Category Archives: Molecular Medicine

A microscope photograph of a heart muscle cell. The regular green patterns show stained actin filaments.

By Tina Hilding, Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture

It might look like a little game at the molecular scale.

Filament-like proteins in heart muscle cells have to be exactly the same length so that they can coordinate perfectly to make the heart beat.

Another protein decides when the filament is the right size and puts a wee little cap on it. But, if that protein makes a mistake and puts the cap on too early, another protein, leiomodin, comes along and knocks the cap out of the way.

This little dance at the molecular scale might sound insignificant, but it plays a critical role in the development of healthy heart and other muscles. Reporting in the journal, Plos Biology,a WSU research team has proven for the first time how the mechanism works.

The finding could someday lead to improved diagnostics and medical treatments for serious and sometimes devastating hereditary heart conditions that come about from genetic mutations in the proteins. One of these conditions, cardiomyopathy, affects as many as one in 500 people around the world and can often be fatal or have lifetime health consequences. A similar condition called nemaline myopathy affects skeletal muscles throughout the body with often devastating consequences.

Mutations in these proteins are found in patients with myopathy, saidAlla Kostyukova, associate professor in the Gene and LindaVoiland School of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineeringand leader of the project. Our work is to prove that these mutations cause these problems and to propose strategies for treatment.

Heart muscle is made of tiny thick and thin filaments of proteins. With the help of electrical signals, the rope-like filaments bind and unbind in an intricate and precise architecture, allowing heart muscle to contract and beat.

The thin filaments are made of actin, the most abundant protein in the human body. Tropomysin, another protein, wraps itself around the actin filaments. Tropomyosin together with two other proteins, tropomodulin and leiomodin, at the end of the actin filaments act as a sort of cap and determine the filament length.

Its beautifully designed, said Kostyukova, whose research is focused on understanding protein structures.

And, tightly regulated.

To keep heart muscle healthy, the actin filaments, which are about a micron long, all have to be the exact same length. In families with cardiomyopathy, genetic mutations result in formation of filaments that are either too short or too long. Those affected can have significant heart problems that cause disability, illness and death.

In a project that spanned seven years, the researchers proved that leiomodin attaches to the end of the actin filament and kicks out the other protein, tropomodulin, to assure the actin filaments proper length.

This is the first time that this has been shown with the atomic-level precision, said Dmitri Tolkatchev, research assistant professor in the Voiland School and lead author on the paper. Previously, several laboratories attempted to solve this problem with very little success. With our data we finally have a direct proof.

The researchers used state-of-the-art approaches to make the key proteins and study them at the molecular and cellular level. The work entailed designing the molecules, constructing them at the gene level in a plasmid, and then producing them into bacterial or cardiac cells. The researchers used nuclear magnetic resonance, which works on the same physical principle as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs), to understand the proteins binding at the atomic level. They also used molecular dynamic simulation to model them.

The probability of being able to show this mechanism was not high, but the impact of the discovery is, said Tolkatchev, an expert in nuclear magnetic resonance. This was a very important problem to study and could have a significant impact in the field of muscle mechanics.

The researchers hope to continue the work, identifying additional components and molecular mechanisms that regulate thin filament architecture, whether diseased or healthy.

The multidisciplinary group included researchers from the University of Arizona led by Carol Gregorio, director of the Cellular and Molecular Medicine Department. WSUs group has expertise in protein structure, structural biochemistry, and properties of actin filaments and regulatory proteins, and UAs group has expertise in molecular, cellular and developmental biology of muscle assembly. The collaborative work was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

See the article here:
Study shows a molecular dance that keeps your heart beating - WSU News

Cancer immune plays a critical role in cancer progression. Tumour immunology and immunotherapy are one of the exciting areas in bladder cancer research. In this study, we aimed to develop an immune-related gene signature to improve the prognostic prediction of bladder cancer. Firstly, we identified 392 differentially expressed immune-related genes (IRGs) based on TCGA and ImmPort databases. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these genes were enriched in inflammatory and immune-related pathways, including in 'regulation of signaling receptor activity', 'cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction' and 'GPCR ligand binding'. Then, we separated all samples in TCGA data set into the training cohort and the testing cohort in a ratio of 3:1 randomly. Data set GSE13507 was set as the validation cohort. We constructed a prognostic six-IRG signature with LASSO Cox regression in the training cohort, including AHNAK, OAS1, APOBEC3H, SCG2, CTSE and KIR2DS4. Six IRGs reflected the microenvironment of bladder cancer, especially immune cell infiltration. The prognostic value of six-IRG signature was further validated in the testing cohort and the validation cohort. The results of multivariable Cox regression and subgroup analysis revealed that six-IRG signature was a clinically independent prognostic factor for bladder cancer patients. Further, we constructed a nomogram based on six-IRG signature and other clinicopathological risk factors, and it performed well in predict patients' survival. Finally, we found six-IRG signature showed significant difference in different molecular subtypes of bladder cancer. In conclusions, our research provided a novel immune-related gene signature to estimate prognosis for patients' survival with bladder cancer.

Journal of cellular and molecular medicine. 2020 Oct 13 [Epub ahead of print]

Yongwen Luo, Liang Chen, Qiang Zhou, Yaoyi Xiong, Gang Wang, Xuefeng Liu, Yu Xiao, Lingao Ju, Xinghua Wang

Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China., Department of Biological Repositories, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China., Department of Pathology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, DC, USA.

PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33048468

Read this article:
Identification of a prognostic gene signature based on an immunogenomic landscape analysis of bladder cancer. - UroToday

Proposition 14 asks voters to spend nearly $8 billion to continue the stem cell research program at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the state budget.

CALIFORNIA, USA For the second time in 16 years, California voters will decide the fate of the states multi-billion dollar stem cell research program that established the state as a worldwide leader.

How the times have changed.

In November, as the pandemic drags on, Proposition 14 asks voters to spend nearly $8 billion to continue the program during a period when the research environment has significantly evolved and coronavirus has battered the states budget.

The bond measure would approve $5.5 billion in bonds to keep the states stem cell research agency running and grants flowing to California universities and companies.

At least $1.5 billion would be earmarked for brain and central nervous system diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons. The overall cost of the bonds and their interest totals about $7.8 billion, according to the state legislative analyst. The state would pay about $260 million annually for 30 years, or about 1 percent of Californias annual budget.

Proposition 14 is essentially a repeat with a bigger price tag and a few tweaks of Proposition 71, which California voters approved in 2004 after then-President George W. Bush prohibited, on religious grounds, all federal funding of any stem cell research using human embryos.

That groundbreaking measure authorized $3 billion in state bonds to create the states stem cell research agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and fund grants for research into treatments for Alzheimers disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries and other diseases.

The institute has nearly used up its original funding, so Prop. 71s author, real estate investor and attorney Robert N. Klein II, led a new effort to get Prop. 14 on the November ballot.

This time, embryonic stem cell research is in a much different place, with federal funding no longer blocked and more funding from the biotech industry.

Voters will want to consider what Californias previous investment in stem cell research has accomplished. Its a nuanced track record.

While many scientific experts agree that Prop 71 was a bold social innovation that successfully bolstered emerging stem cell research, some critics argue that the institutes grantmaking was plagued by conflicts of interest and did not live up to the promises of miracle cures that Prop. 71s supporters made years ago. Although the agency is funded with state money, its overseen by its own board and not by the California governor or lawmakers.

The agency had done a very good job of setting priorities for stem cell research, including research using human embryos, and doling out $300 million annually to build up California as a regenerative medicine powerhouse, according to a 2013 evaluation by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

But the report also found that because the institutes board is made up of scientists from universities and biotech firms likely to apply for grants, board members had almost unavoidable conflicts of interest.

Because human stem cells can develop into many types of cells, including blood, brain, nerve and muscle cells, scientists have long looked to them for potential treatments for currently incurable diseases and injuries. Researchers use two types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, derived from unused human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, and adult stem cells, which are harder to work with but in some cases can be coaxed in a lab into behaving more like embryonic stem cells.

From the start, stem cell research has been ethically charged and politically controversial because human embryos are destroyed in some types of studies. Federal restrictions on the research have waxed and waned, depending on which political party holds power. While former President Bush restricted federal money for embryonic stem cell research, former President Obama removed those restrictions.

The Trump administration has restricted government research involving fetal tissue but not embryonic stem cells. However, anti-abortion lawmakers have called on the President to once again end federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

California-funded research has led to one stem cell treatment for a form of Severe Combined Immunodeficiency known as the bubble baby disease. Children with the rare disease dont make enough of a key enzyme needed for a normal immune system. Without treatment, they can die from the disease if not kept in a protective environment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now reviewing the treatment but has not yet approved it for widespread use.

Although many of the agencys early grants were for basic science, the institute also has supported 64 clinical trials of treatments for many types of cancer, sickle cell disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, kidney disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as Lou Gehrigs disease.

A June 2020 analysis by University of Southern California health policy researchers estimated that taxpayers initial $3 billion investment in the research institute helped create more than 50,000 jobs and generated $10 billion for the states economy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has endorsed Proposition 14, and other supporters include the Regents of the University of California, the California Democratic Party, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, patient advocacy groups like the March of Dimes, and some local politicians and chambers of commerce.

Supporters have raised more than $8.5 million, including about $2 million from billionaire Dagmar Dolby, to pass the measure, according to California Secretary of State campaign finance reports.

The passage of Proposition 71 helped save my life, Sandra Dillon, a blood cancer patient, wrote in a San Diego Union-Tribune commentary supporting Proposition 14. She wrote that she had benefited from a drug developed with Institute-funded research that has been designated by the FDA as a breakthrough therapy.

It is unimaginable to think that Californians would vote to discontinue this amazing effort I dont know where I would be or what condition I would be in if it wasnt for the investment Californians made nearly two decades ago.

Lawrence Goldstein, a UC San Diego professor of cellular and molecular medicine and stem cell researcher, said the grants were instrumental in furthering his research on treatments for Alzheimers disease and that Prop. 14 will help create new jobs. The agency has funded a great deal of very important stem cell medical research thats already produced terrific results and has the prospect of saving many more lives in the decade to come, he said.

Opponents include one member of the institutes board and a nonprofit that advocates for privacy in genetic research. They contend that the proposition seeks too much money and does not sufficiently address the conflicts of interest that cropped up after Prop. 71 was passed. They also note that private funding, including venture capital, for stem cell research has grown in recent years. Opponents had raised only $250 by late September, from a single contribution by the California Pro Life Council.

The editorial boards of some of Californias biggest newspapers also have opposed the measure, including the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News/East Bay Times. The Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, and San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper editorial boards support Prop 14.

Jeff Sheehy, the only institute board member not to support Proposition 14, told CalMatters that the research environment has changed since voters initially approved state funding for stem cell research in 2004 and that California should prioritize other needs like education, health care, and housing.

I think the agencys done good work, but this was never planned to be funded forever with debt, Sheehy said. At this point the state cant afford it; were looking at a huge deficit.

Originally posted here:
Prop. 14: In the COVID age, can California still afford its stem cell research program? - CBS News 8

Global COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market: Introduction

The recent novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in 2019 has led to the use of several types of swabs, media, and kits to test the collected samples for COVID-19. The CDC guidelines for the collection and handling of clinical specimens suspected of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mentions that health workers should only use synthetic fiber swabs with plastic shafts. The CDC recommends collection of only the nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). OP- oropharyngeal swabs remain an acceptable specimen type. NP swabs can be utilized to test asymptomatic persons. Increase in COVID-19 testing, globally, requires a safe and easy sample collection and transport mechanism.

Request Brochure of Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=79442

Key Drivers of Global COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market

Rising geriatric population

The global geriatric population continues to increase at an unprecedented rate. Presently, 8.5% of people across the world (617 million) are aged 65 and over. According to a new report An Aging World: 2015, the percentage is projected to jump to nearly 17% of the worlds population by 2050 (1.6 billion). According to the National Institutes of Health, the population aged 65 and over in the U.S. is anticipated to nearly double in the next three decades, from 48 million to 88 million by 2050. The global population aged 80 and older is expected to more than triple between 2015 and 2050, from 126.5 million to 446.6 million. The population aged 80 and older in some countries in Asia and Latin America is likely to quadruple by 2050.

Increase in prevalence of COVID-19

According to Spandidos Publications 2020- Molecular Medicine Reports, the global spread of COVID?19 can be described as the worst pandemic in humanity in the last century. To date, COVID?19 has infected more than 3,000,000 people worldwide and killed more than 200,000 people. Obese patients are at a higher risk of hospital admission regardless of their viral status. Furthermore, obese patients are at a higher risk of hospitalization as compared to normo-ponderal ones, when affected by influenza. The World Health Organization (WHO) has characterized both the COVID-19 outbreak and obesity epidemic as international public health emergencies. Global clinical and epidemiological observations confirm that CoVs can cause more severe symptoms and complications in people with obesity-related conditions. According to WHO World Health Organization, on March 19, 2020, 209 839 (16 556) confirmed COVID-19 cases and 8778 deaths (828) were recorded.

Request for Analysis of COVID-19 Impact on COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=covid19&rep_id=79442

North America to Account for Major Share of Global COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market

Request for Custom Research - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=CR&rep_id=79442

Key Players Operating in Global COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market

The global COVID-19 sample collection kits market is highly consolidated owing to the presence of a number of key players. Leading players operating in the global COVID-19 sample collection kits market include:

Pre book COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market Report at https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/checkout.php?rep_id=79442&ltype=S

Browse More Trending Reports by Transparency Market Research:

Protein Expression Market: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/protein-expression-market.html

DNA Chip Market: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/dna-chip-market.html

Neurodiagnostics Market: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/neurodiagnostics-market.html

About Us

Transparency Market Research is a next-generation market intelligence provider, offering fact-based solutions to business leaders, consultants, and strategy professionals.

Our reports are single-point solutions for businesses to grow, evolve, and mature. Our real-time data collection methods along with ability to track more than one million high growth niche products are aligned with your aims. The detailed and proprietary statistical models used by our analysts offer insights for making right decision in the shortest span of time. For organizations that require specific but comprehensive information we offer customized solutions through ad hoc reports. These requests are delivered with the perfect combination of right sense of fact-oriented problem solving methodologies and leveraging existing data repositories.

TMR believes that unison of solutions for clients-specific problems with right methodology of research is the key to help enterprises reach right decision.

Contact

Mr. Rohit BhiseyTransparency Market Research

State Tower,

90 State Street,

Suite 700,

Albany NY - 12207

United States

USA - Canada Toll Free: 866-552-3453

Email: sales@transparencymarketresearch.com

Website: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/

Read more:
COVID-19 Sample Collection Kits Market: Increase in prevalence of COVID-19 to drive the market - BioSpace

Zhibing Zhang, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of the C.S. Mott Center for Human Growth and Development at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, has been selected to serve as guest editor for an upcoming special issue of the journal Cells.

The special issue, Molecular Mechanism of Ciliogenesis/Spermatogenesis, is scheduled to be published in 2021, and is now accepting manuscripts for consideration.

Dr. Zhang, also an associate professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, researches the issues topic, the process in which male germ cells proliferate and differentiate to produce spermatozoa.

Cells is an international peer-reviewed journal publishing articles pertaining to cell biology, molecular biology and biophysics.

Serving with Dr. Zhang as guest editors on the special edition are Zine-Eddine Kherraf, M.D., Ph.D., of the French Institute of Health and Medical Research, and Shuiqiao Yuan, Ph.D., of the Institute of Reproductive Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, in China.

Originally posted here:
Dr. Zhang selected to edit special issue of Cells journal - The South End

This week, two high-profile, late-stage clinical trials Johnson & Johnsons test of a coronavirus vaccine and Eli Lillys study of a COVID-19 drug were put on pause because of possible safety concerns. Just a month earlier, AstraZenecas vaccine trial was paused after two volunteers became seriously ill.

Clinical trials experts said these delays were comforting, in a way: They show that the researchers were following proper safety procedures. But for now, details about the nature of the volunteers illnesses are scant. And although pauses of vaccine trials are not unusual, some experts said that pausing treatment trials like that of Eli Lillys antibody drug is rarer and perhaps more worrisome.

That trial was testing the treatment on hospitalized patients a group that was already sick and in which declines in health would not be surprising. So for a trial like that one to be paused, the safety concerns must have been significant, they said.

For now, the companies behind the trials arent saying much. In a statement in September, AstraZeneca said it paused its trial to investigate a single event of an unexplained illness. But two vaccinated volunteers reportedly developed the same condition, an inflammation of the spinal cord called transverse myelitis.

Johnson & Johnson said that it was pausing its vaccine trial because of an unexplained illness. Eli Lillys trial of the antibody treatment was paused because of a so far undisclosed health difference between the group that received the drug and the group that received a placebo.

When people volunteer for a late-stage trial, known as phase three, they randomly get a treatment or a placebo, and neither they nor their doctor knows which one they received. In the weeks that follow, theyre carefully monitored. People in a vaccine trial may get a checkup each month and record any symptoms they experience in a journal. People who get a drug while theyre hospitalized may be given blood tests and medical exams.

Mild symptoms, like a minor rash or a headache, arent enough to pause a trial. But when investigators notice a serious problem known as an adverse event they have to report it to the sponsoring companies. And the sponsors then have to report to both the Food and Drug Administration and their independent advisers, known as data and safety monitoring boards.

If the board or the company judges the adverse event to be particularly concerning, they may put the trial on pause even without yet knowing if the event happened to someone who got the treatment or the placebo.

Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the FDAs vaccine advisory panel, said that pausing a trial is a huge logistical challenge especially for one like Johnson & Johnsons, with plans for 60,000 volunteers in 10 countries.

Its this big warship that you just stop moving, Offit said.

Once a trial is paused, a safety board may ask for a volunteer who experienced an adverse event to be unblinded in other words, to find out if the volunteer got the placebo or the treatment. If the volunteer received a placebo, then the treatment cant be the cause of the event, and the trial can continue.

If it turns out that the volunteer got the treatment, the board does a flurry of detective work. The members look over the medical records. They may ask for more information about volunteers health or even order new tests not just for the people who experienced adverse events, but for everyone in the trial.

The board uses this evidence to come to a conclusion about whether the treatment most likely had anything to do with the event. On very rare occasions, for example, some vaccines can cause a nerve disorder called Guillain-Barr syndrome. But the condition takes weeks to develop. If a volunteer shows signs of Guillain-Barr syndrome on the day of a vaccine injection, it cant be the cause.

Regulators then review the decision of these boards and may accept it or ask for more information. For trials that are running in several countries at once, this review can make pausing a trial even more of a challenge. After AstraZeneca paused its global trials Sept. 6 for a review, regulators in Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa and the United Kingdom all gave the green light for the trial to resume. But American regulators are still keeping the U.S. trial on pause as they continue to look over the evidence.

If a safety board rules that an adverse event most likely was not a result of the vaccine or treatment, it may allow the trial to start up again. If, on the other hand, theres some urgent problem a contaminated batch of drugs, for example the trial may have to stop. When the evidence isnt so clear, the board may let the trial resume with extra tests or exams. A second case of the same event might be more common than you would expect from chance, forcing the trial to end.

But there are some important differences in the way pauses work in trials for vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZenecas and for drugs like Eli Lillys. Vaccines are designed to be given to millions or billions of healthy people, so they require extreme safety. If even one person in a vaccine trial gets sick, that warrants a closer look.

It is not at all uncommon for this to happen, said Dr. Anna Durbin, a professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In the vast majority of cases, the trial continues.

And in a trial as big as Johnson & Johnsons, you expect some sort of adverse event to happen, regardless of the potential risks of the treatment being tested. It would be strange if investigators reported nothing. Then youre concerned that the surveillance system for adverse events isnt working, said Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health.

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a vaccine expert and professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, was not surprised that two vaccine trials were paused. After all, a huge number of vaccine candidates 43 to date are being tested in clinical trials. Many of them are based on cutting-edge designs that have never been licensed before. It means a lot of new ground is being broken, he said, so people are being doubly careful.

But pauses of treatment trials are not as common. Theres a simple reason for the difference: The people getting drugs have a disease, sometimes a very serious one. For Eli Lillys trial, for example, researchers are only recruiting people who are already hospitalized with COVID-19. In such a group of seriously ill people, even a death would, sadly, not come as a great shock.

As a result, the evidence for an adverse event often has to reach a higher bar to pause a drug trial. Indeed, that seems to be the case with the paused COVID-19 trials. One patient was enough to cause Johnson & Johnson to halt its trial. But a National Institutes of Health spokesperson said the Eli Lilly trial was paused because the safety board found that the patients who had received the antibodies showed a different clinical status than those who had received a placebo.

Dr. Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, is still hopeful about the antibody treatment. He observed that both Eli Lilly and another company, Regeneron, have already given monoclonal antibodies to thousands of people with COVID-19 without any previous reports of problems (although some of the trials were on people with relatively mild cases). Im still fairly optimistic, he said.

Although pausing trials is a standard procedure, its not a familiar one. Before the pandemic focused the worlds attention on clinical trials, researchers would pause trials and investigate adverse events without much notice. If a paused trial has to be abandoned, that pause might get mentioned a year later in a scientific paper about the trial.

But if a trial resumes and ends successfully, then the pause may just seem like an irrelevant detail. You may very well never mention that, said Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

But in a pandemic especially one in which the president of the United States claims without justification that a vaccine will be ready by Election Day and that monoclonal antibodies are a miraculous cure for COVID-19 these pauses are drawing attention like never before. That is something we are not used to at all, Friede said.

Nevertheless, Friede said, it is vital that researchers stick to their protocols, no matter the pressure they feel to speed things up. Thats a very difficult situation to be in, but I think its very important that we keep up the standards, he said.

No matter what the outcome of the pauses, many experts found the caution heartening. It shows me that people are taking safety very seriously, Durbin said. This is an example of how things are supposed to work.

Read this article:
3 COVID-19 trials have been paused for safety. Thats a good thing - Bangalore Mirror

[A new study suggests] that improving vitamin D status in the general population, and in particular in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, could help to reduce the severity of COVID-19 disease and associated deaths. The study, reported inPLOS ONE, found that hospitalized COVID-19 patients who had sufficient vitamin Di.e., they had blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of at least 30 ng/mLhad a significantly lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including becoming unconscious, hypoxia, and death, than patients who were vitamin D deficient.

In addition, patients who were vitamin D sufficient had lower blood levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein, and higher blood lymphocyte levels. This study provides direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce the complications, including the cytokine storm (release of too many proteins into the blood too quickly) and ultimately death from COVID-19, commented Michael F. Holick, PhD, MD, professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics and molecular medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.

Vitamin D interaction with its receptor in immune cells modulates the innate and acquired immune systems in response to invasion of bacterial and viral pathogens. Vitamin D also modulates the renin-angiotensin pathway and downregulates ACE2. Therefore, vitamin D might help in treatment of COVID-19 by preventing the cytokine storm and subsequent ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome] which is commonly the cause of mortality, the authors commented.

Read the original post

Excerpt from:
Vitamin D shown to reduce severe symptoms of COVID - Genetic Literacy Project

GAITHERSBURG, Md., Oct. 15, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- OpGen, Inc.. (Nasdaq: OPGN, OpGen), a precision medicine company harnessing the power of molecular diagnostics and bioinformatics to help combat infectious disease, announced today that total preliminary unaudited revenue for the third quarter of 2020 was approximately $1.0 million, up from $648 thousand in the third quarter of 2019. The preliminary financial results for the three months ended September 30, 2020 reflect the consummation of our business combination with Curetis GmbH on April 1, 2020. The results for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 will be included in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and earnings release for the third quarter of 2020. OpGens cash as of September 30, 2020 was approximately $10.4 million. The company also expanded its capacity under its ATM program by an additional $6.4 million, and continues to have access to an additional EUR5.0 million tranche of non-dilutive debt financing for COVID-19 related R&D programs from the European Investment Bank.

In addition, the company announced details regarding a strategic reprioritization of its product portfolio, platform pipeline and priorities going forward. This reprioritization was based on feedback from extensive market research, a customer survey of 150 stakeholders in the decision making on new diagnostic platforms, and key opinion leader interviews conducted by an independent market research firm over the past two quarters. Following a review of this research, OpGen and its Board decided to consolidate the companys product portfolio on its proprietary Unyvero platform and unique bioinformatics capabilities. As a result of this change in priority, the company anticipates the following key impacts:

The company also announced accomplishment of the following key milestones in the third quarter of 2020 and year to date:

Oliver Schacht, President & CEO of OpGen commented, OpGen reported a solid third quarter given the persistent challenging environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to announcing the CE mark certification for our SARS-CoV-2 Kit, we also highlighted the publication of several peer-reviewed studies. We believe that following the portfolio consolidation and strategic product pipeline decisions taken by the board, OpGen along with its subsidiary companies Curetis GmbH and Ares Genetics GmbH has a focused molecular diagnostics platform strategy and growing emphasis on bioinformatics offerings that will further generate shareholder value. I am truly excited about the future prospect of this company and I am convinced that our strategic initiatives will provide strong growth opportunities and secure our future as a global leader in infectious diseases and AMR diagnostics.

The preliminary financial results are estimates prior to the completion of OpGensfinancial closing procedures and review procedures by its external auditors and therefore may be subject to adjustment when the actual results are available.

About OpGen, Inc.

OpGen, Inc. (Gaithersburg, MD, USA) is a precision medicine company harnessing the power of molecular diagnostics and bioinformatics to help combat infectious disease. Along with subsidiaries, Curetis GmbH and Ares Genetics GmbH, we are developing and commercializing molecular microbiology solutions helping to guide clinicians with more rapid and actionable information about life threatening infections to improve patient outcomes, and decrease the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms, or MDROs. OpGens product portfolio includes Unyvero, Acuitas AMR Gene Panel and Acuitas Lighthouse, and the ARES Technology Platform including ARESdb, using NGS technology and AI-powered bioinformatics solutions for antibiotic response prediction.

For more information, please visit http://www.opgen.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes statements regarding OpGens third quarter 2020 results, the companys strategic portfolio and product pipeline priorities, the ongoing integration of OpGen with its acquired subsidiaries, Curetis GmbH and Ares Genetics GmbH, and the impact of COVID-19 on the company and general market conditions. These statements and other statements regarding OpGens future plans and goals constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that are often difficult to predict, are beyond our control, and which may cause results to differ materially from expectations. Factors that could cause our results to differ materially from those described include, but are not limited to, our ability to successfully, timely and cost-effectively develop, seek and obtain regulatory clearance for and commercialize our product and services offerings, the rate of adoption of our products and services by hospitals and other healthcare providers, the realization of expected benefits of our business combination transaction with Curetis GmbH, the success of our commercialization efforts, the impact of COVID-19 on the Companys operations, financial results, and commercialization efforts as well as on capital markets and general economic conditions, the effect on our business of existing and new regulatory requirements, and other economic and competitive factors. For a discussion of the most significant risks and uncertainties associated with OpGen's business, please review our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are based on our expectations as of the date of this press release and speak only as of the date of this press release. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

OpGen:Oliver SchachtPresident and CEOInvestorRelations@opgen.com

OpGen Press Contact:Matthew BretziusFischTank Marketing and PRmatt@fischtankpr.com

OpGen Investor Contact:Megan PaulEdison Groupmpaul@edisongroup.com

Read the original post:
OpGen Provides Business and Pipeline Update and Announces Preliminary Unaudited Revenue and Cash Position for the Third Quarter 2020 - BioSpace

"We're delighted to collaborate with Taisho pharmaceutical, a well-recognized leader in the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare sector. It is believed that aging is a universal phenomenon that we cannot stop. However, emerging scientific evidence has shown that one may be able to reverse some of the age-associated processes. Through this collaboration, we will adopt our AI-powered drug discovery suites together with Taisho's validation platform to explore the new space of anti-aging solutions," said Jimmy Yen-Chu Lin, PhD, CEO of Insilico Medicine Taiwan, a fully-owned subsidiary of Insilico Medicine

Under the terms of the agreement, Insilico Medicine will receive an upfront payment and milestone payments upon achievement of specified goals. Insilico Medicine will be responsible for early research phase target identification and molecular generation and Taisho will work collaboratively with Insilico in validating the results in various in vitro and in vivo assays. Taisho has the exclusive option to acquire Insilico's co-ownership of the successfully developed programs under agreed payment.

"It is our great honor to be collaborating with the scientists of Taisho Pharmaceutical, one of the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in the world operating since 1912. The high level of the scientists we are interfacing, and our previous successes in the application of the Pharma.AI platform for discovery of novel targets and molecules in fibrosis, and previous experience in senolytic drug discovery give us confidence that this collaboration will be successful," said Alex Zhavoronkov, PhD, founder and CEO of Insilico Medicine.

About Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

https://www.taisho.co.jp/global/

Media Contact

For further information, images or interviews, please contact:

[emailprotected]

About Insilico Medicine

Since 2014 Insilico Medicine is focusing on generative models, reinforcement learning (RL), and other modern machine learning techniques for the generation of new molecular structures with the specified parameters, generation of synthetic biological data, target identification, and prediction of clinical trials outcomes. Recently, Insilico Medicine secured $37 million in series B funding. Since its inception, Insilico Medicine raised over $52 million, published over 100 peer-reviewed papers, applied for over 25 patents, and received multiple industry awards. Website http://insilico.com/

Photo - https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1312850/Insilico_Taisho.jpg

http://insilico.com

SOURCE Insilico Medicine Hong Kong Limited

Link:
Insilico partners with Taisho on end-to-end AI-powered senolytic drug discovery - PR Newswire India

Two Americans and one British-born scientist now working in Canada have won the 2020 Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology on Monday for their discovery of the hepatitis C virus.

Thomas Perlmann, secretary of the Nobel Committee and professor of molecular development biology at the Karolinska Institute, announced the award at a ceremony in Stockholm.

Harvey Alter of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., Michael Houghton the University of Alberta in Canada, and Charles Rice of Rockefeller University in New York City share the prize.

advertisement

Their work has helped speed the fight against blood-borne hepatitis, a major global health problem that causes cirrhosis and liver cancer in people around the world. Their discovery has also allowed for the rapid development of antiviral drugs directed at hepatitis C.

The discovery of hepatitis C virus was important for public health in two ways, biochemist Jeremy Berg, professor of computational and systems biology at the University at Pittsburgh and former director of the NIHs National Institute of General Medical Sciences, told STAT. First, the discovery enabled testing for screening blood for the agent that was responsible for blood-borne transmission of hepatitis and liver cancer risk. Second, knowledge of the causative agent facilitated drug development, particularly protease inhibitors that can treat existing hepatitis C virus infections and cure the disease in many cases.

advertisement

Thanks to their discovery, highly sensitive blood tests for the virus are now available and these have essentially eliminated post-transfusion hepatitis in many parts of the world, greatly improving global health, the Nobel Prize committee said in its announcement. For the first time in history, the disease can now be cured, raising hopes of eradicating Hepatitis C virus from the world population.

The three laureates will share 10million Swedish kronor, or about $1.07 million. Their names are added to a list of medicine Nobel winners that includes 222 men and 12 women.

Hepatitis, defined as liver inflammation, is usually caused by a viral infection, although alcohol misuse, environmental toxins, and autoimmune disease can also lead to the same condition. Hepatitis A comes from contaminated food or polluted water, but the illness it causes is relatively brief in duration. Hepatitis C, like hepatitis B, is a blood-borne infection, bringing acute illness to some people but chronic disease to 71 million people around the world, according to WHO estimates.

This is the second Nobel Prize awarded for a hepatitis discovery. In the 1960s, Baruch Blumberg, who identified what became known as the blood-borne hepatitis B virus, won the prize in 1976. Baruch laid the groundwork for the development of diagnostic tests and an effective vaccine.

Alter had also been studying hepatitis in patients who had received blood transfusions. Tests based on Baruchs work could diagnose transfusion-related hepatitis B, but they still couldnt explain a large number of cases. Tests for hepatitis A virus infection were also developed around this time, but could not account for these cases. Alter and his NIH colleagues proved that this was something different when they showed that blood from these hepatitis patients could transmit the disease to chimpanzees, the only susceptible host besides humans. Later studies determined that this infectious agent was indeed a virus and the disease was a new, distinct form of chronic viral hepatitis that became known as non-A, non-B hepatitis.

Michael Houghton, then working for the pharmaceutical firm Chiron, took the next steps to isolate the genetic sequence of the virus. That meant collecting DNA fragments from nucleic acids found in the blood of an infected chimpanzee, on the theory that they would contain some genetic material from the unknown virus. Houghton and his team used sera from hepatitis patients to identify the virus based on their suspicion that the patients blood would contain antibodies to the virus.

They did find one clone and later showed that it was derived from a novel RNA virus belonging to the flavivirus family and it was named hepatitis C virus. The antibodies in chronic hepatitis patients were the smoking gun pointing toward this virus as the missing agent.

Rice, while a researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, then worked to answer an essential question: Could this clone alone cause hepatitis C? Rice and other groups had zeroed in on one end of the cloned viral genome that hadnt been characterized. There were some variations that made it difficult for the virus to replicate, so he genetically engineered an RNA variant of hepatitis C virus that included the newly defined region of the viral genome and subtracted the inactivating genetic variations. When this RNA was injected into the liver of chimpanzees, virus was detected in the blood, as were the kind of pathological changes seen in humans with the chronic disease. This was the final proof that hepatitis C virus alone could cause the unexplained cases of transfusion-mediated hepatitis.

Rice was previously honored for his studies of hepatitis C replication with the 2016 Lasker Award, often called a precursor to the Nobel. He shared that prize with Ralf Bartenschlager of the University of Heidelberg and Michael Sofia, formerly at Pharmasset and now at Arbutus Biopharma.

And Alter and Houghton shared an earlier Lasker Award, in 2000, for their hepatitis C work, furthering the Laskers reputation as a Nobel predictor. The prize recognized Alters work identifying non-A, non-B hepatitis and Houghtons use of then-early molecular biology methods to isolate the virus.

In 2013, Houghton turned down $100,000 in prize money from the Gairdner Foundation for a prize recognizing the same work because it did not include two colleagues: Qui-Lim Choo and George Kuo, who worked with him at Chiron when they identified and cloned the hepatitis C virus.

I agonized over it, Houghton told The Globe and Mail of accepting another prize in which his colleagues were not named. And I decided I didnt want to do that again.

The three of us worked closely together for almost seven years to discover this very elusive and challenging virus using a novel approach in the field of infectious disease, he told the Canadian Press at the time of the Gairdner prize. The Canadian award is also considered a Nobel bellwether.

In a conference call with reporters Monday morning, Houghton said he would accept the Nobel Prize and his share of the money. It would be really too presumptuous of me to turn down a Nobel, he said, citing the Nobels traditions and regulations drawn from the will of its creator, Alfred Nobel. Most big inventions, not all of them, but most involve many people, and I worked for six or seven years with two colleagues at Chiron Corp. in California, and without their input I doubt I would have succeeded.

This story has been updated with detail on the laureates research.

Sharon Begley contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Trio wins Nobel Prize in medicine for discovery of hepatitis C virus - STAT