Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

When it comes to regulating genetically engineered crops, the process is far from streamlined.

A new study published in Science and led by North Carolina State University suggests the current system for regulating the safety of the crops lacks consistency and, therefore, scientific merit.

Genetically engineered crops are created using technology that allows scientists to tweak crops at the genetic level, altering the plants DNA. This process is often used to create crops with more desirable qualities such as drought or pest resistance, increased size or flavor of fruits or vegetables and larger overall yields.

According to the study, the process of regulating engineered crops varies wildly across the world. Some regions, such as the European Union, regulate all varieties of crops produced through genetic engineering technology known as CRISPR. Other governments base the decision of what crops need to be regulated based on the size and amount of genetic changes made, as well as where the added genetic material originates from.

But Fred Gould, co-director of NC States Genetic Engineering and Society Center and the corresponding author of the article, says that, in this case, size doesnt always matter.

The approaches used right now, which differ among governments, lack scientific rigor, he said in the study. The size of the change made to a product and the origin of the DNA have little relationship with the results of that change; changing one base pair of DNA in a crop with 2.5 billion base pairs, like corn, can make a substantial difference.

Instead, he argues, regulation should be based on the question: Does the new crop variety have unfamiliar characteristics?

In an effort to create a more effective framework for monitoring genetically modified crops, which continue to grow in prominence, as well as avoid unnecessary safety testing, researchers propose taking an approach that takes a harder look at the final crops themselves, focusing less on the process in which the crops were created. For example, this new method uses what the researchers call the -omics approaches, meaning the crops are examined for new characteristics in a similar way biomedical techniques can use genomics to test for problematic mutations in human genomes.

The methodssuch as transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics and metabolomicscan test the plants and crops for changes in their molecular composition and compare that to the nature of a commercial variety of the same crop.

If the -omics testing concludes that the new engineered variety of the crop shows no troublesome differences from existing varieties of the crop and shows no markers of health or environmental risks, then there would be no need for safety testing. On the other hand, if the testing shows a potential red flag in new crop varieties, a safety test would be recommended.

The new approach would not add cost to the process, according to researchers, as most of the new crop varieties would not trigger safety testing.

In order to streamline the process and actually develop this new framework, Gould recommends creating an international committee composed of crop breeders, chemists and molecular biologists to establish the details, costs and options of the -omics testing approach. National and international governing bodies should sponsor these committees and workshops as well as innovative research to get the ball rolling and ensure that assessments are accessible and accurate, he said.

Original post:
Researchers Propose a New Way of Regulating Engineered Crops - Modern Farmer

On September 7, 2022, the United States Department of Agricultures Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) announced the completion of the first Regulatory Status Review (RSR) of a genetically engineered plant under the SECURE rule. APHIS concluded that a new genetically engineered tomato produced by Norfolk Plant Sciences is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to a conventional tomato, and is therefore not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This means that these tomato plants, which have been engineered to produce deep purple tomatoes with enhanced nutritional quality, may be legally imported, moved interstate, or released into the environment (including, for example, in a field trial) in the United States without a permit from APHIS.

Notably, this finding also means that subsequent genetic transformation events involving the same combination of plant species, trait, and mechanism of action (PTMOA) as Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomatoes are also no longer regulated under the SECURE rule. Thus, other subspecies and varieties of Solanum lycopersicum that have been modified to produce the same trait by the same mechanism of actioneven if by different transgenic eventsare now exempt under 340.1(c) of the SECURE rule. More information on this so-called PTMOA exemption is available in APHISs Guide for Requesting a Confirmation of Exemption from Regulations under 7 CFR part 340 (published August 31, 2022; document ID BRS-GD-2020-0001). This approach is different from the event-by-event regulation that was previously required, and represents the first time that APHIS has made an RSR determination under its new rules.

Additional information about the contours of the SECURE rule and the genetic engineering that Norfolk Plant Sciences used to produce their purple tomato is provided below.

About the SECURE Rule

The SECURE rule (7 CFR part 340) governs how APHIS regulates certain organisms developed using genetic engineering, with the goal of protecting U.S. agriculture from plant pest risks under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). It replaced the previous version of 7 CFR part 340, which had been in place largely unchanged since APHISs biotechnology regulations were established in 1987, in phases between May 18, 2020 and October 1, 2021.

The new regulations completely overhauled and streamlined the regulatory process for assessing the plant pest risk of organisms developed using genetic engineering, taking into account advances in scientific understanding, and focusing more on the properties of the engineered organism and less on the method(s) used to produce it.

The revised regulations exempt certain types of modifications from regulation; such exemptions are self-determined, though developers may voluntarily request confirmation from APHIS that a given exemption applies. This exemption/confirmation process replaced the previous Am I Regulated? process on June 17, 2020, and APHIS has since issued 15 confirmation letters as of this writing, with the earliest in April 2021.

However, no plant had made it through the new RSR process until now. The RSR process is an option for instances in which no SECURE rule exemptions apply to a given engineered plant, but the developer feels that the plant nonetheless does not pose an increased plant pest risk and should therefore not be regulated by the SECURE rule. The RSR process replaced the previous petition process for requesting deregulation from 7 CFR part 340 due to low likelihood of posing a plant pest risk.

The RSR process became available for corn, soybean, cotton, potato, tomato, and alfalfa on April 5, 2021, and for all other plant species on October 1, 2021. APHIS received Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request on August 4, 2021 and responded on September 6, 2022 (both the request and the response documents are available here, under RSR number 21-166-01rsr). As of this writing, Norfolk Plant Sciences tomato is the only RSR request publicly available on APHISs website.

Under the RSR process, APHIS reviews the biological properties of the plant; and the trait (or new characteristic); and the mechanism of action (or how the genetic modification causes the new trait to occur) in order to evaluate plant pest risk. There are two potential steps to this process, depending on what APHIS determines during the first step. In Step 1, APHIS identifies whether the engineered plant poses a plausible pathway to increased plant pest risk compared to a comparator plant. If APHIS finds no such pathway, the RSR process concludes, and APHIS notifies the requestor that the plant in question is not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This was the outcome for Norfolk Plant Sciences tomato.

On the other hand, if APHIS does determine that the engineered plant may plausibly pose an increased plant pest risk, there are several potential next steps. First, the developer may accept that the plant is regulated under the SECURE rule, and then either request a permit before moving or releasing the plant, or take no further action and not move or release the plant. Alternatively or additionally, the developer may request that APHIS proceed to Step 2 of the RSR process, which entails a more involved review, subsequent publication in the Federal Register, and solicitation and review of public comments before a final determination. As of this writing, no plant has gone through this second step of the RSR process.

About the Purple Tomato

As described in its RSR request, Norfolk Plant Sciences created its purple tomato plant by Agrobacterium-mediated insertional mutagenesis of the MicroTom tomato variety, and subsequent crossing into other tomato varieties. The plants are engineered to increase expression of their natural anthocyanin pigments, which is what causes the fruits to have a deep purple color and also enhances their nutritional value.

Specifically, the inserted DNA contains two transcription factors from the snapdragon plant (Antirrhinum majus), which serve to activate production of the tomatos native anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway, causing increased anthocyanin production. Each of these two transcription factor genes, called Del and Ros1, is expressed from the T-DNA under a native tomato promotor that causes fruit-specific expression. The T-DNA also includes the nptII selectable marker with a promotor and terminator from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which have a decades-long history of safe use and consumption.

Complete genome sequencing revealed that the T-DNA was inserted at a single site in chromosome 4, accompanied by several small deletions. Phenotypic evaluation of the transformed plants revealed that they grew effectively the same as non-transgenic tomatoes, except that they produce deep purple fruit with significantly higher anthocyanin content. Photos of the plants and fruit are available in the published RSR request.

APHIS considered the information disclosed in Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request, alongside publicly available resources, and APHIS familiarity with tomato and knowledge of the trait, phenotype, and mechanism of action and did not identify any plausible pathway by which [the] modified tomato, or any of its sexually compatible relatives, would pose an increased plant pest risk relative to a comparator tomato (21-116-01 RSR Response, page 1). As such, APHIS concluded that these purple tomatoes are not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule.

Other Regulatory Agencies

It is important to note that deregulation from APHISs SECURE rule does not mean that the plant is wholly removed from U.S. federal regulatory oversight. For example, regulations implemented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and/or other arms of USDA (such as Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) import and export regulations, and/or Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) labeling requirements) may still apply. Along those lines, Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request states that Norfolk Plant Sciences submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment of the Purple Tomato to FDA under the voluntary Biotechnology Notification Consultation program, which was received as BNF number 178. As of this writing, FDA has not yet published a completed consultation for Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomato.

Conclusion

This regulatory review is an important milestone for regulation of genetically engineered plants in the United States. It is the first public test of the SECURE rules RSR process since its implementation more than a year ago, when it became one of the most scientifically progressive such review processes in the world, at least on paper. The deregulation of Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomatoes shows that USDA-APHIS is embracing its new product-focused regulations. Although the review took more than a yearsignificantly longer than the 180 days promised by APHIS for Step 1the process will likely become more efficient as the agency and developers become more familiar and comfortable with the new system. It will be interesting to see how the exemption and review processes grow and possibly become more streamlined with additional use.

Read more from the original source:
Purple Tomato is first genetically engineered plant to be deregulated through USDA's new regulatory status review process - Lexology

Some of the major players operating in the genetically modified feed industry are DuPont, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto.

SELBYVILLE, Del., Sept. 15, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a new research report by Global Market Insights Inc., the genetically modified feed market is slated to surpass USD 135 billion by 2030.

Genetically Modified Feed Market (PRNewsfoto/Global Market Insights Inc.)

Constantly increasing food demand across the globe will accelerate the genetically modified feed industry trends. International affairs to aid poverty-stricken nations, along with developments in food solutions, will boost the demand for genetically modified feeds. For instance, according to FDA, GMO crops offer several benefits, mainly making food more affordable and accessible for consumers. The USAID works with partner nations to use genetic engineering for improving staple crops.

Request for a sample of this research report @ https://www.gminsights.com/request-sample/detail/5331

Government safety norms to use non-GMO crops may emerge as a major restraining factor. Nevertheless, continuous advancements and consumer demand for meat products may encourage growers to adopt GMO feeds for better food availability.

Growing awareness regarding stereotypes to push the demand for GMO vegetables

Based on source, the report classifies the genetically modified feed market into crops (canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, alfalfa) and fruits & vegetables (potatoes, papaya, eggplant). The fruits & vegetables segment will depict substantial demand through 2030 due to the increasing penetration of GMO feeds in vegetable cultivation as a result of mounting consumer awareness and clarification of false misconceptions associated with GMO-based products, such as them being hazardous upon consumption. Moreover, GMO vegetables are extensively fed to equine and cattle because of their low cost and easy availability, which will further improve the market outlook.

Crumbles form segment to depict significant CAGR

The report identifies that genetically modified feed in crumbles form will showcase considerable demand through 2030. The segment growth is attributed to the ease in the digestion of these feeds by animals post-consumption at a global level. The GMO feed market size from crumbles form was more than 60 million tons in 2021 and is expected to surpass 80 million tons by the end of the forecast period.

Story continues

High nutrition and reasonable cost to accelerate concentrates feed type market expansion

Concentrates will account for a significant revenue share in the genetically modified feed market by 2030 owing to their quality of providing nutrients that forage lacks. Also, they have proven themselves to be highly economical as compared to any other feed type. As a result of its cost-effectiveness, consumers, especially in the dairy industry, opt for concentrates feed type that allows them to increase the nutrient content of milk at a reasonable rate, thereby boosting its sales.

Browse key industry insights spread across 400 pages with 387 market data tables & 8 figures & charts from the report, "Genetically Modified Feed Market Size By Type (Crop, Fruits & Vegetables), Form (Pellets, Crumble, Mash, Meal/cake), Feed Type(Roughages and Concentrates), End use (Poultry, Swine, Cattle, Aquaculture, Pet Foods, Equine), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Traits Potential, Covid-19 Impact Analysis, Price Trend, Competitive Market 2022- 2030" in detail along with the table of contents:

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/genetically-modified-feed-market

Increasing demand for dairy products to push cattle application segment demand

The market size from cattle application will exceed USD 28 billion in revenue by 2030. The growing consumer inclination towards dairy products is attributed to the rich calcium content for infants and children for initial development, the dairy application will contribute heavily to the overall market expansion. In the western region, cattle are also a popular source of meat and are preferred largely in local cuisines, which has promoted cattle rearing demand. Moreover, the majority of cattle feed contains GMO crops as the base, driving the GMO feed market growth.

Europe to become a leading regional ground

Europe genetically modified feed market will be valued at over USD 23 billion by 2030. Consumer preference for animal-based sources of protein promotes animal rearing practices, generating feed demand. In addition, the presence of advanced feed manufacturers in the region will further accelerate the market progress.

Latin America genetically modified feed market is broadly spread across countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina. The region supports foreign direct investments as well as certain trade policies that are favorable for feed manufacturing industries and advancements in the agricultural sector. As per the report, the LATAM GMO feed market size will exhibit considerable growth through 2030.

Request for customization of this research report @ https://www.gminsights.com/roc/5331

Acquisitions to remain a pivotal growth strategy

The competitive landscape of the genetically modified feed industry is inclusive of Dow, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, DuPont, and Monsanto. These companies engage mainly in product innovation and strategic acquisitions & collaboration to strengthen their market position in the coming years.

About Global Market Insights

Global Market Insights Inc., headquartered in Delaware, U.S., is a global market research and consulting service provider, offering syndicated and custom research reports along with growth consulting services. Our business intelligence and industry research reports offer clients with penetrative insights and actionable market data specially designed and presented to aid strategic decision making. These exhaustive reports are designed via a proprietary research methodology and are available for key industries such as chemicals, advanced materials, technology, renewable energy, and biotechnology.

Contact Us:

Aashit TiwariCorporate Sales, USAGlobal Market Insights Inc.Toll Free: +1-888-689-0688USA: +1-302-846-7766Europe: +44-742-759-8484APAC: +65-3129-7718Email: sales@gminsights.com

Photo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1899576/Genetically_Modified_Feed_Market.jpgLogo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/661916/GMI.jpg

Global Market Insights, Inc. Logo (PRNewsfoto/Global Market Insights, Inc.)

Cision

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genetically-modified-feed-market-to-hit-135-billion-by-2030-says-global-market-insights-inc-301625055.html

SOURCE Global Market Insights Inc.

See original here:
Genetically Modified Feed Market to Hit $135 billion by 2030, says Global Market Insights Inc. - Yahoo Finance

They argue that genetically modified plants and animals can provide a miracle solution to two of the continents biggest problems: hunger and malaria.

Among the movement's champions is Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the world and founder of the most influential charitable foundation in history. The documentary shows how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has become one of the most important promoters of genetic engineering experiments in Africa.

Operating under the radar and ignoring critics, researchers are tinkering with the genetic make-up of crops like cassavas, as well as malaria-carrying mosquitoes.The EUs position is ambiguous: The bloc was originally skeptical about genetic engineering amid concerns about potential risks to health and the environment. But now it is collaborating with the Microsoft founder's foundation, carrying out experiments that would be prohibited in Europe.

Critics say that by financing genetic engineering experiments on the African continent, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is playing into the hands of large Western agricultural corporations.

The documentary lays bare the new world of philanthrocapitalism, where charity and profit are no longer mutually exclusive, where genetic engineering is sold as humanitarian hunger relief, and where public investments serve private interests.

Broadcasting Hours:

DW English

FRI 14.10.2022 01:15 UTCFRI 14.10.2022 04:15 UTCFRI 14.10.2022 18:15 UTCSAT 15.10.2022 12:15 UTCSAT 15.10.2022 15:15 UTCSUN 16.10.2022 19:15 UTCMON 17.10.2022 09:15 UTC

Lagos UTC +1 | Cape Town UTC +2 I Nairobi UTC +3Delhi UTC +5,5 I Bangkok UTC +7 | Hong Kong UTC +8London UTC +1 | Berlin UTC +2 | Moscow UTC +3San Francisco UTC -7 | Edmonton UTC -6 | New York UTC -4

DW Deutsch+

MON 17.10.2022 09:15 UTC

Vancouver UTC -7 | New York UTC -4 | Sao Paulo UTC -3

Follow this link:
Africa, GMOs and Western Interests - DW (English)

We havent seen Matthew Fox in a TV series since Lost ended in 2010. Now, Fox has returned as the protagonist of Last Light, a show developed from Alex Scarrows novel of the same name. Last Light is now streaming on Peacock. Minor spoilers below.

The story opens on chemist Andy Yeats played by Fox as hes called away to handle an oil emergency just before his son is set to undergo experimental eye surgery. Yeats arrives at the refinery site where he discovers something is wrong with the oil. At the same time, the world is pockmarked by blackouts. Its soon revealed that the worlds oil supplies have been corrupted as part of a coordinated attack.

The world immediately falls into a state of progressive chaos. With supply chain issues, climate change, and the ongoing transition to alternative renewable fuel sources, we cant help but wonder what might actually happen of the oil supply chains were severed.

In the show, the effects of oil supply disruption are felt right away. Planes fall out of the sky and ships flounder in the water. Its clear, whatever the source of the attack, it isnt happening only at the source. All of the worlds oil is contaminated, even the oil youre currently using. Where that to happen, wed all know pretty quickly. Its hard to power almost anything these days without a working supply of oil, for better or for worse.

Electric vehicles would keep working, but probably only as long as their batteries lasted. Thats because power plants largely use fossil fuels to generate power. Even those which dont are pretty reliant on the rest of the global supply chain, which would break down if oil were immediately withheld.

The good news is that likely wouldnt happen. If the worlds oil deposits suddenly dried up today, wed be in trouble, but wed have at least some cushion. Although, not much of one. At present, its estimated that the United States has something like 700 million barrels of oil stockpiled in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a series of underground caves in Texas and Louisiana.

The bad news is the United States oil consumption sits at around 20 million barrels per day. At current consumption levels, wed tap out our strategic reserves in a little over a month. Of course, most of that would probably be routed to strategic destinations and most of us would experience severe oil rations in an attempt to extend the reserves lifespan.

Countries around the world have similar stockpile programs which could stem the bleeding in the event of a supply breakdown. The fact remains, however, that wed have to find a solution quickly or risk the machinery which keeps our society functioning shutting down.

Unless we take concerted steps toward transitioning to a more diverse energy profile, even a best-case scenario would cause our societies to stumble once global oil supplies are cut off.

Its unlikely. Most oil is held in deposits underground and discretely separated from other oil reserves. Any intentional attack would require a level of coordination never before seen. The antagonists of such a story would need to introduce a contaminant at every reserve all at the same time. Manually introducing a contaminant that would render oil unusable probably isnt feasible. Unless, of course, its an act of nature.

Nature is very good at exploiting resources and by tapping into underground oil deposits we have exposed vast stores of material that are definitionally highly energetic. Theyd make an ample food supply for the right organism.

In the show, Yeats learns early on that the characteristics of the oil samples arent right. Among other things, the viscosity is out of normal ranges. Importantly, the viscosity of oil is important to its proper functioning as either a lubricant or a propellant. If you could introduce an organism that somehow changes the properties of the oil, its possible that organism could spread across the globe and impact the entire supply. Although, getting the timing right would be a challenge.

Theres some evidence this sort of strategy might actually work. A study published in the journal Energy Sourcesinvestigated the results of introducing various microorganisms including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus subtilis, and Klebsiella spp to crude oil. After introduction, scientists measured the viscosity of the intentionally contaminated oil compared to a control sample.

After only three minutes, the viscosity of the crude oil was reduced by more than 50 percent. In the wake of genetic engineering, one can imagine a situation in which an organism is engineered to chew through oil wherever it is found, changing it so substantially that it becomes unusable. Once it came into contact with oil anywhere, whether in the ground or in your car, it might be able to multiply rapidly, on timescales shorter than what it takes to run your errands.

An uncontrolled organism would be incredibly difficult to get our arms around quickly enough to prevent the worst effects. Theres no single point of failure, its a war wed have to fight on all fronts, perhaps through the engineering of another organism to prey on or outcompete the threat.

Of course, the likelihood of any of this occurring is slim, better suited for the screen than the streets. Still, it might be worth putting a little extra emphasis on transitioning away from fuels susceptible to biological attack.

It's a fan thing

Join SYFY Insider to get access to exclusive videos and interviews, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more!

Sign Up for Free

See more here:
The science behind the oil supply breakdown in 'Last Light' - Syfy

Around 2,000 BC about the time the Egyptian pharaoh Mentuhotep was forming the Middle Kingdom a woolly mammoth died on a remote island in what is now Siberia.

This was no ordinary mammoth, however: this was the very last mammoth to ever live. With its death, the species would descend the irreversible River Styx of extinction, never again to be seen outside of the underworld.

Or maybe not.

A team of scientists with the biotechnology company Colossal, founded in part by Harvard geneticist George Church and backed by investors like the Winklevoss twins and actor Chris Hemsworth, now claim that they can resurrect the woolly mammoth, bringing the giants back to the tundra for the first time in 4,000 years.

The mammoth isnt alone, either. Colossal has also announced plans to revive the thylacine, an extinct Australian carnivore and other scientists are attempting to bring back species like the passenger pigeon, a once-legendary North American bird, in a process some are calling de-extinction.

Proponents claim that de-extinction can restore long-lost species to their rightful and important places in the ecosystem, and maybe undo some of the harm extinction has inflicted on the natural world.

But sceptics of de-extinction question what kind of animals this technology might really create and whether species resurrection could create new problems for the worlds still-living wildlife.

Im not convinced its a good idea, de-extinction, Tom Gilbert, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen, tells The Independent.

But Im very fascinated by, at least, what could be done.

In Jurassic Park, scientists sequenced dinosaur DNA gathered from long-dead mosquitos, using that reconstructed genetic code to hatch a Tyrannosaurus rex.

There are some plot holes in that version of de-extinction mainly that DNA breaks down pretty quickly, so theres not much to sequence from 65-million-year-old fossils.

With something like a woolly mammoth, however, that concept is somewhat less far-fetched. Since mammoths lived relatively recently and in the cold, frozen north some specimens have been preserved, buried underground in the depths of the tundra, keeping parts of the species DNA intact.

As a result, scientists can sequence a good amount, if not all, of the mammoths genome. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm tells The Independent that the company expects to have about 90 per cent of the woolly mammoths genome.

The company plans to use cells from living Asian Elephants, the mammoths closest living relative, as a base template to try and recreate some of the mammoths quintessential traits, like shaggy hair and small ears, Mr Lamm says.

Turning a cell into a mammoth would require a lot more than just editing some genes, however youd need to turn that cell into a living, breathing, multi-tonne animal. So Mr Lamm says that the companys scientists are researching everything from stem cells and cellular engineering to embryo development and animal husbandry.

But why create a mammoth in the first place? One reason, according to the company, is the climate crisis.

Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) in the far northern tundra contains a ton of carbon. But as the world warms up from all the carbon that humans have dumped into the atmosphere, that permafrost is melting potentially releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere and creating a dangerous warming feedback loop.

Colossal says that if mammoths were re-introduced to the landscape, all their trampling could transform the tundra from forests and wetlands to grasslands. Since grasslands are lighter-coloured than forests and wetlands, the theory is that the ground would absorb less sunlight helping to keep the permafrost cold and all that stored carbon buried underground.

Colossal also has plans to resurrect the thylacine, also known as the Tasmanian tiger, an extinct carnivore seen here in captivity around 1930

(Getty Images)

Ecological restoration is also the goal for Revive and Restore, a non-profit organization aiming to bring back the passenger pigeon, a North American bird hunted to extinction in the early 20th century.

The passenger pigeon was the chief ecosystem engineer of eastern North American woodlands, Ben Novak, Revive and Restores lead scientist, tells The Independent.

The group says that the passenger pigeon which once congregated in flocks of hundreds of thousands of birds, dominating eastern North American landscapes in deafening and endless hordes used to disturb forests enough that they needed to regrow over time. In every stage of that regrowth were niches for wildlife like insects, mammals and other birds.

There are a lot of steps that need to go right for these plans to work. For one, these scientists would need to successfully create a viable, healthy animal that resembles a passenger pigeon or a mammoth using gene editing and cloning. Then, theyd need to successfully release enough of them into the wild and the animals would have to act as expected to get the ecological benefits the teams are hoping for.

But there are more conceptual questions about de-extinction, too. Since scientists will likely never fully sequence the mammoths genome parts of it will likely be forever lost to history these animals may never be exact replicas of the ancient beasts, no matter how well the gene editing and cloning might go.

Mr Lamm acknowledges that the company isnt trying to create duplicates of extinct animals. Were not cloning mammoths, were not creating exact copies of mammoths or exact copies of thylacines, he says. Instead, he says, theyre creating functional mammoths animals that will occupy the same ecological space that mammoths once did.

Success depends on your definition of de-extinction, Dr Gilbert says.

If your definition is to make a hairy elephant and keep it in a zoo, and thats what youre doing, and thats what you do, thats a success, right? Dr Gilbert says. But thats not the same as making a fully functional mammoth.

Dr Gilbert says that for him, the most interesting part of de-extinction is the research its based on. By taking elephant cells and trying to create a mammoth, the scientists are essentially trying to turn one animal into another animal, he notes itself a wild concept.

Some de-extinction projects arent even using genetic engineering at all. A project in South Africa, for example, is trying to recreate the quagga a type of zebra hunted to oblivion in the 19th century by selectively breeding other zebras to create an animal that looks like the quagga.

If it looks like a passenger pigeon, behaves like a passenger pigeon, you know its a passenger pigeon, Mr Novak says, referencing the old saw about ducks.

The passenger pigeon used to gather in massive flocks, dominating the North American skies before being hunted to extinction

(Getty Images)

But, of course, there are 300 types of ducks in the world. And geese look like ducks, and theyre not ducks, Mr Novak adds. We know theres subtlety to that, we will always know that the new passenger pigeons are not the original passenger pigeons.

Yet from an ecological perspective, that distinction doesnt matter, he says.

If it functions and does well in the ecosystem, Im happy to say that weve recreated the passenger pigeon, Mr Novak says.

Dr Gilbert also points out that if the public believes extinct species can simply be resurrected, that could create problems for currently endangered but not yet extinct species.

Suppose some mining company wanted to dig up a huge section of the Amazon rainforest, he suggests. Companies are often barred from ripping apart an ecosystem like that because people understand that many species will go extinct if we destroy their habitats, he adds.

If people think we can flip a switch and bring animals back from the dead, they might be less motivated by these concerns, Dr Gilbert surmises.

That could be especially true if people dont understand that de-extinction at least in its current form is massively time- and money-intensive and has yet to be truly successful for any singular species, let alone the thousands of species you might lose by cutting down the rainforest.

Mr Lamm said this was more of an education problem. He also notes that some of Colossals research including on things like in vitro fertilization and disease treatments in elephants could be applied to modern-day animals.

And the same argument about public perception could be made for animals kept in captivity, Mr Novak argues. Its literally the most negligible concern over all this, he says.

In another sense, Mr Novak says, that argument is just the continuation of the challenge wildlife conservationists have been facing for decades.

De-extinction is the extension of something that conservation has been doing for nearly 200 years, he says.

In ecosystems around the world, conservationists have restored long-lost wildlife to the ecosystem like wolves in Yellowstone National Park or beavers in Europe. The only difference is that none of these species had been entirely extinct and whether we can make that leap remains to be seen.

For me, its always been a conservation-, ecological restoration-driven discipline, he says. And will remain that way the rest of my life.

More here:
Inside the controversial plan to bring extinct animals back from the dead - The Independent

By Michileen Martin| Published 2 days ago

According to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds actress Rebecca Romijn, if her Trek hero Una Chin-Riley needs a sympathetic ear while Starfleet has her locked up in between seasons, maybe her old Marvel character can come by to listen to her woes. Romijn recently joined her castmates at the 56-Year Mission Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, where she talked about the two characters shes best known for. The actress old fans that her Strange New Worlds character and the Brotherhoods Mystiquewho she played in the X-Men filmsshare some uncanny (we apologize for nothing) similarities.

As reported by TrekMovie, Romijn commented on the similarity between her Star Trek and Marvel roles when asked a question about the upcoming Season 2 of Strange New Worlds. What also is really strange about it, and I probably shouldnt say this, but I kept going back to when I was playing Mystique as a mutant, Romijn mused. I had little bits of dialogue in season 2 that were literally word-for-word things I said in theX-Menseries before. But they are related. They are two characters, and I relate them.

If youve watched Season 1 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, then you can probably guess the nature of the similarities between Una and Romijns Marvel character. Early in the inaugural season of Strange New Worlds, we learn that Una is secretly an Illyrian; a race of genetically-engineered people, and the genetically-engineered are not allowed within a hundred light years of Starfleet service. Season 1 ends on a cliffhanger, with Unas heritage somehow being discovered and Captain Pikes (Anson Mount) First Officer being arrested by Starfleet.

The parallels between Star Treks Una and Marvels Mystiqueor any of Marvels mutantsseem pretty clear. Like Mystique, Una is being attacked for her heritage, and for being different.

Though its still a little surprising for Romijn to say Una and Mystique share word-for-word dialogue. While Jennifer Lawrences version of the character has a lot more to say, Romijns version doesnt speak often and when she does, shes usually speaking through one of her many disguises and in someone elses voice. Considering how sparse her actual dialogue was in the films, its conceivable the lines shared between the characters was no accident.

It will be interesting to see how Romijns Star Trek characters story is resolved in the seasons of Strange New Worlds to come. Throughout Treks narrative, the ban on genetic engineering is often depicted as the last remaining prejudice of the otherwise utopian Federation. But we know Unas story wont end with the Federation doing away with that prejudice, because a century laterin Star Trek: Deep Space Ninewhen the genetic alterations Julian Bashir (Alexander Siddig) was forced to endure as a child are uncovered, that engineering is still illegal in the Federation and Bashir almost loses everything because of it.

We also know that Una Chin-Riley cant remain on Strange New Worlds forever since the showrunner hopes to take the story into the timeline of Star Trek: The Original Series, and Unas character was off the ship by then. Not to mention that when the Season 1 finale gave us a glimpse into a possible future, it showed us the Enterprise without Una. Whether or not Romijns Star Trek and Marvel characters ultimately share the same fate remains to be seen.

The rest is here:
Star Trek Actor Says Their Trek Hero Is Just Like Their Marvel Character - Giant Freakin Robot

Two new pieces of research out of the University of NSW in Sydney have shone new light on how the precursors to blood stem cells occur in animals and humans, and how they may be induced artificially.

In a study published in Cell Reports, researchers demonstrated how a simulation of an embryos beating heart, using a microfluidic device in the lab, led to the development of human haematopoietic or blood stem cells.

A second study in Nature Cell Biology, revealed the cells in mice embryos that are responsible for blood stem cell creation within the aorta.

Both studies are significant steps towards understanding how, when, where and which cells are involved in the creation of blood stem cells, which could one day eliminate the need for blood transfusions or stem cell transplantation from donors.

Haematopoietic or blood stem cells are the cells that give rise to all other blood cells from white and red blood cells to platelets and more in a process called haematopoiesis. Haematopoietic stem cell transplants are often performed for some cancer patients, after treatment (such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy) kills the patients own stem cells.

Scientists have been attempting to make blood stem cells in the lab to solve the problem of donor blood stem cell shortages for the last few decades.

Blood stem cells used in transplantation require donors with the same tissue-type as the patient, says senior author of the Cell Reports study Robert Nordon, associate professor inthe Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering.

Manufacture of blood stem cells from pluripotent stem cell lines would solve this problem without the need for tissue-matched donors, providing a plentiful supply to treat blood cancers or genetic disease.

Pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to produce many different types of cells, including blood stem cells, but can only be sourced from animal or human embryos. On the other hand, induced pluripotent stem cells are generated directly from somatic cells adult cells that have already differentiated into their cell type through genetic manipulation.

But scientists still have a lot to learn about how to do it safely in the lab.

Get an update of science stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Scientists already knew that endothelial cells lining the aorta in the heart change into blood stem cells in embryonic development.

Part of the problem is that we still dont fully understand all the processes going on in the microenvironment during embryonic development that leads to the creation of blood stem cells at about day 32 in the embryonic development, says first author of the Cell Reports study Dr Jingjing Li, apostdoctoral fellow at the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering.

So we made a device mimicking the heart beating and the blood circulation and an orbital shaking system which causes shear stress or friction of the blood cells as they move through the device or around in a dish.

Not only did the 3cm by 3cm microfluidic device create blood stem cell precursors that went on to undergo haematopoiesis and differentiate into different blood cells, but it also created the tissue cells of the embryonic heart environment that are crucial to this process.

What weve shown is that we can generate a cell that can form all the different types of blood cells. Weve also shown that it is very closely related to the cells lining the aorta so we know its origin is correct and that it proliferates, says Nordon.

We are working on up-scaling manufacture of these cells using bioreactors, says Li.

Researchers from UNSW Medicine and Health were also doing their own research in mice to identify the cells that regulate this process.

They found that cells known as Mesp1-derived PDGFRA+ stromal cells can convert both embryonic and adult endothelial cells into blood cells.

While more research is needed before this can be translated into clinical practice including confirming the results in human cells the discovery could provide a potential new tool to generate functioning haematopoietic cells.

Using your own cells to generate blood stem cells could eliminate the need for donor blood transfusions or stem cell transplantation. Unlocking mechanisms used by nature brings us a step closer to achieving this goal, says co-senior author of the Nature Cell Biology paper Professor John Pimanda, from the Prince of Wales Clinical School at UNSW Sydney.

View post:
Scientists closer to making blood stem cells in the lab - Cosmos

Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market

The Oncolytic Virus Therapies market is expected to show positive growth in the forecast period (20222032) due to the increased prevalence, randomized, controlled non-crossover trials with potential benefits. Some of the main reasons for this novel therapys insignificant revenues are its limitations, no statistically significant benefit in overall survival, and intense competition from immune checkpoint inhibitors due to their efficacy and manageable side effects.

DelveInsightsOncolytic Virus Therapies Market Insightsreport includes a comprehensive understanding of current treatment practices, Oncolytic Virus Therapies emerging drugs, market share of individual therapies, and current and forecasted market size from 2019 to 2032, segmented into 7MM [the United States, the EU5 (theUnited Kingdom,Italy,Spain,France, andGermany),Japan].

Some facts of the Oncolytic Virus Therapies market report are:

Download the report to understand which factors are driving Oncolytic Virus Therapies market trends @Oncolytic Virus Therapies market forecast.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Overview

Oncolytic viruses (OVs), considered an effective anticancer strategy in recent years, are a special type of virus that are naturally or genetically engineered and can replicate preferentially in tumor cells and inhibit tumor growth. Oncolytic Virus Therapies is a treatment using a virus that can replicate itself to kill cancer cells. Many species of viruses exist, but not all can be designed to be oncolytic viruses (OV). The typical features of these OVs must include being non-pathogenic, the ability to target and kill the cancer cells, and the capacity to be transformed to express tumor-killing factors through genetic engineering methods.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Epidemiology Segmentation

According to DelveInsight estimates, there were approximately 632K Oncolytic Virus Therapies targeted patient pool in the 7MM in 2021.

Among the 7MM countries, the US had the highest incidence of Oncolytic Virus Therapies in 2021.

The Oncolytic Virus Therapies market report proffers epidemiological analysis for the study period 20192032 in the 7MM segmented into:

Download the report to understand which factors are driving Oncolytic Virus Therapies epidemiology trends @Oncolytic Virus Therapies Epidemiological Insights.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Pipeline Therapies and Key Companies

Learn more about the Oncolytic Virus Therapiestherapies in clinical trials @Drugs forOncolytic Virus Therapies Treatment

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Market Dynamics

Oncolytic viruses have many advantages over other tumor immunotherapies, including high killing efficiency, precise targeting, fewer side effects or drug resistance, and low cost, fueling the oncolytic virus therapies market growth. Furthermore, as certain oncolytic viruses, such as Adeno oncolytic viruses, have demonstrated antitumor memory, they could be used as a cancer vaccine.

Scope of the Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market Report

Discover more about emerging oncolytic cancer therapies in development @Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Clinical Trials

Table of Contents

1.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketKey Insights

2.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketReport Introduction

3.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies Market Overview at a Glance

4.

Oncolytic Virus Therapies MarketExecutive Summary

5.

Disease Background and Overview

6.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesTreatment and Management

7.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesEpidemiology and Patient Population

8.

Patient Journey

9.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesEmerging Drugs

10.

7MMOncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Analysis

11.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Outlook

12.

Potential of Current and Emerging Therapies

13.

KOL Views

14.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Drivers

15.

Oncolytic Virus TherapiesMarket Barriers

16.

Unmet Needs

17.

SWOT Analysis

18.

Appendix

19.

DelveInsight Capabilities

20.

Disclaimer

21.

About DelveInsight

AboutDelveInsight

DelveInsight is a leading Business Consultant, and Market Research firm focused exclusively on life sciences. It supports pharma companies by providing comprehensive end-to-end solutions to improve their performance.Get hassle-free access to all the healthcare and pharma market research reports through our subscription-based platformPharmDelve.

Media ContactCompany Name: DelveInsight Business Research LLPContact Person: Ankit NigamEmail: Send EmailPhone: +19193216187Address:304 S. Jones Blvd #2432 City: AlbanyState: New YorkCountry: United StatesWebsite: https://www.delveinsight.com/report-store/oncolytic-virus-cancer-therapy-market

Read the rest here:
Oncolytic Cancer Therapies Market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 33% by 2032 | DelveInsight - Digital Journal

Circularity is one way to help make the green transition happen. Now, everything can get a second life, and even what we used to consider trash can be a valuable resource. The same goes for industrial byproducts. If producing biogas and methane from organic trash is nothing new, that does not hold true for green hydrogen, which researchers are trying to produce from this kind of waste.

At the German Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) research is now focusing on producing carbon-negative hydrogen using biomass and plant residues. Scientists are exploring several HyBECCS (Hydrogen Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) approaches to get H2 from waste materials that would otherwise remain trash. From bacteria-based bioreactor treatments to thermochemical gasification approaches, the options are numerous.

The German Environment Agency reports that 15 million tonnes of organic waste is produced in the country including from household waste, agricultural waste and waste from food production. This portion either goes to composting plants or incinerators. The European Environment Agency also stressed the relevance of treating this waste properly in order to generate heat or produce sustainable fuels. So, getting hydrogen from waste would create added value.

In previous projects where waste from the food industry was converted to hydrogen, I was struck by how large the carbon dioxide fraction was. The main achievement was to produce a source of biogenic CO2that is a by-product of hydrogen production. This means that H2 can be used in a climate-neutral way and carbon dioxide can be stored, Johannes Full explains. He is head of the group Sustainable Development of Biointelligent Technologies at Fraunhofer IPA in Stuttgart.

Microbiologists are building bacteria that convert CO2 into food

Is your hamburger or protein shake going to be made out of CO2in the future? Yes, if its up to microbiologist Nico Claassens.

The proper management of organic waste helps to reduce emissions. When it is dumped in landfills, carbon dioxide and methane are released some of the major greenhouse gases that pollute the air. One of the main methods of processing waste in biological treatment facilities is anaerobic digestion which is an alternative to composting. It entails placing waste in a container devoid of air. Bacteria then break down the waste and allow methane to be captured, while the remaining matter can serve as a sustainable type of fertilizer.

In one of the approaches that Full and his team are experimenting with, so-called purple bacteria thats their color are the key players. These photosynthetic bacteria can convert agriculture and food industry waste into hydrogen. In other words, they can produce H2 through light. Professor Robin Ghoshs team from the Institute of Biomaterials and Biomolecular Systems at the University of Stuttgart found a way to grow this bacteria without light. This is a considerable breakthrough, as there is no need for more sophisticated photobioreactors to grow them, explains Full.

According to the researcher, one more year of research will help the concept move from a lab scale to a bigger one.

One other approach that researchers are currently testing is methane pyrolysis. This process converts biogas into hydrogen and solid carbon. As the ancient Greek etymology suggests literally dislodging with fire it involves the use of fire to dissolve the material. Moreover, this thermal decomposition occurs at over 500 degrees, without the presence of any air.

Full: On one hand, we get a gas fraction which contains hydrogen. On the other, we get solid carbon as a product. This makes storing it easier- no further conversion is needed.

With his team, hes experimenting a number of methods to get hydrogen out of biowaste.

Another avenue that the Fraunhofer team is currently testing is dark fermentation. This process can be viewed as one part of the whole biogas production procedure. Essentially, the same waste streams are fed into a bioreactor as is the case in the normal biowaste treatment procedure but for a shorter period of time. This ensures that hydrogen and carbon dioxide are not converted to methane.

The main disadvantage of this process is that we dont get a very high yield of hydrogen from it compared to other methods, Full emphasizes. On the flip side, its an energy-efficient procedure that can be done in standard bioreactors. It is an upgrade to biogas processing in that it provides another product in addition to biogas, which is hydrogen.

Full also cites the genetic manipulation of bacterial streams. According to him, genetic engineering will lead to bacteria behaving the way researchers want them to. Microorganisms will then play a role in either biohydrogen and HyBECCS processes or fermentation. Higher yields and better efficiency can be achieved this way. If we make bioprocesses more adaptable to waste by developing intelligent and self-adaptive control systems, we will arrive at even more efficient, biointelligent systems, the team leader adds.

Your weekly innovation overviewEvery sunday the best articles of the week in your inbox.

Food waste separation can be done with minor investment thats what a Lithuanian city is showing

Separating food waste is a relatively new practice in Lithuania. Dealing with it is one of the hardest tasks for municipalities particularly in the early stages.Since 2019, as per the national waste management plan, cities with over 50,000 inhabitants were required to start implementing a separate collection system for this waste.

The Stuttgart cohort also worked on a new model of a hydrogen-based economy. Industrial Hydrogen Hubs in Baden-Wrttemberg is the name of a study that showed the potential of green hydrogen to cover specific energy demands such as heavy goods traffic in the area. Specifically, several hydrogen production hubs were set up as part of the model. For the model to be successful, the strategic positioning of the hubs played a key role.

We thought about how to bring about hydrogen economies without having to overhaul the whole energy system. The basic premise was to think about decentralized production and use hubs through, for example, the use of biogas, photovoltaics, wind power or biogas plants. The next step was to find a local market where we wouldnt have to build a large infrastructure. This way, we wanted to prove that decentralized production is feasible. Then all of these nuclei can continue to grow towards the goal of a hydrogen economy, Full concludes.

Read the original here:
Don't call it waste - it can be turned into hydrogen if you handle it right - Innovation Origins