Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Portfolio manager Cathie Wood is known for having an aggressive appetite for risk when it comes to the investments she makes in her exchange-traded fund, the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK -2.02%). Between its stakes in biotech companies with no products on the market and in rising stars like Tesla, its holdings are often in long shots that have the potential to be transformative for their industries or for the world.

On that note, there are two promising -- but speculative -- biotechnology businesses in the ARK portfolio that investors might be interested in if they're patient enough to hold onto their shares for a few years before seeing major returns. Over the next five years, Wood's thesis for both will be tested, so people who buy shares now could join in her eventual profits -- or her losses, which have been substantial for both stocks over the last 12 months.

CRISPR Therapeutics (CRSP -2.68%) is a gene-editing biotech that is working to develop cures for hereditary conditions including sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia. Before the end of 2022, it expects to ask regulators at the Food and Drug Administration to approve the gene therapy exa-cel, which it claims can functionally cure both diseases. That means sometime in 2023, it could be realizing revenue from sales of its treatments for the first time ever, which will be a major catalyst for the stock.

But CRISPR's true potential actually lies beyond exa-cel. It's also investigating a handful of candidates as off-the-shelf immunotherapies that could treat different cancers, among them lymphoma. The off-the-shelf aspect is what differentiates these programs from the immunotherapies in development by most other companies, and it's also the most exciting thing about CRISPR.

A common problem with sophisticated cell therapies made using genetic engineering is that the patient's body may reject the cell therapy upon infusion. To get around that issue, biopharmas use each patient's own cells as the starting material to manufacture their specific therapy. That's effective, but it's also tremendously expensive because of the costs involved with drawing a sample, shipping it to a manufacturing site, processing it to make a single person's therapy, and then shipping it back to be infused into the patient.

What CRISPR hopes to do is produce non-personalized immunotherapies that don't trigger rejection. If it succeeds, its treatments will be far more scalable to manufacture, far more profitable to sell, and maybe even more effective than those produced by its competitors. That possibility is exactly what Wood is betting on with her investment, but it's almost certain to take a bit longer than a year or two to come to fruition because of how ambitious the goal is.

If you're willing to take a risk that CRISPR won't ever be able to figure it out for the chances of outsized rewards if it does, this is a good stock to buy.

Intellia Therapeutics (NTLA -5.54%) also plans to use advanced gene-editing techniques to treat people's genetic diseases. Like CRISPR Therapeutics, it doesn't have any revenue outside of what it makes from collaborations -- and that only totaled around $33 million in 2021. In terms of its pipeline, it has an early-stage program for sickle cell disease, and other early-stage programs aiming to address transthyretin amyloidosis, a rare hereditary liver disease.

Excitingly, its therapies for those conditions could be curative, though management is careful to remind investors that those treatments could still deliver much-needed relief to patients for long periods without being complete cures, technically speaking. But it isn't anywhere close to commercializing any of its therapies, so it's definitely a stock you'll need to hold onto for at least three or four years before it has the possibility of delivering major returns.

Furthermore, Intellia is developing capabilities similar to CRISPR's with regard to off-the-shelf immunotherapies, though CRISPR's are further advanced. It's pretty clear that Wood bought into Intellia to diversify her bet on easily scalable immunotherapies and give herself two opportunities to succeed. It might make sense for you to do the same if you're looking to hedge your other gene-editing stock plays.

Alex Carchidi has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read more:
2 Risky Cathie Wood Growth Stocks to Buy and Hold for 5 Years - The Motley Fool

A way to make Cavendish banana plants temporarily resistant to Fusarium fungus could lead to new ways to protect them from Panama disease

By Michael Le Page

Bananas are at risk from a fungal disease

Ezequiel Ferreira/EyeEm/Getty Images

Banana plants that produce the worlds most widely eaten variety of the fruit have been made temporarily resistant to a devastating fungal disease that is spreading around the world and destroying plantations. The hope is that the work could lead to ways to make bananas permanently resistant.

The question is, can we continuously trigger this mechanism? says Gert Kema at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. We need to know more about it.

The main banana exported to Western countries used to be a variety called Gros Michel. But in the 1920s, a strain of Fusarium fungus called tropical race 1 (TR1), which causes Panama disease, began wiping out plantations in banana-producing areas. By the late 1950s, growers had switched to the Cavendish banana, which isnt as tasty as the Gros Michel, but is highly resistant to TR1.

Now, however, another strain of Fusarium called TR4 that can kill many varieties, including the Cavendish, is spreading to more and more countries. In many places bananas are a staple crop, so this fungus is a threat to food security as well as livelihoods.

Kema and his colleagues wondered if exposure to TR1 would protect Cavendish bananas against TR4. The team uprooted young plants and dunked them in a solution containing assorted types of TR1 fungus. At various time intervals from 30 minutes to 10 days later, they then immersed plants in a solution with spores of TR4 in it.

The team found that prior exposure to a particular strain of TR1 from Brazil provided significant protection against TR4 up to 10 days later.

Somehow you are switching on a protective mechanism that also protects plants from TR4, says Kema. But the protection is only temporary.

This kind of protective effect has been found in other plant species before, he says. Plants dont have immune cells that remember pathogens like animals do, so the effect is the result of switching on general protective mechanisms rather than specific ones that result from a vaccine. The team is now trying to work out the precise mechanisms in bananas, with the aim of finding ways to permanently turn them on without exposing plants to a live fungal disease.

Even if it can be done, this, or other approaches such as genetic engineering, wont solve all the industrys problems, says Kema, not least because TR4 is far from the only disease affecting bananas.

The main issue is the worlds heavy reliance on a single variety of the fruit, he says. Cavendish accounts for more than half of all bananas grown and 95 per cent of exports. Because the Cavendish is sterile like most edible bananas, all Cavendish bananas are genetically identical clones. All this makes plantations especially vulnerable to diseases.

Diversification is crucial, says Kema. The banana industry needs to invest in developing new varieties that are both tasty and disease-resistant, supermarkets need to stock them and consumers need to buy them. Banana production at this point in time is not sustainable, says Kema.

Journal reference: PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273335

More on these topics:

See the rest here:
Bananas threatened by devastating fungus given temporary resistance - New Scientist

Do you believe the telegraph was giving telegraph operators cancer? If not, it's only because there was no Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or US Right To Know group promoting fear and doubt about it the way they do vaccines, food, and cell phones.

On May 24th, 1844 a telegram was sent from the Capitol because Samuel Morse, the inventor, wanted a government contract. Because he was diplomatic, he let the daughter of Henry Ellsworth, first Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, draft the message. And because young people need to Live In Important Times, the message proposed by young Annie was "What Hath God Wrought. (1)

There was fear. Fear of electricity in wires and its effect on humans, fear of rapid communication meaning more false claims making their way around the world - "Does it not render the popular mind too fast for the truth?" - and the paucity of thought telegrams required, like older people fear emojis that replace words in text messages. Humans have an evolutionary mandate to fear, nature is out to kill us and everything else, and science has always battled that fear the same way it has battled nature when it comes to disease and the elements and food.

While science and technology always fight for progress, there have also always been people who worried about that. Sometimes for good reasons. Early steam trains had to be tested using dogs because it was unclear if the human body could go 25 miles per hour for long periods of time without our organs being affected. Testing solved that and progress marched on. Yet in the modern era, where people act not out of public concern but because they are paid to promote fear and doubt, no amount of testing will help. A train would not get approved due to lawsuits and claims that such an evil FrankenHorse 'needs more testing.'(2)

Weedkillers like atrazine and glyphosate, and therefore farmers and shoppers, suffer due to such thinking now. Lacking any evidence of harm, activists and their carefully placed allies in epidemiology insist the harmful effects are real, scientists have just not found them yet. They embrace homeopathic beliefs like endocrine disruption and dream up stories of chemical cocktails. It is not just chemicals, being anti-biology is also wildly profitable. The Non-GMO Project is a financial juggernaut, but GMOs, the most recent form of genetic engineering on the market, have never harmed plant, human, or other animal in decades of use. Despite the science proving GMOs completely safe, Non-GMO Project sells stickers for nearly 70,000 products. There are only 11 GMOs on the market. To line their pockets anyway, they sell stickers for products like salt. Anti-science Luddites who buy their clients' products are so clueless they think salt is an organism with a gene that can be modified. Salt.(3)

To future generations, people who embrace this folklore and shamanism about agricultural progress are going to be derided the way we now look at old articles claiming that too many books were going to cause the brains of children and women to rot. Parents were told by the same kind of social authoritarian busybodies that now dominate states like California to worry if their children played outside too much.

It seems ridiculous(4) but so is the notion that a weedkiller which only acts on a biological pathway found in plants can cause human cancer. Or that a drop of a weedkiller in water equivalent to 160 Olympic-sized swimming pools will turn frogs 'gay', as famed weedkiller activist Professor Tyrone Hayes of Berkeley termed it. Or at least change their voices. Neither of which he ever showed data to prove.

He didn't need data, he had a group of professional protesters repeating the weedkiller equivalent of the claim that the telephone would create bad manners in those who used it.

People who fear progress never know how backward they look while claiming they see something scientists can't see. Yet young people of the future will.

NOTES:

(1) His effort failed, government did not fund it. Good thing too. After its failure to get government money, the private sector took over and put up 10,000 miles of line and communication took off. Had the government taken it on, we'd have a porkbarrel mess like cable television and solar power.

Issue changes, but young people still need to live in important times. American actor Timothe Chalamet is equally convinced the apocalypse is just around the corner and buying a ticket to his new film will make you feel better about that.

(2)The plight that holds back beneficial products like Golden Rice for poor countries - because it was a free effort by scientists, no company behind it, environmentalists easily blocked it with their own highly-paid attorneys.

(3) Meanwhile, mutagenesis, the less-precise precursor to GMOs, created when plants are dunked in chemicals and bathed in radiation to force mutations, is certified organic. Literally thousands of products are on the market, but since they already were before the anti-GMO craze took off (blame King Charles III)they get the fancy sticker sold to them by 80 companies in the US who stay in business by selling organic stickers.

(4) Writing in The Atlantic, Adrienne LaFrance details worries like that the telephone would make the left ears of people different than the right. Sound crazy? It actually sounds a lot like the many weird epigenetics claims we have had in the last 15 years. Epigenetics is a valuable tool for anti-science activists because it covers so much ground, literally any change due to anything, it can't be proved wrong.

See the original post here:
'What Hath God Wrought' - Today, Luddites Are Concerned About Weedkillers Like They Once Were The Telegraph - Science 2.0

Dr. C.N. Manjunath inaugurates 62nd International Conference of Microbiologists Association; recommends Nobel Prize for a Microbiologist for service during COVID

Mysore/Mysuru: Stressing on the need for educating children on the importance of maintaining oral health and hygiene, Dr. C.N. Manjunath, Director, Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Bengaluru, maintained that oral health is key for body health as food enters the body from mouth.

He was speaking after inaugurating the 3-day 62nd Annual International Conference of the Association of Microbiologists of India on Microbes and Society: Current Trends and Future Prospects (MSCTFP-2022) at Senate Bhavan in Manasagangothri campus here on Wednesday.

Complimenting Microbiologists for developing vaccines for COVID-19 in a record time, Dr. Manjunath said thanks to genetic engineering and generic sequencing, the vaccine for the pandemic could be developed in just a year.

Highlighting the contributions of microbiologists to mankind amidst the pandemic, he said that they have done a very commendable job during times of health crisis.

I am of the opinion that a renowned microbiologist should get the Nobel Prize either this year or next year, considering the role microbiologists have played in COVID crisis. They have worked overtime to produce vaccines for the deadly pandemic, which has taken the lives of lakhs of people across the globe, he noted.

Pointing out that until the COVID pandemic, only microbiologists and doctors were aware of RT-PCR test, Dr. Manjunath opined that it became a common name because of the pandemic. The test also gained importance for detecting the viral infection, he added. He further said that it is regretful to note that Antibiotics were excessively used or misused during the pandemic, which may result in side effects in the future.

University of Mysore (UoM) Vice-Chancellor Prof. G. Hemantha Kumar, Padma Shri Prof. S. Ayyappan, Chairman, KSTA, Bengaluru and former UoM VC Prof. K.S. Rangappa too spoke.

Dr. Anil Dutt Semwal, Director, DRDO-DFRL,Mysuru, Prof. R.C. Kuhad, Chairman, Academy of Microbiological Sciences, AMI, New Delhi, Prof. Praveen Rishi, President, AMI, General Secretary Prof. Namita Singh, Prof. S. Satish and Prof. S. Chandra Nayaka, Organising Chairpersons, MSCTFP-2022 and others were present.

Read the original here:
Children should be educated about oral health and hygiene - Star of Mysore

At the start of the year, McDonalds launched a plant-based burger sizzled on a flat-iron grill, then topped with slivered onions, tangy pickles, crisp shredded lettuce, Roma tomato slices, ketchup, mustard, mayo and a slice of melty American cheese. For a while, it looked like a glimpse of the future.

The US test run of the McPlant burger was quietly shelved last month (it is still available in some markets, including the UK) in one of a series of setbacks for a meatless-meat industry that only a year ago was claiming it could change the great American menu for ever.

Getting meat eaters in the US to adopt plant-based alternatives has proven a challenge. Beyond Meat, which produces a variety of plant-based products, including imitations of ground beef, burgers, sausages, meatballs and jerky, has had a rough 12 months, with its stock dipping nearly 70%.

Multiple chains that partnered with the company, including McDonalds, have quietly ended trial launches. In August, the company laid off 4% of its workforce after a slowdown in sales growth. Last week, its chief operating officer was reportedly arrested for biting another man on the nose during a road rage confrontation.

Its a dramatic reversal of fortune. Just two years ago, Beyond Meat, its competitor Impossible Foods and the plant-based meat industry at large seemed poised to start a food revolution.

After nearly a decade of development, plant-based meat started hitting the mainstream in 2018. Grocery stores started selling Beyond Meat ground beef and sausages, while more restaurants were offering plant-based meat on their menus. Burger King announced the launch of the Impossible Whopper, while other fast-food chains came out with similar launches, like a plant-based breakfast sausage sandwich at Dunkin and meatless pepperoni pizza at Pizza Hut.

For a time, Wall Street went vegetarian. In 2019 Beyond Meat was valued at over $10bn (8.9bn), more than Macys or Xerox. The most bullish investors believed that plant-based meat would make up 15% of all meat sales by 2030. But the reality of Americans interest in plant-based meat has proven more complicated than investors thought, and the adoption of meat alternatives has been slower than what was once hoped. Today Beyond Meat is valued at just over $900m (799m).

The sobering story is similar to those experienced by many new ventures that see exhilarating hype after a flood of Silicon Valley venture capital cash, fueled by excitement about innovation. Bill Gates backed Beyond Meat, and a number of venture capital firms that typically invest in tech startups funneled money to startups making plant-based meat. Even the meat industrys biggest players have, ironically, invested in companies coming up with plant-based meat.

The bulls in the industry, I think, had a very wild, very optimistic estimate of how big the market could get, said John Baumgartner, an analyst at Mizuho Securities. There was a lot of exuberance in this category. It was new, it was different, it was on trend.

But the consumer environment is tough, and this stuff is not cheap, he added. Its going to take time to change cultural practices. Its not going to happen overnight.

Some investors believed that plant-based meat would become what plant-based dairy alternatives have become to the dairy market, Baumgartner said. Dairy alternatives, like almond, oat and soy milk, now make up 15% of the market and are worth $2.5bn (2.2bn). A third of Americans drink some kind of non-dairy milk weekly.

But plant-based meats are different. For one, milk alternatives have been around for decades, while the development of plant-based meat really only started about a decade ago. Lactose intolerance has driven many Americans to choose non-dairy milk. And unlike plant-based meat, which is usually just as expensive or even slightly more expensive than regular meat, plant-based milks are priced between non-organic and organic milk, making their cost more accessible to consumers.

Both are, of course, better for animal welfare and potentially for tackling climate change, even more than plant-based meat. Research has shown that reducing meat consumption is the most effective thing individual consumers can do to fight climate change. One major study showed that a huge reduction in meat consumption ideally 75% less beef, 90% less pork and half the number of eggs per world citizen is essential to avoid climate catastrophe.

But consumers seem hesitant to adapt their behavior when the environment not their health or wallets is the sole beneficiary. Despite the increasing alarm over climate change, the number of Americans who are vegetarian or vegan has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years. About 5% of Americans in 2018 said they are vegetarian, while 3% are vegan, according to a Gallup poll.

Even when participants in a study conducted at Purdue University in Indiana were given information about the carbon footprint of meat production, participants were more likely to go with regular meat over a plant-based alternative.

Bhagyashree Katare, an author of the study, said that participants may have been put off by the taste of plant-based meat and the fact that it is not necessarily a healthier alternative to regular meat. Many plant-based meat alternatives are comparable to their real meat counterparts in nutritional content. That it costs about the same as meat also diminishes its attractiveness to consumers.

If Im spending money in a restaurant, and Im a meat eater, why would I spend money on plant-based meat? I would rather eat an actual burger, Katare said. Its a technology, and it takes a long time for people to trust the technology and adopt it. I think thats where plant-based meat is. Maybe the technology will improve, and it will get better health-wise.

Different companies have taken varying approaches to developing their plant-based meat products. Beyond Meat has focused on using natural ingredients, like protein from peas, mung beans and brown rice, for its meat. Impossible Food, its Silicon Valley competitor, has taken a more technological approach, using genetic engineering and fermentation to make its meat alternatives.

The goal for many of these companies has largely been to develop a plant-based product that matches the texture, taste and juiciness of real meat. While a Beyond Meat sausage or Impossible Burger is much closer to real meat than vegan sausages or veggie burgers, researchers are still trying to make plant-based meat tastier, healthier and cheaper.

Its still quite early on in the plant-based food industry, said David Julian McClements, a professor of food science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who researches plant-based food alternatives. Its very challenging. Meat has a very complicated structural architecture, very complex, fibrous structure And that structure is what determines its appearance and its texture, the way it behaves in your mouth when youre chewing it, how chewy or juicy it is.

When making their arguments against plant-based meat, lobbyists for the meat industry have pointed out that these meat alternatives are processed food. One ad campaign called them ultra-processed imitations and asked consumers whats hiding in your plant-based meat?

Plant-based meat has also struck a nerve in Americas neverending culture wars. Ten conservative states in 2018 and 2019 outlawed the use of meat in labels for products that are not coming from animals, targeting the plant-based meat industry. Republicans took on a talking line in 2021 that Democrats were going after red meat as a part of Joe Bidens climate plan, though it was based mostly on speculation and false reports.

Not gonna happen in Texas! Greg Abbott, the states governor, tweeted in response to the fake reports.

Despite naysayers against plant-based meat, McClements is optimistic that science can bring better meat alternatives, ones that will eventually be harder for meat eaters to resist.

Just because its processed doesnt mean its unhealthy. You can design good nutrition and health into these products. Some companies are really making a big effort to do that.

There is still a lot of cash going toward companies working on better alternatives. The Good Food Institute, a non-profit that promotes plant-based alternatives, estimated that such companies got $1.4bn (1.2bn) in funding in 2021 a record for the industry. Companies are also making a wider array of products, including alternatives to fish and steak.

The ideal situation is you make a product that is indistinguishable from meat, and its cheaper, convenient and accessible, McClements said. Then if you have a choice between meat and this product, you always buy the plant-based one because you know its better for the environment, its definitely better for animal welfare, and it should be better for your health if designed properly.

Excerpt from:
Id rather eat an actual burger: why plant-based meats sizzle fizzled in the US - The Guardian

You dont need a medicaldegree to see that health tech is hot right now.

Amazons $3.9billionacquisitionof One Medical, a network of primary-care clinics, made it clear that technology companies have big plans to transform the healthcare industry. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, has two separate subsidiaries (Verily and Calico) developing tools and treatments to fight diseases and aging.

And the Apple Watch on your wrist is packed with health-focused features including heart and sleep tracking, medication management, and, as of this month, a body temperature sensorto help women track ovulation cycles.

The next generation of breakthroughs aresure to be even more consequential, as startups harness cloud computing, A.I., and ever tinier chips to dream up new products and services.

For the venture capital investors who specialize in health tech, the era of startup innovation is spurring a frenzy of activity. The number of VC investments in health tech has increased significantly in both size of valuations and number of deals in the past five years, and some large VC firms are rolling out special funds devoted exclusively to health tech. In 2018, health tech VC deals raised $21.3 billion over 2,249 deals. In 2021, deal values totaled $50 billion across 3,315 health tech deals.

Fortune surveyed the field of health tech venture investors to pick out some of thetop dealmakers in the sector. The eleven investors below are among the most active in Pitchbooksdatabase of the largest health tech funding deals over the past five years. The investors represent a range of organizations, from large, general purpose VC firms like Andreessen Horowitz, to specialized, health tech-focused boutiques like Arch Venture Partners and Oak HC/FT.

Read on to meet the VC investors with their fingers on the pulse of the health tech industry.

Age: 47

Home base: Bay Area, California

Big deals: Livingo; Commure, Ro Health

To say that Taneja is the VC who wrote the book on health tech is no exaggeration hes co-authored three books about his vision for healthcare as accessible, proactive, and affordable. As the strategist behind some of General Catalysts most successful investments to date, Taneja has put his healthcare philosophy to work. His early bet on Livongo, a digital health startup, turned into the biggest exit in health tech in history after the company was acquired by Teledoc for $18.5 billion in 2020.

Taneja describes Livongos success as a catalyzing event in the industry. Theres many founders and entrepreneurs that got inspired to build companies that follow Livongos model. He is also an investor in Commure, Ro, and Transcarent. Taneja recently became the CEO of General Catalyst, a role so recent its not listed on their website yet, but comes after he has increasingly spearheaded the firms investment plans. Its a phenomenal time to get into building companies in the healthcare sector, he says. Its an opportunity to shape what the next generation of healthcare systems is going to look like.

Age: 52

Home base: Menlo Park, California

Big deals: Devoted Health (led $300 million series B), Insitro, Freenome

When Pande joined Andreessen Horowitz in 2014 with the bespoke title Professor in Residence, the then five year old venture capital firm was wary of healthcare investing. But after spotting some startups he was excited about, Pande convinced firm co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz to go big into the space. In 2015, a16z, as the firm is often referred to, launched its first $200 million Bio fund with Pande at the helm. The exponential growth of each fund since then speaks for itself; a16z is now on its fourth a $1.6billion fund. Pande led the $300 million series B funding round into Devoted Health, a digital health startup focused on Medicare beneficiaries. The 2018 investment was one of the largest to date in the sector, and Pande credits the strength of the startups founding team and its unique business model. Among Pandes other big hits are investments in Freenome and Insitro.

Age: 31

Home base: San Francisco, California

Big deals: Precision Nanosystems, Loop Genomics, Apama Medical

El-Bibany describes her role in health tech venture capital as bridging the gap between academia and industry. Its a task shes ideally suited for. Having focused her research on stem cell engineering, microbiome research, and DNA damage and repair as a student, El-Bibany got sidetracked from her goal of pursuing a Phd when an opportunity arose to join Rising Tide VC in 2014. She built the firms entire health tech and biotech practice. From there, she was hooked on investing.

Her first investment ever was in Precision Nanoystems, which was acquired by Danaher Life Sciences last year. Other key investments she has made are in Loop Genomics which was acquired by Element Biosciences and Apama Medical, which was acquired by Boston Scientific. El-Bibany doesnt view her wins as only financial successes, and cites advances in healthcare as a driving motivation. Her advice to startups? Start with the problem, not the solution. Oftentimes, we see interesting technology that is built and then teams search for a problem to solve it with, she explained. Other times, we see teams that have very well characterized the problem at hand, and then build a technological solution to fix it. I usually encourage teams to do the latter, El-Bibany says.

Age: 65

Home base: Connecticut

Big deals: Athenahealth, VillageMD, Devoted Health

When Lamont got into venture capital in the 1980s, the health tech investing field as we know it did not exist. There was no one else that was focusing on [healthcare], she says. So I made that sort of my expertise and practice. As a pioneer in the sector, Lamont has set a high bar for those who have followed, with more than thirty investments in some of the most highly valued health tech companies to date. The VC firm that Lamont started in 2014, Oak HC/FT, was the lead investor in VillageMD, which now has a $14.3 billion valuation. Lamont was also an early investor in Athenahealth and the biggest investor at the time of Athenahealths IPO; the company sold last year for $17 billion. She was also an early investor in Devoted Health, Aspire Health, which was acquired by Anthem, and OncoHealth which was acquired by Arsenal Capital Partners.

Lamont says the most important factor in a startups success is the people. Its really about the resourcefulness, relentlessness, and the talent of the CEO and then the team, she says. And decades after helping spark investor interest in the sector, Lamont is more optimistic than ever: Now we have multi-generations of entrepreneurs whove grown up in healthcare and understand it better and are creating better models that will have more impact on the true costs and quality of healthcare.

Age: 43

Home base: San Francisco, California

Big deals: Synchron, Encoded

A two-time startup founder, scientist, and electrical engineer, Eltoukhy brings a rich breadth of experience to his role as the head of life science investments at Green Sands Equity. In his twenties, Eltoukhy built a startup that merged semiconductor technology with DNA sequencing, selling it a few years later to Illumina. He eventually parlayed his experience to backing other entrepreneurs. There was a dearth of investors in the healthcare side that had experience of founding companies from the idea stage and taking them all the way to an exit or IPO and into a standard of care, he says.

He was an early investor in Synchron, a company conducting the first brain computer interface and Encoded, a therapeutics company that uses genetic engineering. Eltoukhy says success in health tech comes from not only having a great idea, but from an idea that matches the moment. In healthcare, timing is everything because the timelines are so long, he explained. Some things that sound like great ideas may be too early to develop because of regulatory hurdles or technology that is too early to develop, so its important to understand where a field is about to take off and investing at the right time, he says.

Age: 59

Home base: San Francisco, California

Big deals: Altos Labs, Resilience

With an astonishing track record of prescient investments, and a flair for making big, sometimes controversial, pronouncements, Nelsen is a unique figure within the world of health tech tech. Of the more than 150 companies he has been involved with, 48 have reached valuations above $1 billion. His philosophy, he told Geekwire in 2016, is to bet on great science, take risks with risk takers, tackle big problems, and to ignore convention.

As Managing Director and co-founder of ACH Venture Partners, Nelsen focuses on health tech and pharmaceutical investments. He led the series B, C and D funding rounds in Resilience, a biomanufacturing startup that aims to speed up deployment of vaccines and other medicines. He was also an early investor in Juno Therapeutics which was acquired by Celgene and Array BioPharma which was acquired by Pfizer.In March 2022, ARCH closed a $2.5 billion fund in biotechnology investments.

Age: 65

Home base: Los Angeles, California

Big deals: Livingo, Flexus, Progeny

Seidenberg has seen healthcare from every angle a physician, then executive, and now investor with over 40 investments in health tech. Seidenberg looks for companies that can see around the corner. She was an early investor in Livongo Health, which was acquired by Teledoc in an $18.5 billion deal. She was also an early investor in ARMO Biosciences, Flexus Biosciences, and True North Therapeutics. She helped incubate Progyny, one of the first fertility technology companies to ever go public. She believes a teams grit is just as important as a standout idea: The most important thing that makes or breaks these companies ends up being the people, you can have a great idea and the wrong team, and you wont have a great outcome, she says.

Age: 36

Home base: Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Big deals: Honor, Ro, Tempus

Singlehurst stands out on this list as a generalist investor, but he views that as a strength, not a weakness when it comes to healthcare investing. There seems to be a general consensus that specialist investors do health care, and non-specialist investors cant do everything else. We dont believe thats true, he explained. As the head of private investments at Baillie Gifford, Singlehursts team has led the firms investments in startups Ro, Tempus, and Honorall some of the biggest health tech deals to date. Singlehurst joined Baillie Giffords graduate training program after finishing a masters degree in 20thcentury philosophy in 2010. At the time, the firm was only investing in public companies. Singlehurst helped spearhead the companys efforts to start investing in companies at their earliest stages, a division of Baillie Gifford that has since invested about $10 billion across over 100 businesses globally.

Age: 44

Home base: Boston, Massachussets

Big deals: Oscar, One Medical, Beam Therapeutics

Before he was a healthcare investor and a doctor, Yeshwant was a computer scientist. His interest in health tech was piqued after he helped a group of surgeons build medical software in 2002. Like many investors who helped build the health tech investing field, Yeshwant saw an opportunity to merge tech entrepreneurship with medical treatments. He helped found GVs incubation program, which has built companies such as Verve Therapeutics and Flatiron Health. Science is breaking open to benefit patients and were still at the early innings of new advances in gene editing and base editing, Yeshwant says. At GV, where he co-leads its life sciences group, Yeshwants portfolio includes more than fifty investments such as Beam Therapeutics, Oscar health and One Medical.

Age: 49

Home base: Washington D.C.

Big deals: Auris, Velocity Clinical Research

Salehizadeh was the first seed investor in surgical robotics company Auris, which was sold to Johnson and Johnson in 2019 for $5.7 billion. A longtime partner at Highland Capital, he struck off on his own several years ago to found NaviMed Capital, which focuses on growth buyouts in the health tech space. Trained as a doctor before he pursued a career on the business side of healthcare, Salehizadeh has said that he is skeptical of tech entrepreneurs with no healthcare experience who think they can disrupt the highly regulated industry. With NaviMed, he helped build Velocity Clinical Research, a firm that consolidates clinical trial sites, which was bought by GHO Capital last year.

Age: 31

Home base: Boston, Massachusetts

Big deals: Oshi Health, House Rx, Turquoise Health

Guerra told me that her investments are still in their early stages, but that doesnt mean she doesnt know how to spot a winner. Her investments with Bessemer Venture Partners include the firms leading investment in House Rxs Series A fundraising round. Before joining Bessemer, Guerra was an investor at BoxGroup Ventures. She is also the co-founder of Nucleate Bio, an entrepreneurship program that helps postdoctorate students and PhDs bring scientific projects to the commercial market.Guerra says that a founders drive and mission captures her attention. Im particularly excited to meet founders who have been outsiders or underdogs and have worked incredibly hard to turn those odds around, she explains. We are just in inning three of health tech so there is so much that we need to do to reverse the trends in rising healthcare costs and poor outcomes, she added.

Originally posted here:
Health Tech startups are booming. These 11 VC investors are behind some of the hottest deals - Fortune

23Sep

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23-26, 2022) Comments are due 11:59 pm EDT September 29. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing October 25-27concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October.

For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2022 issues page. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. Here are some high priority issues for us:

> The NOSB must take a precautionary approach in view of the unknown. Peroxylactic acid (POLA) is petitioned as an antimicrobial agent to be used in processing meat. While a comprehensive review of the needs for sanitizers and disinfectants in organic processing may reveal a need for additional materials, the existing data concerning POLA is incomplete, depending mainly on patents rather than peer-reviewed research. The petition should not be allowed.

> Genetic engineering is considered an excluded method according to organic regulations. The NOSB should continue to catalog excluded methods, and their use should be excluded at all levels of productionfrom crop production through inputs in processing.

> Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. The NOSB draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack is an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to promote conversion to organic farming. More important to addressing the climate crisis than the questions posed by NOP are questions concerning how USDA programs can assist organic producers and those seeking to convert to organic. The draft letter addresses these as well. It also points out the resiliency of organic agriculture: Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.In view of the climate benefits of organic and the incentives inherent in organic marketing, the real question is whether USDA will abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry in favor of whole-hearted support for organic agriculturebecause despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should make adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs.

> Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. This is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plasticand the microplastic particles to which it degradeson human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handlingincluding packaging.

> The NOSB should use the sunset process to eliminate non-organic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in 205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that are allowed to be used as ingredients as part of the 5% of organic processed foods that is not required to be organic. Materials should not remain on 205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and anything that can be grown can be grown organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, Could you supply the need if the organic form is required? Two materials on 205.606 are up for sunset this yearpectin and casings. Both are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be sunsetted.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Go here to see the original:
Last Chance This Fall to Tell the NOSB To Uphold Organic Integrity - Beyond Pesticides

Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, has continued his overseas mission to the Republic of Cuba, at the invitation of Miguel Daz-Canel Bermudez, President of Cuba.

The Cambodian Premier arrived at Jos Marti International Airport in Havana on September 23 evening (time in Cuba) after attending the 77th Session of the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

In a message on his social media network early this morning (time in Cambodia), Hun Sen wrote that he has contributed 2/3 or 43 years (1979-2022) to the whole process of Cambodia-Cuba relations in the past 62 years.

My last visit [to Cuba] took place in 2000. Twenty-two years later, I visited [the country] again in order to strengthen the existing ties of friendship, he wrote. Thanks, the Cuban people for assisting the Cambodian people when we faced the hardest time after the fall of the Pol Pot genocidal regime.

According to a press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, during his stay in Cuba from Sept. 23 to 25, Prime Minister will hold a bilateral meeting with President Miguel Daz-Canel Bermudez to discuss ways to further strengthen bonds of friendly relations between Cambodia and Cuba and expand areas of their cooperation.

After the meeting, the two leaders will witness the signing of five important documents, namely: 1. Programme of Cooperation and Cultural Exchange, 2. MoU on Cooperation between the two Diplomatic Academies, 3. MoU on Cooperation in Sports Development, 4. Cooperation Plan between the two Ministries of Foreign Affairs, and 5. MoU on Health Cooperation.

Prime Minister will pay a courtesy call on Esteban Lazo Hernndez, President of the National Assembly of Peoples Power of Cuba. He is also expected to pay a courtesy call on Ral Castro, former President of Cuba.

In Havana, the Prime Minister will visit the Fidel Castro Centre and the Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, and lay a wreath at the Jos Mart Memorial. The Prime Minister will also meet with the Cambodian students, who are currently living and studying in the Republic of Cuba. AKP-C.Nika

See the rest here:
Cambodian PM begins official visit to Cuba - Khmer Times

JERUSALEM, Sept. 20 (Xinhua) -- An Israeli-led study has found a way to prevent melanoma cancer from metastasizing to the brain, Tel Aviv University (TAU) in central Israel said on Tuesday.

In the study, published in the journal JCI Insight, TAU researchers and their colleagues from the United States and Portugal deciphered the mechanism that enables melanoma to spread to the brain and managed to delay the spread by 60 to 80 percent using existing treatments.

Up to 90 percent of advanced-stage melanoma patients develop brain metastases despite the blood-brain barrier that protects the brain. Such a phenomenon baffles researchers, but the TAU-led study said it offered an answer to the problem.

They found that the cancer cells can hijack a group of cells called astrocytes, which are located in the spinal cord and brain, to create local inflammation that increases the permeability through the blood-brain barrier.

Using an antibody, a synthetic molecule, and genetic engineering in lab models, the team was able to change the interaction process between the cancer cells and astrocytes and thus inhibited the spread of metastases.

Both the antibody and the molecule used by the team are primarily intended to treat sclerosis, diabetes, liver fibrosis, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as serve as a biomarker for other cancer types.

Therefore, these treatments are considered safe, and may be repurposed for melanoma, the researchers concluded.

Melanoma is the most serious type of skin cancer. When diagnosed and treated quickly, melanoma is usually curable. However, it becomes very difficult to cure and can even be fatal once it has spread deeper into the skin or other parts of the body.

Excerpt from:
Researchers develop method to prevent spread of melanoma to brain - Xinhua

Sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes and throat, maybe even difficulty breathing. It happens all year round and is worse when I'm at home...especially when I'm near my cat. I didn't use to notice it so much but over the past few months it has become worse. What should I do?

Well, if this applies to you, the first thing you need to do is: make an appointment to see an allergy specialist.

Where does the allergy come from?

About nine per cent of adults in Europe are sensitised to animal hair and fur and the figure increases to 27 per cent if the person suffers from some type of respiratory allergy according to a book on allergic illnesses written by the Spanish Allergology and Clinical Immunology Society and published by the BBVA Foundation.

"Contrary to what most people think, the fur itself is not the cause of the allergy. It is caused by proteins found in the saliva, urine and flakes of the animal's skin which disperse into the atmosphere. These are responsible for symptoms such as rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, rashes and even anaphylaxis," Manuel De Las Heras Gonzalo, an allergy specialist at the Jimnez Daz Foundation explains.

The hypoallergenic myth

So could hypoallergenic breeds be the answer for someone suffering from this problem?

"That is a commercial myth more than anything else because to create breeds like that we would have to resort to genetic engineering to eliminate the protein that causes the allergy from the animal's DNA," says Nacho Sierra, a psychologist who specialises in animal behaviour. However, as a guideline, he says that "animals with short hair have fewer elements for the protein to travel in a volatile way, just like those with woolly or curly hair like water dogs. With those types, the possibility of an allergic reaction is reduced".

Four out of ten homes in Spain have a pet

Dogs and cats, the most habitual domestic pets in households - there are five million dogs and three million cats in Spanish homes - are a common cause of respiratory allergic illness, and it is something which appears to be increasing all over the world.

"Obviously, the more pets there are in a home - 40 per cent households in Spain have one - the greater the exposure to them and therefore the higher the probability of developing an allergy," explains Manuel Lzaro of the College of Veterinary Surgeons in Madrid.

He also points out, however, that a review of recently published articles suggests that early exposure to cats and dogs is likely to protect against developing an allergy to them later in life.

Blood test

How is an allergy to household pets diagnosed by a specialist?

"The same way as with other types of allergy; there are different methods such as skin tests or determining the IgE antibodies in the patient's blood compared with the allergens of the animals who could be causing the problem," says lvaro Amo Vzquez de la Torre, an allergy specialist at the Clnica Amo Salud and member of Top Doctors.

Hygiene measures or immunotherapy?

"If it turns out that I am allergic to my pet, do I have to get rid of it?"

Well, the most effective option is not to have an animal, obviously, but if you want to keep it - bearing in mind the emotional factor involved - strict hygiene measures should be taken such as giving the pet regular baths, not letting it sleep in your bedroom, or installing air purifiers with Hepa filters, Vzquez de la Torre recommends.

"You could also have an anti-allergy vaccination. These last for three to five years and what they do is teach the immune system that the allergen in the animals is not harmful, so it does not provoke an allergic response (which would be an erroneous response)," he says.

This specialist does not recommend changing to a different type of pet, because if someone is sensitised to one species it is quite likely that they will end up sensitised to others as well.

"Although there would be no problem with changing to reptiles, amphibians or fishes," he says.

Immunotherapy with animal allergens should be considered for allergic people where exposure to animals is inevitable.

Topical products can also be a solution - those applied to surfaces of the body - for pets. "By reducing skin flaking and compacting it to stop it becoming so volatile, they can be a lot of help in avoiding allergens," Manuel Lzaro says.

Hypersensitivity to birds

There are 22 million pets in Spain. Apart from dogs and cats, do other animals cause allergies?

"Yes, there are allergies to birds which can cause respiratory problems and, to a lesser extent, to amphibians or reptiles like iguanas and lizards, but those cases are more exceptional," says Vzquez de la Torre.

Rodents and horses can be a problem too, in some cases, as Manuel Lzaro points out.

Read the original:
I'm allergic to the cat, what can I do? - Surinenglish.com