Search Immortality Topics:

Page 11234..1020..»


Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Why I Got the Russian Vaccine – The New York Times

MOSCOW A nurse, needle in hand, asked me brusquely if I was ready. I said yes. A quick injection followed, then instructions to wait a half-hour in the hospital corridor for the possibility of anaphylactic shock, which thankfully never came.

Last Monday, I put aside my misgivings and got the first dose of Russias coronavirus vaccine, called Sputnik V, made at a factory outside of Moscow from genetically modified human cold viruses.

Like so much else in Russia, the rollout of Sputnik V was entangled in politics and propaganda, with President Vladimir V. Putin announcing its approval for use even before late-stage trials began. For months, it was pilloried by Western scientists. Like many Russian citizens distrustful of the new vaccine, saying they would wait to see how things turned out before getting it themselves, I had my doubts.

Consider how the rollout went: With the approval back in August, Russian health officials were quick to assert they had won the vaccine race, just as the country had won the space race decades ago with the Sputnik satellite. In fact, at the time, several other vaccine candidates were further along in testing.

A series of misleading announcements followed. The vaccines backers claimed a national inoculation campaign would begin in September, then in November; it ramped up only last month, no earlier than the kickoff of vaccinations in Britain and the United States.

Then came suspicions aired in foreign reporting that the Russian government, already eyed warily in medical matters over accusations of poisoning dissidents and doping Olympic athletes, was now cooking the books on vaccine trial results, perhaps for reasons of national pride or marketing.

As if to outperform the perceived competition, when Pfizer and the German pharmaceutical company BioNTech reported trial results showing more than 91 percent efficacy for their candidate vaccine, the Kremlin-connected financial company backing Sputnik V asserted its trials showed 92 percent efficacy.

When Moderna then reported 94.1 percent efficacy, the Russian company again claimed superiority, saying it achieved 95 percent. Officials later conceded, when the late-stage trials were complete, that Sputnik Vs results showed an efficacy rate of 91.4 percent.

But from the perspective of a recipient, did that matter? The final reported result still offers a nine out of 10 chance of avoiding Covid-19, once the vaccine has taken effect. Skepticism from Western experts focused mostly on the questionable early approval, not the vaccines design, which is similar to the one produced by Oxford University and AstraZeneca.

While public apprehension hasnt completely subsided, and the developers have yet to release detailed data on adverse events observed during the trials, the Russian government has now vaccinated about one million of its own citizens and exported Sputnik V to Belarus, Argentina and other countries, suggesting that any harmful side effects overlooked during trials would by now have come to light.

In the end, the politicized rollout only served to obscure the essentially good trial results what appears to be a bona fide accomplishment for Russian scientists continuing a long and storied practice of vaccine development.

In the Soviet period, tamping down infectious diseases was a public health priority at home and exporting vaccines to the developing world an element of Cold War diplomacy.

While the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.

Life will return to normal only when society as a wholegains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, theyll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But its also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing theyre infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists dont yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.

Yes, but not forever. The two vaccines that will potentially get authorized this month clearly protect people from getting sick with Covid-19. But the clinical trials that delivered these results were not designed to determine whether vaccinated people could still spread the coronavirus without developing symptoms. That remains a possibility. We know that people who are naturally infected by the coronavirus can spread it while theyre not experiencing any cough or other symptoms. Researcherswill be intensely studying this question as the vaccines roll out. In the meantime, even vaccinated people will need to think of themselves as possible spreaders.

The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection wont be any different from ones youve gotten before. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. But some of them have felt short-lived discomfort, including aches and flu-like symptoms that typically last a day. Its possible that people may need to plan to take a day off work or school after the second shot. While these experiences arent pleasant, they are a good sign: they are the result of your own immune system encountering the vaccine and mounting a potent response that will provide long-lasting immunity.

No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell's enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.

The Soviet Union and United States cooperated in eliminating smallpox through vaccination. Virology was central to the Soviet Unions biological weapons program, which continued in secrecy long after a 1975 treaty banned the weapons.

In 1959, a husband-and-wife team of Soviet scientists successfully tested the first live polio virus vaccine using their own children as the first trial subjects. That followed a Russian tradition of medical researchers testing potentially harmful products on themselves first.

Last spring, the chief developer of Sputnik V, Aleksandr L. Gintsburg, followed in this custom by injecting himself even before the announcement that animal trials had wrapped up.

Russian promoters have compared the vaccine to the Kalashnikov rifle, simple and effective in its operation. I was even lucky in avoiding some of the common side effects of Sputnik V, such as a raging headache or a fever.

With many of my fears alleviated, another reason I chose to get inoculated with a product of Russian genetic engineering was more basic: It was available. Russian clinics have not been dogged by the lines or logistical snafus reported at vaccination sites in the United States and other countries.

In Moscow, the best days of winter come in early January as the country slumbers through a weeklong holiday, the traffic thins and the citys bustling chaos gives way to a quiet, snowy beauty. Vaccination sites were also lightly attended.

Russias vaccination campaign began with medical workers and teachers and then expanded. It is now open to people older than 60 or with underlying conditions that render them vulnerable to more severe disease, and to people working in a widening list of professions deemed to be at high risk: bank tellers, city government workers, professional athletes, bus drivers, police officers and, conveniently for me, journalists. Its unclear whether Russias production capacity is sufficient to meet demand long term.

For now, with so many Russians deeply skeptical of their medical system and the vaccine, there is no great clamor for the shot. The first site I visited, while reporting back in December, closed early because so few people had turned up.

In the capital, the vaccine has, paradoxically, appealed to educated people, a group that is traditionally a hotbed of political opposition to Mr. Putin, the chief promoter of the vaccine. When it came to a decision about health, many rolled up their sleeves.

I got the second component of Sputnik in my shoulder, Andrei Desnitsky, an academic at the Institute of Oriental Studies who has been chronicling his experience with vaccination, wrote on Facebook.

To followers posting comments, he said, hysterics in the style of You sold out, you bastard, to the bloody regime and They take us all for idiots, will be deleted.

Like Mr. Desnitsky, I was willing to take my chances. At Polyclinic No. 5 on a snowy morning, I filled out a form asking about chronic diseases, blood disorders or heart ailments. I showed my press pass as proof of my profession. A doctor asked a few questions about allergies. I waited an hour or so for my turn in a beige-tiled hospital corridor.

Sitting nearby was Galina Chupyl, a 65-year-old municipal worker. What did she think of getting vaccinated?

I am happy, of course, she said. Nobody wants to get sick.

I agreed.

Excerpt from:
Why I Got the Russian Vaccine - The New York Times

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Why I Got the Russian Vaccine – The New York Times

What the emerging new strain of the Coronavirus means for the vaccine – WATN – Local 24

A local doctor explains what's in the COVID-19 vaccine and how it works.

MEMPHIS, Tenn Concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine remain.

It's the first vaccine without a living virus, but some are concerned over what's in the COVID-19 vaccine.

"This vaccine is the result of, really, some genetic engineering. They are able to sequence the virus, decode it and find the genetic code for just a part of the virus, specifically the spike that is located on the outside of the virus," said Dr. Bruce Randolph of the Shelby County Health Department.

He says that's the part of the virus that attaches to the human cell.

Worried the vaccine arrived too soon?

COVID-19 may have entered American consciousness about 9 months ago, but scientists have studied different forms of the Coronavirus for years.

The variations go back some 10-thousand years.

Researchers are also keeping an eye on a new variant called B-1-17 found in a few states, but not yet in Tennessee.

"This particular virus is five times more easier to transmit than the Coronavirus we are dealing with at the current time," said Randolph.

For example, Randolph explains if COVID-19 takes 100 droplets for infection, this new strain might only take 10.

With 72-thousand COVID cases just reported in Shelby County a new strain would cause great concern.

"If this variant strain hit Shelby County those number could be as much as 5 times higher," said Randolph.

Researchers believe the current vaccine will provide immunity for that new strain.

the Memphis-Shelby County task force are urging everybody to get educated, talk to your doctor, get vaccinated and keep up with your card.

"You would be able to go wherever and present your card and say I need my second dose and the provider would know exactly when you last received, if it's indeed time for you to receive your second dose and what vaccine you received because you shouldn't mix them."

Read the original post:
What the emerging new strain of the Coronavirus means for the vaccine - WATN - Local 24

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on What the emerging new strain of the Coronavirus means for the vaccine – WATN – Local 24

Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? – Gizmodo

Illustration: Benjamin Currie/Gizmodo

Earlier this year, a research team made waves by suggesting that we should disseminate Earths microbes on Mars in a preemptive effort to foster a climate hospitable to human life. To the anti-contamination school of celestial thought, this was heresy; to the most others, this was an obscure theoretical squabble over an issue theyd never heard about. Still, given that our descendants may well spend their most productive years on Mars, its worth trying to grasp these early, pre-colonial debates before they assume life-or-death urgency. To that end, for this weeks Giz Asks weve posed a two-parter to a number of relevant experts. First: Could we populate another planet with genetically modified organisms? Second: Should we?

Associate Professor, Anthropology, York University, whose research focuses on the social and ethical aspects of space exploration, among other things

We probably could; we probably shouldnt. But first, its worth asking: whos we?

Discussion of space and the future often involves a rhetorical we that encompasses all humanity or our species. But its time to think differently about space. There is no big we here. For the foreseeable future, only a very few human beings will have the capability to launch or act in spaceand only a very few human beings have the ability to genetically modify other organisms. And obviously, that tiny contingent of humans invents and develops these technologies with the general intention of using them.

That tiny contingent of humans does not include me. I have opinions. But I dont have a vote. And thats true for the vast majority of people reading this. That matters, because when a space agency, space advocacy group, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, etc., says We should do X or Y in space theyre using traditional rhetoric that encourages audiences to think that we (the rest of humanity) are a part of what theyre doing. Clarity on this matters a lot now, as multilateralism is either faltering or collapsing, the capabilities of private actors are accelerating, and the likelihood of unilateral actions increases. There are a multitude of different interests in space, and a multitude of ideologies and capabilitiesnot one we.

Anyway, in theory, yes, some humans could introduce some genetically modified organisms onto another planet. (Full-on terraforming is much less feasible.) Not all planets would be suitable, but some might be. Human technology cannot yet physically reach the myriad planets outside our solar system, but miniscule interstellar probes carrying dormant microbial payloads and pointed at exoplanets are theoretically possible. But for the moment, the most likely targets would be the planets (and moons) in our own solar system. So:

Should some humans populate a world in our solar system with GM organisms? Nooooooooo. At the very least, not yet. Reason #1: many would regard this as a breach of the Outer Space Treaty. Reason #2: some of those worlds might have life already, and its much better to find it and study it thoroughly first. Reason #3: Perhaps other worlds have their own intrinsic value regardless of their liveliness. Worth considering, at least.

Further away: should some humans populate an exoplanet with GM organisms? A louder Noooooooooooooo. Louder because theres an unnerving asymmetry: it could be faster/easier to send a payload-laden micro-probe to an exoplanet than to study the exoplanet thoroughly first. Also, human beings are not going to exoplanets anytime soonif everwhich negates a main justification for doing this kind of bioengineering.

G/O Media may get a commission

Senior Scientist, SETI Institute

Take Mars, Europa, and Enceladuseach of which appear to have water tucked out of the way, below thick ice layers (although not always hiddenthere are plumes). We probably could modify an Earth organism, or suite of organisms, to live in such places for some limited period of time, but I couldnt guarantee you could populate one of those places with GMOs. Unless you were tremendously lucky, the Earth organisms might eat all of the minerals in reach, and then stage a massive die-off that would be tremendously yucky and pointless. And if you were that lucky, there might be native organisms that would just eat your GMO additions and yield a polite burp of methane and leave it at that. Right now we dont know enough to do something useful with GMOs at any alien place (and only a few on Earth).

There are lots of ways in which we are too ignorant to do anything useful with this scheme, and of course not knowing how ignorant we are is one of them. We do not need to give up on a search for life elsewhere in this solar system just because some microbiologists have a tool and no patience. And we dont need to take shortcuts in pursuing such a search so that we lose that scientific pursuit just because it is hard to do without inadvertent (let alone purposeful) contamination of the best sites.

Professor of Planetary Habitability and Astrobiology at Technical University Berlin, President of the German Astrobiology Society, and Co-author of The Cosmic Zoo: Complex Life on Many Worlds

I dont think were there yet, in two senses. We dont know the environmental conditions of other planets well enough, and we dont know how to optimally tune the genetic code of an organism to thrive in that extraterrestrial environment. The only planet where I see this as a possibility in the near future is Mars, which we know best of all the planets and moons in our Solar System.

But even if we can do it, I dont think we should. It would be a very human-centric approach. Instead, we should try to explore the diversity of life that may exist on other planetary targets. In regard to Mars, that would mean exploring whether indigenous (microbial) life exists, and if so, studying how it is different from life on Earth. (Even if there is a common origin, evolution in the different planetary environments would still have resulted in significant organismic changes.)

Mars (and any other planet or moon potentially harboring life) has many microenvironments that may contain life; to conclusively prove that there is no indigenous life at all, anywhere on the planet, may be close to impossible, at least for the foreseeable future (and especially given our current ignoranceafter all, we only know about one type of life). As long as the possibility of indigenous life cannot be excluded, populating Mars or any other planet with genetically modified organisms is out of the question.

If we encounter a habitable planetand one which we know for sure is uninhabitedthe question becomes harder to answer. We can come to that when the situation ariseswhich it wont for a very long time.

Professor and Principle Investigator of the Ohio Musculoskeletal & Neurological Institute and Emeritus Professor of Space Biology at Nottingham University

Indeed we could. We have the capability to land robots on other planets. Currently we sterilize these to prevent accidentally contaminating other planets with microscopic life forms. If we wanted to not sterilize or deliberately send microscopic life to other planets, this is fairly easy to do. Similarly, labs on Earth routinely make and use genetically modified microscopic life forms. Thus, it is also fairly easy to send GMO microscopic life forms to other planets.

Whether we should is the more difficult question. Who benefits from doing this, and who loses out? Do the benefits outweigh the losses? If this is done to allow human habitation of another planet, then potentially all of humanity gainswhereas those aspects of planetary science that want/need to study a natural planet lose out. If this is done to allow for the commercial/financial gain of a few, does that outweigh the loss to science?

Assistant Professor of Astronomy and Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona

It depends on the planet. An exoplanet around a star system is probably out of reach with current technology.

If the candidate planet is in our solar system, such as Marsperhaps. It becomes a question of: For how much, or how long, are you willing to provide technological assistance to create a habitable volume elsewhere? The engineered organisms will most likely be severely restricted in the range of places they can inhabit. So far as we know, no amount of genetic engineering will enable terrestrial organisms to survive under freezing temperature and extreme soil oxidation conditions, such as those found in the Martian environment.

Subsurface ocean worlds such as Enceladus or Europa might work, but we havent precisely characterized their habitability, and it is difficult to foresee how the organisms would be delivered there if the shell of ice is kilometers thick.

That being said, genetically engineering organisms and evolving them under various conditions may allow us to understand the limits of life here on Earth.

Do you have a burning question for Giz Asks? Email us at tipbox@gizmodo.com.

More:
Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? - Gizmodo

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Could We Populate Another Planet With Genetically Modified Organisms? – Gizmodo

‘The Pattern Seekers’: What autism can tell us about the evolutionary tipping point that made us human – Genetic Literacy Project

[In The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention, psychologist Simon] Baron-Cohen argues that humans split off from all other animals to become the scientific and technological masters of our planet because we evolved a unique piece of mental equipment that he calls the Systemizing Mechanism While everyone has a Systemizing Mechanism, its tuned especially high in people who are inventors and in those drawn to fields like science, engineering, music, competitive sports, high-level business and often, too, in people with autism.

Heres how the mechanism works: Humans alone observe the world and ask questions that demand why, how and what They use those patterns to build theories, which they then repeatedly test, looking always for systems to further employ and exploit.

As Baron-Cohen describes it, the Systemizing Mechanism is so all-powerful, it explains evolutionary change, historic progress and individual excellence including, for example, the ancient shift from simple to complex tool use, the invention of the light bulb and the late Kobe Bryants highly regimented training schedule. Its true, all these scenarios can be described as looping sequences of if-and-then reasoning. But its a much greater leap to show that this is the main engine of evolution, or that it demonstrates how human brains work in real time, or that the two things have much in common.

[Editors note: Find The Patter Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention here.]

Read the original post

View post:
'The Pattern Seekers': What autism can tell us about the evolutionary tipping point that made us human - Genetic Literacy Project

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on ‘The Pattern Seekers’: What autism can tell us about the evolutionary tipping point that made us human – Genetic Literacy Project

Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change – Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 – Forecast to…

DUBLIN, Jan. 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

CRISPR Technology Global Market Report 2020-30: COVID-19 Growth and Change provides the strategists, marketers and senior management with the critical information they need to assess the global crispr technology market.

Major players in the CRISPR technology market are Thermo Fisher Scientific, GenScript Biotech Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Horizon Discovery Plc., Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Danaher), Origene Technologies, Inc., Transposagenbio Biopharmaceuticals (Hera Biolabs), Intellia Therapeutics Inc., and GeneCopoeia, Inc.

The global CRISPR technology market is expected to increase from $0.76 billion in 2019 to $0.92 billion in 2020 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.91%. The exponential growth is mainly due to the COVID-19 outbreak that has led to the research for drugs for COVID-19 with gene-editing using CRISPR technology. The market is expected to reach $1.55 billion in 2023 at a CAGR of 19.13%.

The CRISPR technology market consists of sales of CRISPR technology products and services which is a gene-editing technology that allows researchers to alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. The revenue generated by the market includes the sales of products such as design tools, plasmid & vector, Cas9 & gRNA, libraries & delivery system products and services that include design & vector construction, screening and cell line engineering.

These products and services are used in genome editing/genetic engineering, genetically modifying organisms, agricultural biotechnology and others which include gRNA database/gene library, CRISPR plasmid, human stem cell & cell line engineering by end-users. The end-users include pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic & research institutes and contract research organizations.

North America was the largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019. Europe was the second-largest region in the CRISPR technology market in 2019.

In 2019, Cardea Bio Inc., a US-based biotechnology infrastructure company that manufactures biology-gated transistors (Cardean transistors) that utilizes biocompatible graphene instead of silicon and replaces optical signal observations with direct electrical molecular signal analysis, merged with Nanosens Innovations, Inc. The merger is aimed at accelerating the development of the genome sensor that combines Nanosens' CRISPR-Chip technology with Cardea's graphene biosensor infrastructure and is the first DNA search engine globally that runs on CRISPR-Chip technology. Nanosens will be operating as a subsidiary of Cardea Bio. Nanosens Innovations, Inc. is a US-based biotechnology company that develops CRISPR-Chip and FEB technology.

The CRISPR technology market covered in this report is segmented by product type into design tools; plasmid and vector; CAS9 and G-RNA; delivery system products. It is also segmented by application into genome editing/ genetic engineering; genetically modified organisms; agricultural biotechnology; others and by end-user into industrial biotech; biological research; agricultural research; therapeutics and drug discovery.

Stringent government regulations are expected to retard the growth of the CRISPR technology market during the period. There is no existence of internationally agreed regulatory framework for gene editing products and countries are in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent current regulations are adequate for research conducted with gene editing and applications and products related to gene editing. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that it would treat gene-edited crops as genetically modified organisms, subject to stringent regulation.

In April 2019, the Australian government stated that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) will regulate only the gene-editing technologies that use a template, or that insert other genetic material into the cell. According to an article of 2020, in India, as per the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research, genome modification including gene-editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology of stem cells, germ-line stem cells or gamete and human embryos is restricted only to in-vitro studies. Thus, strict regulations by the government present a threat to the growth of the market.

Several advancements in CRISPR technology are trending in the market during the period. Advancements in technology will help in reducing errors, limiting unintended effects, improving the accuracy of the tool, widening its applications, developing gene therapies and more. In 2019, a study published in Springer Nature stated the development of an advanced super-precise new CRISPR tool that allows researchers more control over DNA changes. This tool seems to have the capability of providing a wider variety of gene edits which might potentially open up conditions that have challenged gene-editors.

Also, in 2020, another study in Springer Nature stated that researchers have used enzyme engineering to boost the accuracy of the technique of error-prone CRISPR-Cas9 system to precisely target DNA without introducing as many unwanted mutations. The advancements in CRISPR technology will result in better tools that are capable of providing better outcomes.

The application of CRISPR technology as a diagnostic tool is expected to boost the market during the period. The Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit is the first diagnostic kit based on CRISPR technology for infectious diseases caused due to COVID-19. In May 2020, FDA announced the emergency use authorization to the Sherlock BioSciences Inc's Sherlock CRISPR SARS-CoV-2 kit which is a CRISPR-based SHERLOCK (Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter unLOCKing) diagnostic test.

This test helps in specifically targeting RNA or DNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from specimens or samples such as nasal swabs from the upper respiratory tract and fluid in the lungs from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens. This diagnostic kit has high specificity and sensitivity and does not provide false negative or positive results. Widening the application of CRISPR technology for the diagnosis of infectious diseases will increase the demand for CRISPR technology products and services.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Executive Summary

2. CRISPR Technology Market Characteristics

3. CRISPR Technology Market Size And Growth

3.1. Global CRISPR Technology Historic Market, 2015 - 2019, $ Billion

3.1.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.1.2. Restraints On The Market

3.2. Global CRISPR Technology Forecast Market, 2019 - 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

3.2.1. Drivers Of The Market

3.2.2. Restraints On the Market

4. CRISPR Technology Market Segmentation

4.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Product Type, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By Application, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

4.3. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Segmentation By End-User, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

5. CRISPR Technology Market Regional And Country Analysis 5.1. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Region, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion 5.2. Global CRISPR Technology Market, Split By Country, Historic and Forecast, 2015-2019, 2023F, 2025F, 2030F, $ Billion

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/vnvkue

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Follow this link:
Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change - Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 - Forecast to...

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Global CRISPR Technology Market Report 2020: COVID-19 Growth and Change – Market is Expected to Recover to Reach $1.55 Billion in 2023 – Forecast to…

Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 – GlobeNewswire

New York, Dec. 24, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

The naturally occurring microbiota is actively involved in metabolic cycle and the performance of immune system.Today, with deeper understanding of microbiome and its role in human health, we are able to utilize microbiome for developing therapeutics.

Designing microbial therapeutics has been challenging , however with the help of genetic engineering tools manipulating these naturally occurring consortia of microbiome has gained momentum in the last five years. Numerous studies are being conducted to gain deeper understanding of host-microbiome interaction for developing targeted therapeutics.A significant focus of human microbiome research has been studying the bacteria in the gut, which represent the largest community both in terms of abundance and diversity. Microbiome therapeutics companies are increasingly involved in developing therapies for dysbiosis , obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, even neurological disorders as schizophrenia and autism. This radar profiles companies actively involved in developing microbiome therapeutics.Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06000057/?utm_source=GNW

About ReportlinkerReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

View original post here:
Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 - GlobeNewswire

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Frost Radar: Microbiome Therapeutics, 2020 – GlobeNewswire