mutant gene and reduce symptoms.

Colin Lim, University of Illinois

Using base editors to disable the mutant SOD1 gene in astrocytes (a cell type that normally supports healthy nervous system function but in SOD1-ALS exerts toxicity onto motor neurons) led to a marked slowing in disease progression, Gaj writes in an email to The Scientist. Since many persons with ALS are diagnosed following the onset of symptoms, pre-clinical strategies that can meaningfully slow the disease are especially important and should be further studied.

This is a good indication that base editing actually can be used to treat ALS, says Baisong Lu, a gene therapy researcher at Wake Forest School of Medicine who did not participate in the work. He cautions that off-target effectsthe base editor can edit both DNA and RNAand how long the AAV delivery method lasts are both in need of more work before this technique would be safe for people.

The dual AAV strategy could also be expensive, says Mimoun Azzouz, a neuroscientist at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Thinking about the clinical development and marketing and the commercialization of this product, you need to manufacture two viruses, and you need to assess these two viruses for safety, so the cost can be extremely high.

Despite the challenges, the strategy shows promise for translation to humans, Perez-Pinera writes in an email to The Scientist.AAVs are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for gene therapy, he explains. Plus, using a humanized model of the diseasea mouse that contains the human sequence of the target genemeans that the method validated in mouse models can be translated to people without adapting them to target a different sequence. People who develop ALS due to a mutation in SOD1also have one good copy of the gene, just like the mice, which have a functioning mouse copy.

We injected animal models shortly before disease onset. While injecting the animals earlier could improve the outcome of the disease as demonstrated in other studies, the reality is that ALS is not typically diagnosed until the patient experiences symptoms. Our study predicts what can be expected from treating a patient recently diagnosed with the disease, Perez-Pinera writes.

We still have some distance to travel before the results in our current study can benefit ALS patients, Gaj acknowledges. The researchers are working on minimizing off target effects and on developing new delivery methods that could improve efficacy. We still have a number of important questions to answer and technological hurdles to address before we begin thinking about clinical translation.

C.K.W. Lim et al., Treatment of a mouse model of ALS by in vivo base editing,Molecular Therapy,doi:10.1016/ j.ymthe.2020.01.005, 2020.

Abby Olena is a freelance journalist based in Alabama. Find her on Twitter@abbyolena.

Read this article:
Symptoms in ALS Mouse Model Improve with CRISPR Base Editing - The Scientist

CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Forecast 2020-2026

The Global CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market research report provides and in-depth analysis on industry- and economy-wide database for business management that could potentially offer development and profitability for players in this market. This is a latest report, covering the current COVID-19 impact on the market. The pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has affected every aspect of life globally. This has brought along several changes in market conditions. The rapidly changing market scenario and initial and future assessment of the impact is covered in the report. It offers critical information pertaining to the current and future growth of the market. It focuses on technologies, volume, and materials in, and in-depth analysis of the market. The study has a section dedicated for profiling key companies in the market along with the market shares they hold.

The report consists of trends that are anticipated to impact the growth of the CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market during the forecast period between 2020 and 2026. Evaluation of these trends is included in the report, along with their product innovations.

Get a PDF Copy of the Sample Report for free @ https://industrygrowthinsights.com/request-sample/?reportId=171631

The Report Covers the Following Companies:Caribou BiosciencesAddgeneCRISPR THERAPEUTICSMerck KGaAMirus Bio LLCEditas MedicineTakara Bio USAThermo Fisher ScientificHorizon Discovery GroupIntellia TherapeuticsGE Healthcare Dharmacon

By Types:Genome EditingGenetic engineeringgRNA Database/Gene LibrarCRISPR PlasmidHuman Stem CellsGenetically Modified Organisms/CropsCell Line Engineering

By Applications:Biotechnology CompaniesPharmaceutical CompaniesAcademic InstitutesResearch and Development Institutes

Furthermore, the report includes growth rate of the global market, consumption tables, facts, figures, and statistics of key segments.

By Regions:

Grab Your Report at an Impressive Discount! Please click here @ https://industrygrowthinsights.com/ask-for-discount/?reportId=171631

Years Considered to Estimate the Market Size:History Year: 2015-2019Base Year: 2019Estimated Year: 2020Forecast Year: 2020-2026

Important Facts about CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market Report:

What Our Report Offers:

Make an Inquiry of This Report @ https://industrygrowthinsights.com/enquiry-before-buying/?reportId=171631

About Industrygrowthinsights:Industrygrowthinsights has set its benchmark in the market research industry by providing syndicated and customized research report to the clients. The database of the company is updated on a daily basis to prompt the clients with the latest trends and in-depth analysis of the industry. Our pool of database contains various industry verticals that include: IT & Telecom, Food Beverage, Automotive, Healthcare, Chemicals and Energy, Consumer foods, Food and beverages, and many more. Each and every report goes through the proper research methodology, validated from the professionals and analysts to ensure the eminent quality reports.

Contact Info:Name: Alex MathewsAddress: 500 East E Street, Ontario,CA 91764, United States.Phone No: USA: +1 909 545 6473 | IND: +91-7000061386Email: [emailprotected]Website: https://Industrygrowthinsights.com

See the original post:
CRISPR And CRISPR-Associated (Cas) Genes Market To 2026: Growth Analysis By Manufacturers, Regions, Types And Applications - Science In Me

This detailed research report on the Global CRISPR Technology Market offers a concrete and thorough assorted compilation of systematic analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of data gathered about the CRISPR Technology Market from a range of diverse arrangement of reliable sources and data gathering points. The report provides a broad segmentation of the market by categorizing the market into application, type, and geographical regions.

In addition, the information has analysed with the help of primary as well as secondary research methodologies to offer a holistic view of the target market. Likewise, the CRISPR Technology Market report offers an in-house analysis of global economic conditions and related economic factors and indicators to evaluate their impact on the CRISPR Technology Market historically.

This study covers following key players:

Thermo Fisher ScientificMerck KGaAGenScriptIntegrated DNA Technologies (IDT)Horizon Discovery GroupAgilent TechnologiesCellectaGeneCopoeiaNew England BiolabsOrigene TechnologiesSynthego CorporationToolgen

Request a sample of this report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/sample-request/66342?utm_source=Puja

The report is a mindful assortment of vital factors that lend versatile cues on market size and growth traits, besides also offering an in-depth section on opportunity mapping as well as barrier analysis, thus encouraging report readers to incur growth in global CRISPR Technology Market. This detailed report on CRISPR Technology Market largely focuses on prominent facets such as product portfolio, payment channels, service offerings, applications, in addition to technological sophistication. All the notable CRISPR Technology Market specific dimensions are studied and analysed at length in the report to arrive at conclusive insights. Apart from highlighting these vital realms, the report also includes critical understanding on notable developments and growth estimation across regions at a global context in this report on CRISPR Technology Market.

Besides these aforementioned factors and attributes of the CRISPR Technology Market, this report specifically decodes notable findings and concludes on innumerable factors and growth stimulating decisions that make this CRISPR Technology Market a highly profitable. A thorough take on essential elements such as drivers, threats, challenges, opportunities are thoroughly assessed and analysed to arrive at logical conclusions. Additionally, a dedicated section on regional overview of the CRISPR Technology Market is also included in the report to identify lucrative growth hubs. These leading players are analysed at length, complete with their product portfolio and company profiles to decipher crucial market findings.

Access Complete Report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/global-crispr-technology-market-size-status-and-forecast-2019-2025?utm_source=Puja

Market segment by Type, the product can be split into

EnzymesKitsgRNALibrariesDesign Tools

Market segment by Application, split into

BiomedicalAgricultural

The report also lists ample correspondence about significant analytical practices and industry specific documentation such as SWOT and PESTEL analysis to guide optimum profits in CRISPR Technology Market. In addition to all of these detailed CRISPR Technology Market specific developments, the report sheds light on dynamic segmentation based on which CRISPR Technology Market has been systematically split into prominent segments encompassing type, application, technology, as well as region specific segmentation of the CRISPR Technology Market.

Some Major TOC Points:

1 Report Overview

2 Global Growth Trends

3 Market Share by Key Players

4 Breakdown Data by Type and ApplicationContinued

For Enquiry before buying report @ https://www.orbismarketreports.com/enquiry-before-buying/66342?utm_source=Puja

About Us :

With unfailing market gauging skills, has been excelling in curating tailored business intelligence data across industry verticals. Constantly thriving to expand our skill development, our strength lies in dedicated intellectuals with dynamic problem solving intent, ever willing to mold boundaries to scale heights in market interpretation.

Contact Us :

Hector Costello

Senior Manager Client Engagements

4144N Central Expressway,Suite 600, Dallas,Texas 75204, U.S.A.

Phone No.: USA: +1 (972)-362-8199 | IND: +91 895 659 5155

Read more:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Study Along With Business Ideas, Development Trends and Key Segments Till 2025 : Thermo Fisher Scientific, Merck KGaA,...

The global CRISPR and CAS Gene Market research report thoroughly explains each and every aspect related to the CRISPR and CAS Gene Market, which facilitates the reports reader to study and evaluate the upcoming market trend and execute the analytical data to promote the business. The growth trend forecasted on account of thorough examination offers in-depth information regarding the global CRISPR and CAS Gene Market. A pathway of development is offered by the market to the several connected networks of businesses under it, which include different firms, industries, organizations, vendors, distributors, and local manufacturers too. All the key CRISPR and CAS Gene Market players compete with each other by offering better products and services at a reasonable price in order to grab significant share at the regional and global level market.

CRISPR technology is a simple yet powerful nucleic acid-targeting editing tools for genome. It allows researchers to easily alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. It has many potential applications, which include correcting genetic defects, treating and preventing the spread of diseases, and improving crops

Get a Sample Copy of this Report: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/2598

The report incorporates an estimated impact of strict standards and regulations set by the government over the market in the upcoming years. The market report also comprises exhaustive research done using several analytical tools such as SWOT analysis to identify the market growth pattern.

Top Manufactures in GlobalCRISPR and CAS GeneMarket Includes:Caribou Biosciences Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics, Mirus Bio LLC, Editas Medicine, Takara Bio Inc., Synthego, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., GenScript, Addgene, Merck KGaA (Sigma-Aldrich), Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., OriGene Technologies, Inc., New England Biolabs, Dharmacon, Cellecta, Inc., Agilent Technologies, and Applied StemCell, Inc.

Regions & Countries Mentioned In The CRISPR and CAS Gene Market Report:

North America ( United States)

Europe ( Germany, France, UK)

Asia-Pacific ( China, Japan, India)

Latin America ( Brazil)

The Middle East & Africa

Key Highlights of the Table of Contents:

CRISPR and CAS Gene Market Study Coverage: It includes key manufacturers covered, key market segments, the scope of products offered in the global market, years considered, and study objectives. Furthermore, it tuches the segmentation study provided in the report on the basis of the type of product and applications.

CRISPR and CAS Gene Market Executive Summary: This section emphasizes on the key studies, market growth rate,Competitive landscape, market drivers, trends, and issues.

CRISPR and CAS Gene Market Production by Region: The report provides information related to import and export, production, revenue, and key players of all regional markets studied are covered in this section.

CRISPR and CAS Gene Market Profile of Manufacturers: Analysis of each market player profiled is detailed in this section. This also provides SWOT analysis, products, production, value, capacity, and other vital factors of the individual player.

Buy This Complete A Business Report: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/buy-now/2598

Table of Contents

Report Overview:It includes the CRISPR and CAS Gene market study scope, players covered, key market segments, market analysis by application, market analysis by type, and other chapters that give an overview of the research study.

Executive Summary:This section of the report gives information about CRISPR and CAS Gene market trends and shares, market size analysis by region and analysis of global market size. Under market size analysis by region, analysis of market share and growth rate by region is provided.

Profiles of International Players:Here, key players of the CRISPR and CAS Gene market are studied on the basis of gross margin, price, revenue, corporate sales, and production. This section gives a business overview of the players and shares their important company details.

Regional Study:All of the regions and countries analyzed in the CRISPR and CAS Gene market report is studied on the basis of market size by application, the market size by product, key players, and market forecast.

An Overview of the Impact of COVID-19 on this Market:

The pandemic of COVID-19 continues to expand and impact over 175 countries and territories. Although the outbreak appears to have slowed in China, COVID-19 has impacted globally. The pandemic could affect three main aspects of the global economy: production, supply chain, and firms and financial markets. National governments have announced largely uncoordinated, country-specific responses to the virus. As authorities encourage social distancing and consumers stay indoors, several businesses are hit. However, coherent, coordinated, and credible policy responses are expected to offer the best chance at limiting the economic fallout.

National governments and international bodies are focused on adopting collaborative efforts to encourage financial institutions to meet the financial needs of customers and members affected by the coronavirus. However, there are some sectors that have remained unscathed from the impact of the pandemic and there are some that are hit the hardest.

We, at Coherent Market Insights, understand the economic impact on various sectors and markets. Using our holistic market research methodology, we are focused on aiding your business sustain and grow during COVID-19 pandemics. With deep expertise across various industries-no matter how large or small- and with a team of highly experienced and dedicated analysts, Coherent Market Insights will offer you an impact analysis of coronavirus outbreak across industries to help you prepare for the future.

Access insightful study with over 100+ pages, list of tables & figures, profiling 10+ companies https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-pdf/2598

About CMI:

Coherent Market Insights is a prominent market research and consulting firm offering action-ready syndicated research reports, custom market analysis, consulting services, and competitive analysis through various recommendations related to emerging market trends, technologies, and potential absolute dollar opportunity.

Contact Us:Coherent Market Insights 1001 4th Ave,#3200 Seattle, WA 98154,U.SPhone: US +12067016702 / UK +4402081334027Email: sales@coherentmarketinsights.com

Read more from the original source:
Latest Update 2020: CRISPR and CAS Gene Market By Covid19 Impact Analysis And Top Manufacturers: Caribou Biosciences Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics, Mirus...

CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) stock traded 746576 shares in most recent trading session as compared to an average volume of 1.05M shares. It shows that the shares were traded in the recent trading session and traders shown interest in CRSP stock. Shares of the CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) moved up 7.08% to trade at $42.17 in Monday trading session. It has a market capitalization of $2.57B. Knowing about the market capitalization of a company helps investor to determine the company size, market value and the risk. The stock P/E & is 43.43 & EPS is $0.97 against its recent stock value of $42.17 per share.

First we will be looking for the boiling points and excitability of CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) stock, it purposes common trait for traders and value investors.

Volatility Indicators for CRISPR Therapeutics AG:

Volatility of the CRISPR Therapeutics AG remained at 6.73% over last week and shows 10.18% volatility in last month. In addition to number of shares traded in last few trading sessions volatility also tells about the fluctuation level of the stock price, commonly a high volatility is the friend of day traders. Volatility is also measured by ATR an exponential moving average (14-days) of the True Ranges. Currently, the ATR value of companys stock is situated at 3.94. Beta value is also an important factor that helps to know how much the Market risk lies with the trading of subjective stock. Beta indicator of this stock lies at 2.52. In case you dont know, when beta is higher than 1 then risk is higher and if beta is lower than 1, then risk will be low.

Now entering into the performance part of the article on CRISPR Therapeutics AG stock we should check the stocks actual performance in the past.

Performance of the CRSP Stock:

CRISPR Therapeutics AG revealed performance of -4.79% during the period of last 5 trading days and shown last 12 months performance of 9.76%. The stock moved to 6.38% in last six months and it maintained for the month at -17.09%. The stock noted year to date 2020 performance at -30.76% and changed about -29.66% over the last three months. The stock is now standing at -43.01% from 52 week-high and is situated at 30.56% above from 52-week low price.

Technical Indicators of CRISPR Therapeutics AG Stock:

RSI momentum oscillator is the most common technical indicator of a stock to determine about the momentum of the shares price and whether the stock trading at normal range or its becoming oversold or overbought. It also helps to measure Speed and change of stock price movement. RSI reading varies between 0 and 100. Commonly when RSI goes below 30 then stock is oversold and stock is overbought when it goes above 70. So as currently the Relative Strength Index (RSI-14) reading of CRISPR Therapeutics AG stock is 47.61.

Although it is important to look for trades in a direction of bigger trends when stocks are indicating an opposite short-term movement. Like looking for overbought conditions when bigger trend remained down and oversold conditions when bigger trend is up. In order to check a bigger trend for CRSP a 14-day RSI can fell short and considered as a short-term indicator. So in that situation a Simple moving average of a stock can also be an important element to look in addition to RSI.

The share price of CRSP is currently higher 4.18% from its 20 days moving average and trading -13.09% down the 50 days moving average. The stock price has been seen performing along below drift from its 200 days moving average with -17.19%. Moving averages are an important analytical tool used to identify current price trends and the potential for a change in an established trend. The simplest form of using a simple moving average in analysis is using it to quickly identify if a security is in an uptrend or downtrend.

CRISPR Therapeutics AG:

Operating Margin which tells about what proportion of a companys revenue is left over after paying for variable costs of production such as wages & raw materials is noted at 16.10%. Net profit margin of the company is 23.10% that shows how much the company is actually earning by every dollar of sales.

Return on Investment (ROI) of stock is 4.90%. ROI ratio tells about the efficiency of a number of investments in a company. Return on Assets (ROA) which shows how much the company is profitable as compared to its total assets is observed at 9.60%. Return on Equity (ROE), which tells about the profitability of the corporation by evaluating the profit it generates in ratio to the money shareholders have invested, is noted at 11.70%.

The price-to-earnings ratio or P/E is one of the most widely-used stock analysis tools to determine a stocks valuation that also shows whether a companys stock price is overvalued/overbought or undervalued/oversold. If P/E is lower, then stock can be considered undervalued and if its higher then the stock is overvalued. Price to earnings P/E of the stock is 43.43.

Analysts Estimation on Stock:

The current analyst consensus rating stood at 2.2 on shares (where according to data provided by FINVIZ, 1.0 Strong Buy, 2.0 Buy, 3.0 Hold, 4.0 Sell, 5.0 Strong Sell). Analysts opinion is also an important factor to conclude a stocks trend. Many individual analysts and firms give their ratings on a stock. While Looking ahead of 52-week period, the mean Target Price set by analysts is $74.25.

Excerpt from:
CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) Stock, What You Won't Miss? - News Welcome

The genetic code to alllife on Earth, both simple and complex, comes down to four basic letters: A, C,T and G.

Untangling the role thatthese letters play in lifes blueprint has allowed scientists to understandwhat makes everything from bacteria to people the way they are. But as researchershave learned more, they have also sought ways to tinker with this blueprint,bringing ethical dilemmas into the spotlight. The Gene, a two-part PBS documentary from executive producer Ken Burnsairing April 7 and 14, explores the benefits and risks that come withdeciphering lifes code.

The film begins with oneof those ethical challenges. The opening moments describe how biophysicist HeJiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR/Cas9 to alter the embryos of twin girls who were born in China in 2018 (SN: 12/17/18). Worldwide, criticscondemned the move, claiming it was irresponsible to change the girls DNA, asexperts dont yet fully understand the consequences.

This moment heraldedthe arrival of a new era, narrator David Costabile says. An era in whichhumans are no longer at the mercy of their genes, but can control and evenchange them.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

The story sets the stagefor a prominent theme throughout the documentary: While genetics holdsincredible potential to improve the lives of people with genetic diseases,there are always those who will push science to its ethical limits. But thedriving force in the film is the inquisitive nature of the scientistsdetermined to uncover what makes us human.

The Gene, based on the book of the same name by Siddhartha Mukherjee (SN:12/18/16), one of the documentarys executive producers, highlights many ofthe most famous discoveries in genetics. The film chronicles Gregor Mendels classicpea experiments describing inheritance and how experts ultimately revealed inthe 1940s that DNA a so-called stupid molecule composed of just four chemicalbases, adenine (A), thymine (T),cytosine (C) and guanine (G) is responsible for storing geneticinformation. Historical footage, inBurns typical style, brings to life stories describing the discovery of DNAshelical structure in the 1950s and the success of the Human Genome Project indecoding the human genetic blueprint in 2003.

The film also touches ona few of the ethical violations that came from these discoveries. The eugenicsmovement in both Nazi Germany and the United States in the early 20th century aswell as the story of the first person to die in a clinical trial for genetherapy, in 1999, cast a morbid shadow on the narrative.

Interwoven into thistimeline are personal stories from people who suffer from genetic diseases.These vignettes help viewers grasp the hope new advances can give patients asexperts continue to wrangle with DNA in efforts to make those cures.

In the documentarysfirst installment, which focuses on the early days of genetics, viewers meet a family whose daughter is grappling with arare genetic mutation that causes her nerve cells to die. The family searchesfor a cure alongside geneticist Wendy Chung of Columbia University. The secondpart follows efforts to master the human genome and focuses on AudreyWinkelsas, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health studyingspinal muscular atrophy, a disease she herself has, and a family fighting tosave their son from a severe form of the condition.

For science-interested viewers, the documentary does not disappoint. The Gene covers what seems to be every angle of genetics history from the ancient belief that sperm absorbed mystical vapors to pass traits down to offspring to the discovery of DNAs structure to modern gene editing. But the stories of the scientists and patients invested in overcoming diseases like Huntingtons and cancer make the film all the more captivating.

Follow this link:
The PBS documentary The Gene showcases genetics promise and pitfalls - Science News

New Jersey, United States: Market Research Intellect has added a new research report titled, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Professional Survey Report 2020 to its vast collection of research reports. The Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market is expected to grow positively for the next five years 2020-2026.

The Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market report studies past factors that helped the market to grow as well as, the ones hampering the market potential. This report also presents facts on historical data from 2011 to 2019 and forecasts until 2026, which makes it a valuable source of information for all the individuals and industries around the world. This report gives relevant market information in readily accessible documents with clearly presented graphs and statistics. This report also includes views of various industry executives, analysts, consultants, and marketing, sales, and product managers.

Key Players Mentioned in the Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Research Report:

Market Segment as follows:

The global Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market report highly focuses on key industry players to identify the potential growth opportunities, along with the increased marketing activities is projected to accelerate market growth throughout the forecast period. Additionally, the market is expected to grow immensely throughout the forecast period owing to some primary factors fuelling the growth of this global market. Finally, the report provides detailed profile and data information analysis of leading Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes company.

Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market by Regional Segments:

The chapter on regional segmentation describes the regional aspects of the Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market. This chapter explains the regulatory framework that is expected to affect the entire market. It illuminates the political scenario of the market and anticipates its impact on the market for Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes .

The Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market research presents a study by combining primary as well as secondary research. The report gives insights on the key factors concerned with generating and limiting Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market growth. Additionally, the report also studies competitive developments, such as mergers and acquisitions, new partnerships, new contracts, and new product developments in the global Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market. The past trends and future prospects included in this report makes it highly comprehensible for the analysis of the market. Moreover, The latest trends, product portfolio, demographics, geographical segmentation, and regulatory framework of the Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes market have also been included in the study.

Ask For Discount (Special Offer: Get 25% discount on this report) @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=202013&utm_source=SI&utm_medium=888

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Outlook4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market, By Deployment Model5.1 Overview

6 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market, By Solution6.1 Overview

7 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market, By Vertical7.1 Overview

8 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market, By Geography8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Competitive Landscape9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix11.1 Related Research

Complete Report is Available @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/crispr-and-crispr-associated-genes-market-size-and-forecast/?utm_source=SI&utm_medium=888

We also offer customization on reports based on specific client requirement:

1-Freecountry level analysis forany 5 countriesof your choice.

2-FreeCompetitive analysis of any market players.

3-Free 40 analyst hoursto cover any other data points

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, market value for regions and countries and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven FernandesMarket Research IntellectNew Jersey ( USA )Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Email: [emailprotected]

Get Our Trending Report

https://www.marketresearchblogs.com/

https://www.marktforschungsblogs.com/

Tags: Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Size, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Growth, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Forecast, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Analysis, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Trends, Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market

Here is the original post:
Crispr And Crispr Associated Genes Market Size Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Shares, Growth Opportunities and Forecast to 2026 - Science In Me