Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2015

New Values for Capital Investment in Technology Disruption: Life Sciences Group @Google and the Future of the Rest of the Biotech Industry

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Updated on 3/13/2025

The Truth About Google X: An Exclusive Look Behind the Secretive Lab’s Closed Doors

https://academized.com/blog/the-google-x-factor

The Voice of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

on

New Values for Capital Investment in Technology Disruption:

Life Sciences Group @Google and the Future of the Rest of the Biotech Industry

To be Completed in the next few months

  1.  The entire Management Team of Google has migrated to Alphabet guaranteeing a continuation of Culture of Innovation
  2.  Very well financed organization with a portfolio of R&D Projects, all BOLD and all advancing at a high accelerated rate of development than the rest of the Biotech Industry
  3. the Rein of the Computer Science driven Mind set, Solution Set and Cutting Edge methods for Problem Solving will take the Rest of the Biotech Industry by an uncontrollable storm
  4. Thinking out of the Box will bring most creative alternative solutions to problem that have remained unsolved by the main stream Rest of the Biotech Industry
  5. It is well known that a CS Major will study Biology with ease, while very few Biologists will transform into the Top Tier CS algorithm architects — Life Sciences Group @Google is the one that will transform with ease
  6. Capital Investment in Technology Disruption will be the flow in flow rather than a Project based financial decisions of the “too little, too late” nature of funding in the Rest of the Biotech Industry
  7. Acquisition waves will continue and be accelerated to capitalize on synergies and cross licensing potential
  8. The foundation of Innovations @Google comes from the top — Interview with Larry Page

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20-things-ive-learned-from-larry-page-james-altucher?utm_content=buffer0ef6e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

9.   Frictionless Internet-of-Things is a major facilitator of Team communication and a Productivity Tool — the leader in the Industry

10.   Many projects on their way in the Rest of the Biotech Industry will be terminated by product alternatives coming from Life Sciences Group @Google

A Deeper Look at the New Google

Google’s new structure has few historical precedents, in tech or outside it.

Robert D. Hof on August 11, 2015

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540246/a-deeper-look-at-the-new-google/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-weekly-business&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150828

Google Announces Plans for New Operating Structure

August 10, 2015

G is for Google.

As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.

We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.

Our company is operating well today, but we think we can make it cleaner and more accountable. So we are creating a new company, calledAlphabet. I am really excited to be running Alphabet as CEO with help from my capable partner, Sergey, as President.

What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies. The largest of which, of course, is Google. This newer Google is a bit slimmed down, with the companies that are pretty far afield of our main internet products contained in Alphabet instead. What do we mean by far afield? Good examples are our health efforts: Life Sciences (that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens), and Calico (focused on longevity). Fundamentally, we believe this allows us more management scale, as we can run things independently that aren’t very related.

Alphabet is about businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence. In general, our model is to have a strong CEO who runs each business, with Sergey and me in service to them as needed. We will rigorously handle capital allocation and work to make sure each business is executing well. We’ll also make sure we have a great CEO for each business, and we’ll determine their compensation. In addition, with this new structure we plan to implement segment reporting for our Q4 results, where Google financials will be provided separately than those for the rest of Alphabet businesses as a whole.

This new structure will allow us to keep tremendous focus on the extraordinary opportunities we have inside of Google. A key part of this is Sundar Pichai. Sundar has been saying the things I would have said (and sometimes better!) for quite some time now, and I’ve been tremendously enjoying our work together. He has really stepped up since October of last year, when he took on product and engineering responsibility for our internet businesses. Sergey and I have been super excited about his progress and dedication to the company. And it is clear to us and our board that it is time for Sundar to be CEO of Google. I feel very fortunate to have someone as talented as he is to run the slightly slimmed down Google and this frees up time for me to continue to scale our aspirations. I have been spending quite a bit of time with Sundar, helping him and the company in any way I can, and I will of course continue to do that. Google itself is also making all sorts of new products, and I know Sundar will always be focused on innovation—continuing to stretch boundaries. I know he deeply cares that we can continue to make big strides on our core mission to organize the world’s information. Recent launches like Google Photos and Google Now using machine learning are amazing progress. Google also has some services that are run with their own identity, like YouTube. Susan is doing a great job as CEO, running a strong brand and driving incredible growth.

Sergey and I are seriously in the business of starting new things. Alphabet will also include our X lab, which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort. We are also stoked about growing our investment arms, Ventures and Capital, as part of this new structure.

Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG.

For Sergey and me this is a very exciting new chapter in the life of Google—the birth of Alphabet. We liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity’s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search! We also like that it means alpha‑bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for! I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big consumer brand with related products—the whole point is that Alphabet companies should have independence and develop their own brands.

We are excited about…

  • Getting more ambitious things done.
  • Taking the long-term view.
  • Empowering great entrepreneurs and companies to flourish.
  • Investing at the scale of the opportunities and resources we see.
  • Improving the transparency and oversight of what we’re doing.
  • Making Google even better through greater focus.
  • And hopefully… as a result of all this, improving the lives of as many people as we can.

What could be better? No wonder we are excited to get to work with everyone in the Alphabet family. Don’t worry, we’re still getting used to the name too!

Larry Page
CEO, Alphabet

SOURCE

http://investor.google.com/releases/2015/0810.html

Meet Alphabet, The New Conglomerate Absorbing Google That’s Run By Larry Page & Sergey Brin

As subsidiary, Google retains divisions of search, ads, Android, YouTube, apps and more. It also gains a new CEO, Sundar Pichai.

YouTube, Android, Ads & More Remain Part Of Google

From the filing, Google will retain control of at least these business units:

  • Search
  • Ads
  • Maps
  • Apps
  • YouTube
  • Android

It will also keep control of unspecified technical infrastructure.

What’s Part Of Alphabet?

What makes up the alphabet of the new Alphabet? From the filing and blog post, Alphabet includes

  1. Calico (the folks who want you to live forever)
  2. Fiber (high speed internet)
  3. Google (Search, Maps, YouTube, Android, Ads, Apps)
  4. Google Ventures (venture capital business)
  5. Google Capital (investment fund)
  6. Google X (auto-driving cars, Google Glass, internet by balloon, moonshots)
  7. Life Sciences (the glucose-sensing contact lens people)
  8. Nest (smoke alarms, home cameras, thermostats & connected home devices)

It’s unclear where many other things will go. Project Fi, Google’s virtual mobile network, for example. Will that stay part of Google or roll under Alphabet? That’s not been made clear.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that YouTube — which has its own CEO in the form of long-time Googler Susan Wojcicki — hasn’t been rolled out from under Google.

It might be that after the initial transition, this and other spin-outs could happen.

Alphabet’s New Management

Alphabet’s new management structure is effectively hijacking all of Google’s old management structure and will be like this:

  • CEO: Larry Page
  • President: Sergey Brin
  • Executive Chairman: Eric E. Schmidt
  • CFO: Ruth Porat
  • Senior Vice President, Corporate Development, Chief Legal Officer & Secretary: David C. Drummond

Google’s New CEO: Sundar Pichai

Over at Google, the big management change is Pichai taking over as CEO. He’ll be only the third person to ever occupy that role at Google. Page was the first CEO, then Schmidt, then Page returned to it. Pichai has been widely praised as a sensible, no-nonsense executive who gets stuff done.

Aside from Pichai, Porat will remain CFO at Google in addition to her new role in that job at Alphabet. Other changes haven’t been announced.

Google’s chief business officer Omid Kordestani will be leaving that position and taking up a new post as advisor to both Alphabet and Google.

How The Change Will Happen

Right now, Google is still Google, owning everything. Later this year — no specific date is set — Google will create a holding company called Alphabet that will absorb all of Google’s stock. Then that company will technically merge with Google, then spit Google out as a subsidiary.

http://marketingland.com/google-alphabet-138166

TechMeme.com – Top it All

http://www.techmeme.com/150810/p18#a150810p18

Danny Sullivan / Marketing Land:

Danny Sullivan is a Founding Editor of Marketing Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Marketing Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosurespage there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as@dannysullivan.

Angela Chen / Wall Street Journal:
Google shares up more than 5% in after-hours trading after Alphabet announcement; all Google shares to convert to Alphabet shares  —  Google Creates New Company, Alphabet  —  Sundar Pichai will be CEO of Google as Larry Page will head Alphabet; Sergey Brin to be Alphabet president

that

Google, now Alphabet, is indeed an unconventional company in many respects, not the least of which is that the aforementioned founders hold 54% of the stock’s voting rights, giving them full control of the company. But at its core, I would argue, it’s a conventional company in a conventional business.

The best point made is the following:

http://whatsthebigdata.com/2015/08/27/google-and-alphabet-invention-and-commerical-success-is-not-enough/

References SOURCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_X

  1. Jump up^ “What is Alphabet, Google’s new company?”. Business Insider. Retrieved August 11, 2015.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Stone, Brad (2013-05-22). “Inside Google’s Secret Lab”. Businessweek. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Cain Miller, Claire; Bilton, Nick (November 13, 2011). “Google’s Lab of Wildest Dreams”. The New York Times. Retrieved February 23,2012.
  4. Jump up^ “Introduction to Project Glass”. Google+: Project Glass. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 5 May 2013. “A group of us from Google[x] started Project Glass to build this kind of technology…”
  5. Jump up^ Shontell, Alyson (18 September 2013). “Meet The Mastermind Behind Driverless Cars, Glass And More: Google’s ‘Chief Of Moonshots,’ Astro Teller”. Business Insider. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Gertner, Jon (15 April 2014). “The Truth About Google X: An Exclusive Look Behind The Secretive Lab’s Closed Doors”. Fast Company. Retrieved 17 April 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Rowan, David (31 October 2013). “Astro Teller of Google[x] wants to improve the world’s broken industries”. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
  8. Jump up^ “Secret Google lab ‘rewards failure'”. Newsnight. BBC. 24 January 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
  9. Jump up^ “Google to be publicly traded under Alphabet Inc. in planned restructuring”. Retrieved 2015-08-10.
  10. Jump up^ Harry McCracken; Lev Grossman (18 September 2013). “Google vs. Death”. Time. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  11. Jump up^ Markoff, John (4 December 2013). “Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android”. The New York Times. Retrieved4 December 2013.
  12. Jump up^ Douglas Macmillan; Rolfe Winkler (27 May 2014). “Google’s Prototype for Autonomous Driving Has No Steering Wheel”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
  13. Jump up^ John Markoff (2010-10-09). “Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-10-11.
  14. Jump up^ Sebastian Thrun (2010-10-09). “What we’re driving at”. The Official Google Blog. Retrieved 2010-10-11.
  15. Jump up^ “Nevada enacts law authorizing autonomous (driverless) vehicles”.Green Car Congress. 2011-06-25. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
  16. Jump up^ Alex Knapp (2011-06-22). “Nevada Passes Law Authorizing Driverless Cars”. Forbes. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
  17. Jump up^ John Markoff (2011-05-10). “Google Lobbies Nevada To Allow Self-Driving Cars”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-05-11.
  18. Jump up^ Mary Slosson (2012-05-08). “Google gets first self-driven car license in Nevada”. Reuters. Retrieved 2012-05-09.
  19. Jump up^ Official Blog: The self-driving car logs more miles on new wheelsPosted: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 by Chris Urmson, Engineering Lead
  20. Jump up^ “Droning On”. AOPA Pilot: 63. April 2015.
  21. Jump up^ Warwick, Graham. “Google Details ‘Project Wing’ Unmanned Package-Delivery R&DAviation Week & Space Technology, 3 November 2014. Accessed: 5 November 2014. Archived on 5 November 2014
  22. Jump up^ Goldman, David (4 April 2012). “Google unveils ‘Project Glass’ virtual-reality glasses”. Money (CNN).
  23. Jump up^ Albanesius, Chloe (4 April 2012). “Google ‘Project Glass’ Replaces the Smartphone With Glasses”. PC Magazine.
  24. Jump up^ Newman, Jared (4 April 2012). “Google’s ‘Project Glass’ Teases Augmented Reality Glasses”. PCWorld.
  25. Jump up^ Casey Newton. “Google plans to dock mystery barge at former Army post in San Francisco”. The Verge.
  26. Jump up^ Brian Otis; Babak Parviz (2014-01-16). “Introducing our smart contact lens project”. Google. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
  27. Jump up^ “Official website of project Loon”.
  28. Jump up^ Rushe, Dominic (2014-11-25). “Google launches ‘smart’ spoon to help steady shaking hands”. The Guardian. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  29. Jump up^ Kaiser, Jocelyn (28 July 2014). “Google X sets out to define healthy human | Science/AAAS | News”. news.sciencemag.org. Retrieved13 September 2014.
  30. Jump up^ Gibbs, Samuel (29 October 2014). “Google is developing a cancer and heart attack-detecting pill”. The Guardian. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
  31. Jump up^ Chen, Caroline (23 June 2015). “Google Reveals Health-Tracking Wristband”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 24 June 2015.
  32. Jump up^ Markoff, John (June 25, 2012). “How Many Computers to Identify a Cat? 16,000”. The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2012.
  33. Jump up^ Gayomali, Chris (15 April 2014). “Google X Confirms The Rumors: It Really Did Try To Design A Space Elevator”. Fast Company. Retrieved17 April 2014.
  34. Jump up^ Gayomali, Chris (15 April 2014). “This Is Why We Don’t Have Google X Hoverboards Yet”. Fast Company. Retrieved 17 April 2014.
  35. ^ Jump up to:a b Mack, Eric (6 May 2014). “Four Crazy Google X Projects That Failed”. Forbes. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
  36. Jump up^ “List of mergers and acquisitions by Google”.
  37. Jump up^ “Google acquires kite-power generator”. BBC News. Retrieved23 May 2013.
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b Miners, Zach (22 August 2014). “Google acquires Gecko Design for next-generation products”. Retrieved 22 August 2014.

Read Full Post »

Humans abound with remarkable skills: we write novels, build bridges, compose symphonies, and even navigate Boston traffic. But despite our mental prowess, we share a surprising deficit: our working memory can track only four items at one time.

“Would you buy a computer with a RAM capacity of 4?” asks David Somers, professor and chair of the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences. “Not 4 MB or GB or 4K—just 4. So how the heck do humans do all this stuff?”

“There’s so much information out there, and our brains are very limited in what we’re able to process,” adds Samantha Michalka, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Computational Neuroscience & Neural Technology. “We desperately need attention to function in the world.”

Michalka is lead author and Somers is senior author of a new study that sheds light on this enduring mystery of neuroscience: how humans achieve so much with such limited attention. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the work identifies a previously unknown attention network in the brain. It also reveals that our working memory for space and time can recruit our extraordinary visual and auditory processing networks when needed. The research appeared on August 19, 2015, in the journal Neuron.

Prior to this work, scientists believed that visual information from the eyes and auditory information from the ears merged before reaching the frontal lobes, where abstract thought occurs. The team of BU scientists, which also included Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory Director Barbara Shinn-Cunningham, performed functional MRI experiments to test the conventional wisdom. The experiments revealed that what was thought to be one large attention network in the frontal lobe is actually two interleaved attention networks, one supporting vision and one supporting hearing. “So instead of talking about a single attention network,” says Somers, “we now need to talk about a visual attention network and an auditory attention network that work together.”

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.bu.edu

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool for Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 complex (SaCas9) @ MIT’s Broad Institute

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Zhang lab unlocks crystal structure of new CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool

Paul Goldsmith, August 27th, 2015

2.2.23

2.2.23   CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tool for Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 complex (SaCas9) @ MIT’s Broad Institute, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

  • SaCas9 (pictured above) is expected to pave the way for smaller
    genome-editing tools. Image courtesy of Le Cong, Broad Institute

In a paper published today in Cell researchers from the Broad Institute and University of Tokyo revealed the crystal structure of theStaphylococcus aureus Cas9 complex (SaCas9)—a highly efficient enzyme that overcomes one of the primary challenges to in vivo mammalian genome editing.

First identified as a potential genome-editing tool by Broad Institute core member Feng Zhangand his colleagues (and published by Zhang lab in April 2015), SaCas9 is expected to expand scientists’ ability to edit genomes in vivo. This new structural study will help researchers refine and further engineer this promising tool to accelerate genomic research and bring the technology closer to use in the treatment of human genetic disease.

“SaCas9 is the latest addition to our Cas9 toolbox, and the crystal shows us its blueprint,” said co-senior author Feng Zhang, who in addition to his Broad role, is also an investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and an assistant professor at MIT. “This study shows further paths forward for optimizing this technology for the benefit of global health.”

Read more

http://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/zhang-lab-unlocks-crystal-structure-new-crisprcas9-genome-editing-tool

Read Full Post »

Neri Oxman and her Mediated Matter group @MIT Media Lab have developed a technique for 3D-printing Molten Glass

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

VIEW VIDEOS

VIDEOS are Courtesy of Youtube.com

Designer and researcher Neri Oxman and her Mediated Matter group atMIT Media Lab have developed a technique for 3D-printing molten glass, meaning that transparent glass objects can be printed for the first time (+ movie).

The group, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, built an additive manufacturing machine that extrudes molten glass – a process the team believes could be used to create architectural components and even entire building facades.

The project, titled G3DP, represents “a first of its kind optically transparent glass printing process,” the group said.

See FIGURES

http://admin.dezeen.com/2015/08/26/neri-oxman-3d-printing-transparent-glass-sculptural-structures-mediated-matter-mit-media-lab/

Read Full Post »

Level of Comfort with Making Changes to the DNA of an Organism

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The Voice of  Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

2.1.4.1

2.1.4.1   Level of Comfort with Making Changes to the DNA of an Organism, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

My prospects are that Jennifer A. Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will be awarded the Nobel Prize for their joint contribution to the study of  the many different flavors of the enzyme Cas9 that occur naturally. The Basic Research that has led to development of the Gene Editing technology and to Clinical Applications will better the human condition negatively affected by genetic and genomic alterations.

Citation of Prof. Jennifer A. Doudna, UC, Berkeley

http://rna.berkeley.edu/

The Structural Biology of CRISPR-Cas Systems

Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2015 Feb 24;30C:100-111

Authors: Jiang F, Doudna JA

“Work that started off as a very basic science project with our collaborator Emmanuelle and seeing how it turned into this incredible technology.”

Doudna: It’s really important for people to appreciate that this technology grew out of a project to figure out how a basic process in biology worked. Many discoveries are made via basic science and working to understand a process. You can do careful work and obtain data that allow you to deduce something fundamental about nature. That was very much the origin of this system here. That’s something great to emphasize. There’s a tendency now in our country and Europe to emphasize “translational research.” Maybe there is not as much of an appreciation of basic science as there should be. That kind of research was critical with Cas9. A lot of non-scientists don’t understand the process. Scientists are just curious about the world and we’ve chosen particular kinds of questions. We are doing it for the purpose of understanding our world and life.

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/04/doudna/

Doudna: We need to learn how efficiently it works. What’s the best way to deliver it safely and efficiently? Not only efficiency, but also what are the off-target levels? How do we minimize that? What would be a safe level if any of off-targets? I’d like to see basic research like what happens to the DNA in germ cells or pre-germ cells when a double-stranded break occurs? What is the repair process like in those specific cells? Those answers would be interesting from a basic science perspective as well as informing future potential clinical applications.

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/04/doudna/

SOURCE

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/

 

AWARDS for the Discovery

Images of the Award Ceremonies

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jennifer+Doudna+Awards&gbv=2&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=VDIHVdrFOe7dsATYtoCoCQ&ved=0CD8QsAQ&tbm=isch

Jennifer Doudna, cosmology teams named 2015 Breakthrough Prize winners

Jennifer Doudna, The winner of the 2014 Lurie Prize in the Biomedical Sciences

CRISPR-Cas9 Discovery and Development of Programmable Genome Engineering – Gabbay Award Lectures in Biotechnology and Medicine – Hosted by Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, 10/27/14 3:30PM Brandeis University, Gerstenzang 121

Doudna was a Searle Scholar and received a 1996 Beckman Young Investigators Award, the 1999 NAS Award for Initiatives in Research and the 2000 Alan T. Waterman Award. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 and to the Institute of Medicine in 2010. In 2014, Doudna was awarded the Lurie Prize in Biomedical Sciences from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health as well as the Dr. Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Researchand Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, both shared with Emanuelle Charpentier.

SOURCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna

 

Discovery Presented in Science, Nov 2014

GENOME EDITING

Jennifer A. Doudna* and Emmanuelle Charpentier*
Science Nov 2014; 346(6213) 1258096:1077 – 1087.
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1126/science.1258096

Discovery Context: Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting

Author & Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Chief Scientific Officer, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence, Boston, MA

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/08/30/delineating-a-role-for-crispr-cas9-in-pharmaceutical-targeting/

 

Comprehensive Coverage of the Discovery by the Team at Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/volume-one-genomics-orientations-for-personalized-medicine/

Content Consultant: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Genomics Orientations for Individualized Medicine

Volume One

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Senior Editor

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, Boston

Larry.bernstein@gmail.com

 and

Stephen J. Williams, PhD, Editor

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, Philadelphia

sjwilliamspa@comcast.net

and

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Editor

Editor-in-Chief BioMed E-Book Series

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, Boston

avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

Chapter 21

21.1 Introducing CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing Technology – Works by Jennifer A. Doudna

21.1.1 Ribozymes and RNA Machines – Work of Jennifer A. Doudna

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

21.1.2 Evaluate your Cas9 gene editing vectors: CRISPR/Cas Mediated Genome Engineering – Is your CRISPR gRNA optimized for your cell lines?

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

21.1.3 2:15 – 2:45, 6/13/2014, Jennifer Doudna “The biology of CRISPRs: from genome defense to genetic engineering”

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

21.1.4  Prediction of the Winner RNA Technology, the FRONTIER of SCIENCE on RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutics  & The Start Up Landscape in BostonGene Editing – New Technology The Missing link for Gene Therapy?

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

21.2 CRISPR in Other Labs

21.2.1 CRISPR @MIT – Genome Surgery

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

21.2.2 The CRISPR-Cas9 System: A Powerful Tool for Genome Engineering and Regulation

Yongmin Yan and Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer, Houston, USADaoyan Wei*

21.2.3 New Frontiers in Gene Editing: Transitioning From the Lab to the Clinic, February 19-20, 2015 | The InterContinental San Francisco | San Francisco, CA

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari Ph.D. RN

21.2.4 Gene Therapy and the Genetic Study of Disease: @Berkeley and @UCSF – New DNA-editing technology spawns bold UC initiative as Crispr Goes Global

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari Ph.D. RN

21.2.5 CRISPR & MAGE @ George Church’s Lab @ Harvard

Genome Engineering: CRISPR & MAGE 
Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE), is an intentionally broad term. In practice, it has come to be associated with a very efficient oligonucleotide allele-replacment (lambda red beta), so far restricted mainly to E.coli. CRISPR, in contrast, works in nearly every organism tested.

Relevant companies: EnEvolvEgenesisEditas.

News:
Editas (NextBigFuture, 28-Nov-2013, Brian Wang)
A Call to Fight Malaria One Mosquito at a Time by Altering DNA (NY Times, 17-Jul-2014, Carl Zimmer)

Resources:
* Vectors: Addgene
* Computational: Center for Causal Consequences of Variation (CCV)

Relevant Lab Publications:
2013 Probing the limits of genetic recoding in essential genes. Science.
2013 Genomically Recoded Organisms Impart New Biological Functions. Science.
2013 CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nature Biotech.
2009 Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature.

SOURCE

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/B2.html

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/breakthrough-prize-genome-editing-with-crispr-cas9.798959/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150206-crispr-dna-editor-bacteria/

 

Potential Outcomes of Human Germ-line Engineering

  • Baltimore, et al. propose path forward for human germline engineering in Science

In a new perspectives piece in Science, Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and co-authors including Jennifer Doudna and George Church, chart a potential path forward for human genomic engineering involving germline modification. See also accompanying Bioethics piece by Gretchen Vogel as well, “Embryo engineering alarm”.

human germline editing policy

In the piece, entitled “A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification” calls for further discussion and assessment of key potential benefits and risks to moving forward with this technology. The illustration included here is from the piece.

The piece is reflective to a large extent of conclusions from a recent meeting held in Napa on this issue.

The summary statement is as follows:  “A framework for open discourse on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to manipulate the human genome is urgently needed.”

They make 4 more specific recommendations.

  1. Strongly discourage clinical application of this technology at this time.
  2. Create forums for education and discussion
  3. Encourage open research to evaluate the utility of CRISPR-Cas9 technology for both human and nonhuman model systems.
  4. Hold an international meeting to consider these issues and possibly make policy recommendation.

SOURCE

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/03/baltimore-et-al-propose-path-forward-for-human-germline-engineering-in-science/

  • NATURE | COMMENT

Don’t edit the human germ line

12 March 2015

Heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous, warn Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and colleagues.

 

Shutterstock

It is thought that studies involving the use of genome-editing tools to modify the DNA of human embryos will be published shortly1.

There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research. There is also fear of the negative impact it could have on important work involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.

We are all involved in this latter area of work. One of us (F.U.) helped to develop the first genome-editing technology, zinc-finger nucleases2 (ZFNs), and is now senior scientist at the company developing them, Sangamo BioSciences of Richmond, California. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM; in which E.L., M.W. and S.E.H. are involved), is an international organization that represents more than 200 life-sciences companies, research institutions, non-profit organizations, patient-advocacy groups and investors focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics, including those involving genome editing.

http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111

 

  • Practical Plan for Managing Human Germline Genetic Modification

CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology is a game changer on many levels both inside and soon outside the lab. There is a growing sense of urgency amongst biomedical scientists to take a proactive approach to current and future use of CRISPR technology in human germ cells and embryos.

These concerns have been heightened by rumors of multiple papers currently in various stages of peer review that will reportedly describe CRISPR-mediated gene editing of human embryos. A number of scientists and scientific organizations have recently come out with policy statements on human germline genetic modification: Lanphier, et al.NatureBaltimore, et al. Science, and ISSCR.

I’ve outlined a proposed plan (see figure below) that I call ABCD for simplicity to try to practically manage the situation with human germline genetic modification. This plan shares a few key features with some of those already proposed by others, but in some ways it is different or more specific. This ABCD idea is just a possible plan coming from one person (me) with the intention of positively adding to the overall dialogue.ABCD Plan Human Germline Modification

My view is that in vitro research on genetically modified human germ cells and early embryos–with appropriate training and oversight–is ethical and can in fact be of great value. Such work will provide new, valuable information about gene editing itself and early human development, fertility, and more. Therefore, such research should not be prohibited, but should only be conducted under certain conditions.

SOURCE

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/03/abcd-plan/

  • Engineering the Perfect Baby

Scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of tomorrow’s children. Should they stop before it’s too late?

Antonio Regalado on March 5, 2015

SOURCE

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/

Paul Knoepfler Interview with Jennifer Doudna, April 2015

 

Paul Knoepfler

Associate Professor at UC Davis

A Conversation with Jennifer Doudna on Cas9 and Human Germline Gene Editing

Jennifer DoudnaI’m doing a series of interviews with leaders in the field on human germline modification. The first interview in this series was with George Church.

Today is the second in this series and is a conversation I had with Dr. Jennifer Doudna, a pioneer in CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

Doudna is a Professor in MCB and Chemistry as well as Li Ka Shing Chancellor’s Chair in Biomedical and Health Sciences at UC Berkeley. She is also an HHMI Investigator.

You can read more about the Doudna lab’s research here. She is not only an internationally respected researcher, but also continues to lead efforts to catalyze discussion on the potential future applications of CRISPR-Cas9 technology including dialogue on possible future work in the human germline.

An initial meeting was held earlier this year in Napa that led to a recent commentary piece in Science. Other views have been published as well including Lanphier, et al. inNature and I have put out there my own perspectives with a roadmap I call the ABCD plan.

I followed up on the Napa meeting in today’s interview with Doudna and also touched on other important issues related to CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

What specifically sparked the Napa meeting? Did you help to start the ball rolling?

Doudna: The Napa meeting was organized by myself and my colleagues at the Innovative Genomics Initiative. We had ethical concerns regarding potential applications of genome editing because CRISPR-Cas9 is widely adapted and so simple. We felt it was important to convene a meeting of stakeholders.

Continue to read

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/04/doudna/

RELATED POSTS

SOURCE

http://www.ipscell.com/2015/04/doudna/

REFERENCES

Read Full Post »

ACC Video Conference Reporter: ESC Day One, Two and Three

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED FOR DAY THREE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTb2apqNqIU&index=1&list=PLN5RC1OF9yB79gy-X7dCa0YCsz_awOlL8

UPDATES FOR DAY TWO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7krTrta5mw&index=2&list=PLN5RC1OF9yB79gy-X7dCa0YCsz_awOlL8

ACC Video Reporter: ESC Day Two

[if !mso 9]><br><![endif]

8.31.15 London

CIRCUS: Back to Square One on Reperfusion Injury

Johanne Silvain, MD; Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD; and Richard Becker, MD

WATCH NOW

Hypertension studies: PARAMETER, PATHWAY-2 and PATHWAY-3

Spencer B. King, III, MD

WATCH NOW

Results from PATHWAY-2

Study Author: Bryan Williams, MD

WATCH NOW

Diabetes studies: SCOT, OPTIDUAL, ELIXA, TECOS and ARTS-HF

Robert H. Eckel, MD

WATCH NOW

Results from the SCOT Trial

Richard Chazal, MD

WATCH NOW

The evaluation of Lixisenatide in acute coronary syndromes (ELIXA)

Eric Van Belle, MD, PhD

WATCH NOW

Results from the OPTIDUAL study

Richard Becker, MD

WATCH NOW

ACC Video Reporter: ESC Day One

8.30.15 London

When Hot Lines are not so hot: Is it time to change the research paradigm?

Clockwise from bottom left: Fausto J. Pinto, MD, PhD; Elliott Antman, MD; Gregg Stone, MD; and Anthony DeMaria, MD

WATCH NOW

Cyclosporine in STEMI patients: The CIRCUS trial

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD

WATCH NOW

Safety and efficacy of a Leadless pacemaker: LEADLESS II

Study Author: Vivek Reddy, MD

WATCH NOW

DOPPLER-CIP study

Robert O. Bonow, MD

WATCH NOW

Results from the PRomPT trial

Gregg W. Stone, MD

WATCH NOW

Cyclosporine in STEMI patients: The CIRCUS trial

Jeffrey B. Michel, MD

WATCH NOW

Safety and efficacy of a Leadless pacemaker: LEADLESS II

Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, PhD

WATCH NOW

Coffee, Naps and Depression in Hypertension

Kim A. Williams, Sr., MD

WATCH NOW

SOURCE

From: MedPage Today <daily.headlines@broadcaster3.medpagetoday.com>

Date: Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: ACC Video Conference Reporter: ESC Day One

Read Full Post »

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Improves Symptoms and Reduces Mortality and Readmission among Selected Patients with Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 1/17/2022

Heart Failure Management – Why CRT? | Medtronic

https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/healthcare-professionals/therapies-procedures/cardiac-rhythm/heart-failure-management/why-crt.html

QRS Duration, Bundle-Branch Block Morphology, and Outcomes Among Older Patients With Heart Failure Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH1,2,3; Melissa A. Greiner, MS4; Laura G. Qualls, MS4; Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS4,5; Jeptha P. Curtis, MD6; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD7; Stephen C. Hammill, MD8; Paul A. Heidenreich, MD9; Bradley G. Hammill, MS4; Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS4,5; Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, MHS4,5; Lesley H. Curtis, PhD4,5; Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH2,3

Importance  The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in clinical trials were greater among patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) or longer QRS duration.

Objective  To measure associations between QRS duration and morphology and outcomes among patients receiving a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) in clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s ICD Registry between 2006 and 2009 who underwent CRT-D implantation. Patients were stratified according to whether they were admitted for CRT-D implantation or for another reason, then categorized as having either LBBB or no LBBB and QRS duration of either 150 ms or greater or 120 to 149 ms.

Main Outcomes and Measures  All-cause mortality; all-cause, cardiovascular, and heart failure readmission; and complications. Patients underwent follow-up for up to 3 years, with follow-up through December 2011.

Results  Among 24 169 patients admitted for CRT-D implantation, 1-year and 3-year mortality rates were 9.2% and 25.9%, respectively. All-cause readmission rates were 10.2% at 30 days and 43.3% at 1 year. Both the unadjusted rate and adjusted risk of 3-year mortality were lowest among patients with LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (20.9%), compared with LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (26.5%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.30 [99% CI, 1.18-1.42]), no LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (30.7%; HR, 1.34 [99% CI, 1.20-1.49]), and no LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (32.3%; HR, 1.52 [99% CI, 1.38-1.67]). The unadjusted rate and adjusted risk of 1-year all-cause readmission were also lowest among patients with LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (38.6%), compared with LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (44.8%; adjusted HR, 1.18 [99% CI, 1.10-1.26]), no LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (45.7%; HR, 1.16 [99% CI, 1.08-1.26]), and no LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (49.6%; HR, 1.31 [99% CI, 1.23-1.40]). There were no observed associations with complications.

Conclusions and Relevance  Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing CRT-D implantation in clinical practice, LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, compared with LBBB and QRS duration less than 150 ms or no LBBB regardless of QRS duration, was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and of all-cause, cardiovascular, and heart failure readmissions.

Clinical trials have shown that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms and reduces mortality and readmission among selected patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Following broad implementation of CRT, it was recognized that one-third to one-half of patients receiving the therapy for heart failure do not improve.1 Identification of patients likely to benefit from CRT is particularly important, because CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation is expensive, invasive, and associated with important procedural risks.

A primary question regarding optimal patient selection for CRT is whether patients with longer QRS duration or left bundle-branch block (LBBB) morphology derive greater benefit than others. Current guidelines recommend selection of patients primarily on the basis of QRS duration and morphology based predominantly on meta-analyses and subgroup analyses of clinical trials evaluating either QRS duration or morphology. Only 1 study specifically evaluated the combination of QRS duration and morphology but did not assess meaningful patient outcomes.2 Thus, the role of QRS duration and morphology in the selection of patients for CRT in contemporary clinical practice remains unclear.

The objectives of this study were to determine the long-term outcomes of unselected patients undergoing CRT-D implantation in real-world settings and associations between combinations of QRS duration and presence of LBBB and longitudinal outcomes, including mortality, readmission, and complications following CRT-D implantation in a large population of Medicare beneficiaries who received CRT-Ds.

SOURCE

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1728715&utm_content=sidebar-related&utm_term=alsolike&utm_source=Silverchair%20Information%20Systems&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JAMA:OnlineFirst08/30/2015

Read Full Post »

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting

Author & Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Chief Scientific Officer, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence, Boston, MA

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Correspondence:
larry.bernstein@gmail.com

2.1.2.2

Delineating a Role for CRISPR-Cas9 in Pharmaceutical Targeting, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair

Abstract

The recent development of advanced methods for genome engineering has superceded methods already in used in recent years of the 21st century.  The CRISPR-Cas9 application for genome editing has real potential for pharmaceutical development, and perhaps also for diagnostics.  The importance of conjoint development of diagnostics and therapeutics can’t be overstressed. Further, the limitations of the method have to be viewed in the light of the historical development of inborn errors of human metabolism, and current understanding of complex polygenomic and environmental risk factors.

Key words: classic model, CRISPR-Cas9, DNA, genome, genome editing, genetic diseases, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, inborn errors of metabolism, polygenetic diseases, RNA, RNAi, translation.

Abbreviations: CRISPR-Cas9; DNA; HWE; RNA.

Introduction.

Genome editing technologies enable the deletion, insertion or correction of DNA at specific targeted sites within an organism’s genome. The power of the technology lies in its ability to specifically target any site in the genome and to alter the DNA sequence at that site. This has opened the door to potentially curing diseases caused by genetic defects, whether inherited or acquired.

Genome editing can be applied across many diverse fields of science. It has allowed researchers to gain a much deeper understanding of the role played by individual genes. Researchers working in the biomedical field use these techniques to address diseases that are known to have a genetic origin.

Early genome-editing research focused on the use of zinc finger nucleases and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), which laid important foundations in establishing genome engineering as a potential approach for treating human diseases.

The recent discovery of CRISPR-Cas9, followed by work demonstrating its advantages over traditional approaches, promises a step-change in the use of genome editing to develop transformative medicines for serious human diseases.

Cas9* is an endonuclease (an enzyme) that can be easily programmed with RNA to cut DNA at targeted sites within the genome, enabling the deletion, insertion or correction of target genes, including those that cause diseases, with surgical precision. By using CRISPR-Cas9* genome-editing technology, scientists and clinicians are conducting pioneering research with a view to tackling both recessive and dominant genetic defects.

In order to find a place for CRISPR-Cas9 in gene therapy, it becomes necessary to consider inborn errors of metabolism and the evolution of traditional approaches to genetic diseases. Traditional gene therapy approaches to date have only been useful in correcting some recessive genetic disorders. Thanks to its ease of use and broad applicability, CRISPR-Cas9 has truly democratized genome editing and transformed many areas of research. Thousands of academic laboratories across the world are carrying out research using the technology. To this point, the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 has been a science project, a research tool with enormous potential.

Genetic Disorders

genetic disorder is a genetic problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome, especially a condition that is present from birth (congenital). Most genetic disorders are quite rare and affect one person in every several thousands or millions.

Genetic disorders may or may not be heritable, i.e., passed down from the parents’ genes. In non-heritable genetic disorders, defects may be caused by new mutations or changes to the DNA. In such cases, the defect will only be heritable if it occurs in the germ line. The same disease, such as some forms of cancer, may be caused by an inherited genetic condition in some people, by new mutations in other people, and mainly by environmental causes in still other people. Whether, when and to what extent a person with the genetic defect or abnormality will actually suffer from the disease is almost always affected by the environmental factors and events in the person’s development.

single-gene disorder is the result of a single mutated gene. Over 4000 human diseases are caused by single-gene defects.[4] Single-gene disorders can be passed on to subsequent generations in several ways. Genomic imprinting and uniparental disomy, however, may affect inheritance patterns. The divisions betweenrecessive and dominant types are not “hard and fast”, although the divisions between autosomal and X-linked types are (since the latter types are distinguished purely based on the chromosomal location of the gene). For example, achondroplasia is typically considered a dominant disorder, but children with two genes for achondroplasia have a severe skeletal disorder of which achondroplasics could be viewed as carriers. Sickle-cell anemia is also considered a recessive condition, but heterozygous carriers have increased resistance to malaria in early childhood, which could be described as a related dominant condition.[5] When a couple where one partner or both are sufferers or carriers of a single-gene disorder wish to have a child, they can do so through in vitro fertilization, which means they can then have a preimplantation genetic diagnosis to check whether the embryo has the genetic disorder.[6]

Prevalence of some single-gene disorders[citation needed]
Disorder prevalence (approximate)
Autosomal dominant
Familial hypercholesterolemia 1 in 500
Polycystic kidney disease 1 in 1250
Neurofibromatosis type I 1 in 2,500
Hereditary spherocytosis 1 in 5,000
Marfan syndrome 1 in 4,000[2]
Huntington’s disease 1 in 15,000[3]
Autosomal recessive
Sickle cell anaemia 1 in 625
Cystic fibrosis 1 in 2,000
Tay-Sachs disease 1 in 3,000
Phenylketonuria 1 in 12,000
Mucopolysaccharidoses 1 in 25,000
Lysosomal acid lipase deficiency 1 in 40,000
Glycogen storage diseases 1 in 50,000
Galactosemia 1 in 57,000

Heritable Diseases and Normal Variants

Identification of Genes for Childhood Heritable Diseases

Annual Review of Medicine Jan 2014; 65: 19-31

Boycott KM, Dyment DA, Sawyer SL, Vanstone MR, and Beaulieu CL.

Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L1 Canada

http://dx.doi.org:/10.1146/annurev-med-101712-122108

Genes causing rare heritable childhood diseases are being discovered at an accelerating pace driven by the decreasing cost and increasing accessibility of next-generation DNA sequencing combined with the maturation of strategies for successful gene identification. The findings are shedding light on the biological mechanisms of childhood disease and broadening the phenotypic spectrum of many clinical syndromes. Still, thousands of childhood disease genes remain to be identified, and given their increasing rarity, this will require large-scale collaboration that includes mechanisms for sharing phenotypic and genotypic data sets. Nonetheless, genomic technologies are poised for widespread translation to clinical practice for the benefit of children and families living with these rare diseases.

Single gene defects result in abnormalities in the synthesis or catabolism of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, or complex molecules. Most are due to a defect in an enzyme or transport protein, which results in a block in a metabolic pathway. Effects are due to toxic accumulations of substrates before the block, intermediates from alternative metabolic pathways, defects in energy production and use caused by a deficiency of products beyond the block, or a combination of these metabolic deviations. Nearly every metabolic disease has several forms that vary in age of onset, clinical severity, and, often, mode of inheritance.

There is a large number of inborn errors of metabolism.

A few examples are:

Fructose intolerance
Galactosemia
Maple sugar urine disease (MSUD)
Phenylketonuria (PKU)

Newborn screening tests can identify some of these disorders

Categories of inborn errors of metabolism, or IEMs, are as follows:

  • Disorders that result in toxic accumulation
    • Disorders of protein metabolism (eg, amino acidopathies, organic acidopathies, urea cycle defects)
    • Disorders of carbohydrate intolerance
    • Lysosomal storage disorders
  • Disorders of energy production, utilization
    • Fatty acid oxidation defects
    • Disorders of carbohydrate utilization, production (ie, glycogen storage disorders, disorders of gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis)
    • Mitochondrial disorders
    • Peroxisomal disorders

 

 

Giants in the 20th century study of genetic medicine

  1. Victor Almon McKusick

 

 
Victor McKusick 
Known for Mendelian Inheritance in Man,OMIM and McKusick–Kaufman syndrome
Notable awards William Allan Award (1977)
Lasker Award (1997)
Japan Prize (2008)

 

Victor Almon McKusick (October 21, 1921 – July 22, 2008), an internist and medical geneticist, was the University Professor of Medical Genetics and Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimore, MD, USA.[1] He was a proponent of the mapping of the human genome due to its use for studying congenital diseases. He is well known for his studies of the Amish and, what he called, “little people”. He was the original author and, until his death, remained chief editor of Mendelian Inheritance in Man (MIM) and its online counterpart Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM). He is widely known as the “father of medical genetics”.[2]

McKusick traveled to Copenhagen to speak about the heritable disorders of connective tissue at the first international congress of human genetics. The meeting looms as the birthplace of the medical genetics field.[2] In the following decades, McKusick created and chaired a new Division of Medical Genetics at Hopkins beginning in 1957. In 1973, he served as Physician-in-Chief, William Osler Professor of Medicine, and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine.[6]  He held concurrent appointments as University Professor of Medical Genetics at the McKusick–Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Professor of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Professor of Biology at Johns Hopkins University.[5] He co-founded Genomics in 1987 with Dr. Frank Ruddle, and served as an editor.[6] He was a lead investigator in determining if Abraham Lincoln had Marfan syndrome.[8]

  1. Elizabeth F. Neufeld

Born in France, Elizabeth Neufeld immigrated to the United States in 1940. She obtained a BS from Queens College, New York and a Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley. After postdoctoral training in, she moved to the NIH in Bethesda, MD, where she began her studies of a rare group of genetic diseases. She moved back to California in 1984 as Chair of the Department of Biological Chemistry – a position that she occupied till 2004.

The brain in a mouse model of a genetic lysosomal disorder, Sanfilippo syndrome type B

Our interests have long been the cause, consequences and treatment of human genetic diseases due to deficiency of lysosomal enzymes. The disease currently under investigation is the Sanfilippo syndrome type B (MPS III B). It is caused by mutation in the NAGLU gene, with resulting deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme alpha-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase and accumulation of its substrate (heparan sulfate). The disease manifests itself in childhood by severe mental retardation and intractable behavioral problems. The neurologic deterioration progresses to dementia, with death usually in the second decade. We use a mouse knockout model (Naglu -/-) in order to study the pathophysiology of the disease and to develop therapy. Because of the special cell biology of lysosomal enzymes, which can be taken up by receptor-mediated endocytosis, exogenous administration of the enzyme could theoretically cure the disease. Unfortunately, the blood-brain barrier (BBB) prevents the therapeutic enzyme from reaching the brain. Part of our current research is to develop a novel technology to get lysosomal enzymes across the BBB. We also study changes in gene and protein expression in some specific parts of the brain, in which there is accumulation of certain lipids and proteins which seem unrelated biochemically to each other or to the primary defect. We try to understand the cause and consequences of these accumulations. Although they are secondary defects, they may be relevant to the pathophysiology of the dieease and may have represent targets for pharmacologic intervention.

Neufeld began her scientific studies at a time when few women chose science as a career. The historical bias against women in science, compounded with an influx of men coming back from the Second World War and going to college, made positions for women rare; few women could be found in the science faculties of colleges and universities.

When she first began working on Hurler syndrome in 1967, she initially thought the problem might stem from faulty regulation of the sugars, but experiments showed the problem was in fact the abnormally slow rate at which the sugars were broken down. Working with fellow scientist Joseph Fratantoni, Neufeld attempted to isolate the problem by tagging mucopolysaccharides with radioactive sulfate, as well as mixing normal cells with MPS patient cells. Fratantoni inadvertently mixed cells from a Hurler patient and a Hunter patient—and the result was a nearly normal cell culture. The two cultures had essentially “cured” each other.

In 1973 Neufeld was named chief of NIH’s Section of Human Biochemical Genetics, and in 1979 she was named chief of the Genetics and Biochemistry Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIADDK). She served as deputy director in NIADDK’s Division of Intramural Research from 1981 to 1983. In 1984 Neufeld went back to the University of California, this time the Los Angeles campus, as chair of the biological chemistry department.

Neufeld’s research opened the way for prenatal diagnosis of such life-threatening fetal disorders as Hurler syndrome. Neufeld chaired the Scientific Advisory Board of the National MPS Society and was president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from 1992 to 1993. She was elected to both the National Academy of Sciences (USA) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1977 and named a fellow of the American Association for Advancement in Science in 1988. In 1990 she was named California Scientist of the Year. She was awarded the Wolf Prize, the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research, and was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1994 “for her contributions to the understanding of the lysosomal storage diseases, demonstrating the strong linkage between basic and applied scientific investigation.”[3]

  1. Jarvis “Jay” Edwin Seegmiller, M.D.

“Jay Seegmiller was one of the giants of American medicine,” said Edward Holmes, M.D., Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences and dean of the School of Medicine at UCSD. “He and his trainees have made innumerable contributions to our understanding of the pathogenesis of many human disorders. Seegmiller was one of the country’s leading researchers in intermediary metabolism, with a focus on purine metabolism and inherited metabolism.  He worked in the field of human biochemical genetics, with a special interest in the mechanisms by which genetically determined defects of metabolism lead to various forms of arthritis.  His laboratory identified a wide range of primary metabolic defects in metabolism responsible for development of gout.

He is perhaps best known for his discovery of the enzyme defect in Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, a fatal disorder of the nervous system causing severe mental retardation and self-mutilation impulses.  As Director of the Human Biochemical Genetics Program at UCSD, Seegmiller’s investigations into the translation of genetic research and methods of prevention, detection and treatment of hereditary diseases led to Congressional testimony on the possibility of controlling genetic disease in the United States.  As a result, genetic referral centers have been established throughout the country.

He joined the newly established UCSD School of Medicine in 1969 as head of the Arthritis Division of the Department of Medicine. There, he directed a research program in human biochemical genetics involving senior faculty from five departments within the School of Medicine.  While a professor at UCSD, he served as a Macy Scholar both at Oxford University and at the Basel Institute in Switzerland, as well as a Guggenheim Fellow at the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research in Lausanne.

In 1983, he became the founding director of what is today UCSD’s Stein Institute for Research on Aging (SIRA). Even after his retirement, he continued to serve as Associate Director of SIRA from 1990 until his death.

“He had the foresight of proposing the formation of and then establishing a new Institute on Aging at UCSD before there was any such Institute in the entire UC system,” said Dilip Jeste, M.D., the Estelle and Edgar Levi Chair in Aging, Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences and current Director of SIRA.   “He was himself a role model of successful aging, and continued working in the SIRA till his very last days.

Seegmiller received his Doctor of Medicine with honors from the University of Chicago in 1948.  After he completed his internship at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, he trained with Bernard Horecker of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Disease at the National Institutes of Health.

Seegmiller was appointed Senior Investigator of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Disease in 1954, where he carried out biochemical and clinical studies of human hereditary disease, with a special interest in those causing various forms of arthritis.  He became Assistant Scientific Director of the Institute in 1960, and was appointed Chief of the section on Human Biochemical Genetics in 1966, becoming one of several NIH leaders recruited to help launch UC San Diego’s new medical school.

Seegmiller’s clinical activities included studies in life longevity in South America.  In 1974, he joined a team of notable scientists and traveled to the remote village of Vilcabamba in Ecuador, to find out what role genetic factors played in the population of the Andean villagers who comprised some of the longest-living people in the world.  His later work led to the discovery of free radicals and their damaging effects in the human ability to withstand diseases, bringing forward new investigations on human aging at SIRA.

Seegmiller was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was the recipient of numerous prizes and awards in honor of his extraordinary achievements in science and medicine.  He received the United States Public Health Distinguished Service Award in 1969; and was honored as Master of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1992. He was on the advisory boards for the National Genetics Foundation, the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California, the Task Force on Endocrinology and Metabolism for NIH, the Executive Editorial Board for Analytical Biochemistry, and was President of the Western Association of Physicians in 1979.

What has changed?

The 21st century has seen the mapping of the human genome. The huge focus on the genome came after the Watson and Crick discovery put the genome at the center of the translational network with the central hypothesis. What followed was transcription of RNA into placement of an amino acid into protein. The central hypothesis is DNA           RNA           protein.  However, RNAi and non-translational RNA are now also important.  RNA has a role in suppressing translation, as do proteins by allosteric effects. In addition, the most common diseases involved in age related change are strongly responsive to extracellular matrix effects, ionic fluxes, effects on the cellular matrix, and involve multicentric genome expression. This mode of expression leads one to think hard about the therapeutic target, or targets. The effect of RNA or of protein interacting with the genome is not an element of the classic construct.

Identifying a part of the problem

Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, arrhythmias, atherosclerotic plaque development, cancer, congestive heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary interstitial sclerosis, and renovascular disease are among the common diseases that develop during a lifetime. The phenotypic presentations may have genomic associations, and there may also be population variants.  There is also a cross-talk between these phenotypic expressions. Classically, medical terminology has been based on signs and symptoms of disease.  In the increasingly complex experience, the laboratory has played an increased role in the diagnosis as well as prognostication. The laboratory experience with respect to the practice of medicine has heavily relied of either proteins, enzymes, or the products of chemical reactions.  The use of genomic profiling has rapidly emerged in the laboratory armamentarium, but has had a slow ascent in practice.

Case in Point. Pompe’s disease

William Canfield is a glycobiologist, chief scientific officer and founder of an Oklahoma City-based biotechnology company, Novazyme, which was acquired by Genzyme in August 2001 and developed, among other things, an enzyme that can stabilize (but not cure) Pompe disease, based on Canfield’s ongoing research since 1998.[1][2]   

John Crowley took over a position as a CEO in Novazyme after leaving Bristol-Myers Squibb in March 2000 and together with Dr. Y. T. Chen[4] at Duke University pushed for expedited approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a new drug compound, NZ-1001 under orphan drug designation for the treatment of Glycogen storage disease type II in October 2005. The FDA stated: “We have determined that Novazyme’s recombinant human highly phosphorylated acid alpha-glucosidase (rhHPGAA) qualifies for orphan designation for enzyme replacement therapy in patients with all subtypes of glycogen storage disease type II (Pompe’s disease).” [5][6] Subsequent research at Genzyme on NZ-1001 along with three other potential compounds brought approval of the first enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe’s disease – Alglucosidase alfa (Myozyme or Lumizyme, Genzyme Inc) in 2006.[7]

William Canfields work with Pompes Disease was fictionalized and made the subject of a 2010 movie Extraordinary Measures in which he is called Dr. Robert Stonehill and played by Harrison Ford.[8]

Case in point.  Polymorphisms in the long non-coding RNA

Hypertension (HT) is a complex disorder influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Recent genome-wide association studies have identified a major risk locus for atherosclerosis on chromosome 9p21.3 (chr9p21.3). SNPs within the coding sequences of CDKN2A/B proteins and the long non-coding RNA CDKN2B-AS1 could potentially contribute to HT development. Such a study has now been done. The findings suggest that SNPs rs10757274, rs2383207, rs10757278, and rs1333049, particularly those within the CDKN2B-AS1 gene, and related haplotypes may confer increased susceptibility to HT development. (unpublished)

Case in point. Lipoprotein Lipase and Atherosclerosis

Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) plays a pivotal role in lipids and metabolism of lipoprotein. Dysfunctions of LPL have been found to be associated with dyslipidemia, obesity and insulin resistance.Dyslipidemia, obesity and insulin resistance are risk factor of atherosclerosis. Japanese investigators have  hypothesized that elevating LPL activity would cause protection of atherosclerosis. (unpublished).

Case in  point. Holocaust survivors pass on stress.

Descendants of Holocaust Survivors Have Altered Stress Hormones

Parents’ traumatic experience may hamper their offspring’s ability to bounce back from trauma

Case in point. Genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9

The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9

GENOME EDITING

Jennifer A. Doudna* and Emmanuelle Charpentier*
Science Nov 2014; 346(6213) 1258096:1077 – 1087.
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1126/science.1258096

BACKGROUND: Technologies for making and manipulating DNA have enabled advances in biology ever since the discovery of the DNA double helix. But introducing site-specific modifications in the genomes of cells and organisms remained elusive. Early approaches relied on the principle of site-specific recognition of DNA sequences by oligonucleotides, small molecules, or self-splicing introns. More recently, the site-directed zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TAL effector nucleases (TALENs) using the principles of DNAprotein recognition were developed. However, difficulties of protein design, synthesis, and validation remained a barrier to

SUMMARY

The field of biology is now experiencing a transformative phase with the advent of facile genome engineering in animals and plants using RNA-programmable CRISPR-Cas9. The CRISPR-Cas9 technology originates from type II CRISPR-Cas systems, which provide bacteria with adaptive immunity to viruses and plasmids. The CRISPR associated protein Cas9 is an endonuclease that uses a guide sequence within an RNA duplex, tracrRNA:crRNA, to form base pairs with DNA target sequences, enabling Cas9 to introduce a site-specific double-strand break in the DNA. The dual tracrRNA:crRNA was engineered as a single guide RNA (sgRNA) that retains two critical features: a sequence at the 5  side that determines the DNA target site by Watson-Crick base-pairing and a duplex RNA structure at the 3 side that binds to Cas9. This finding created a simple two-component system in which changes in the guide sequence of the sgRNA program Cas9 to target any DNA sequence of interest. The simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9 programming, together with a unique DNA cleaving mechanism, the capacity for multiplexed target recognition, and the existence of many natural type II CRISPR-Cas system variants, has enabled remarkable developments using this cost-effective and easy-to-use technology to precisely and efficiently target, edit, modify, regulate, and mark genomic loci of a wide array of cells and organisms.

Figure (not shown)

The Cas9 enzyme (blue) generates breaks in double-stranded DNA by using its two catalytic centers (blades) to cleave each strand of a DNA target site (gold) next to a PAM sequence (red) and matching the 20-nucleotide sequence (orange) of the single guide RNA (sgRNA). The sgRNA includes a dual-RNA sequence derived from CRISPR RNA (light green) and a separate transcript (tracrRNA, dark green) that binds and stabilizes the Cas9 protein. Cas9-sgRNA–mediated DNA cleavage produces a blunt double-stranded break that triggers repair enzymes to disrupt or replace DNA sequences at or near the cleavage site. Catalytically inactive forms of Cas9 can also be used for programmable regulation of transcription and visualization of genomic loci.

This Review illustrates the power of the technology to systematically analyze gene functions in mammalian cells, study genomic rearrangements and the progression of cancers or other diseases, and potentially correct genetic mutations responsible for inherited disorders. CRISPR-Cas9 is having a major impact on functional genomics conducted in experimental systems. Its application in genome-wide studies will enable large-scale screening for drug targets and other phenotypes and will facilitate the generation of engineered animal models that will benefit pharmacological studies and the understanding of human diseases. CRISPR-Cas9 applications in plants and fungi also promise to change the pace and course of agricultural research. Future research directions to improve the technology will include engineering or identifying smaller Cas9 variants with distinct specificity that may be more amenable to delivery in human cells. Understanding the homology-directed repair mechanisms that follow Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage will enhance insertion of new or corrected sequences into genomes. The development of specific methods for efficient and safe delivery of Cas9 and its guide RNAs to cells and tissues will also be critical for applications of the technology in human gene therapy.

Case in point.

ZFN, TALEN and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering

Thomas Gaj1,2,3, Charles A. Gersbach4,5, and Carlos F. Barbas III1,2,3 1The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 2Department of Molecular Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 3Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA 4Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 5Institutes for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Trends Biotechnol . 2013 July ; 31(7): 397–405. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004

Abstract Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) comprise a powerful class of tools that are redefining the boundaries of biological research. These chimeric nucleases are composed of programmable, sequence-specific DNA-binding modules linked to a non-specific DNA cleavage domain. ZFNs and TALENs enable a broad range of genetic modifications by inducing DNA double-strand breaks that stimulate error-prone nonhomologous end joining or homology-directed repair at specific genomic locations. Here, we review achievements made possible by site-specific nuclease technologies and discuss applications of these reagents for genetic analysis and manipulation. In addition, we highlight the therapeutic potential of ZFNs and TALENs and discuss future prospects for the field, including the emergence of CRISPR/Cas-based RNA-guided DNA endonucleases.

Keywords zinc-finger; TALE; CRISPR; nuclease; genome engineering

Classical and contemporary approaches for establishing gene function With the development of new and affordable methods for whole-genome sequencing, and the design and implementation of large-scale genome annotation projects, scientists’ are poised to deliver upon the promises of the Genomic Revolution to transform basic science and personalized medicine. The resulting wealth of information presents researchers with a new primary challenge of converting this enormous amount of data into functionally and clinically relevant knowledge. Central to this problem is the need for efficient and reliable methods that enable investigators to determine how genotype influences phenotype. Targeted gene inactivation via homologous recombination is a powerful method capable of providing conclusive information for evaluating gene function.

Several factors impede the use of these methods:

  • the low efficiency at which engineered constructs are correctly inserted into the chromosomal target site,
  • the need for time-consuming and labor-insensitive selection/screening strategies, and
  • the potential for adverse mutagenic effects.

Targeted gene knockdown by RNA interference (RNAi) has provided researchers with a rapid, inexpensive and high-throughput alternative to homologous recombination. However, knockdown by RNAi is incomplete, varies between experiments and laboratories, has unpredictable off-target effects, and provides only temporary inhibition of gene function. These restrictions impede researchers’ ability to directly link phenotype to genotype and limit the practical application of RNAi technology.

In the past decade, a new approach has emerged that enables investigators to directly manipulate virtually any gene in a diverse range of cell types and organisms. This core technology – commonly referred to as “genome editing” – is based on the use of engineered nucleases composed of sequence-specific DNA-binding domains fused to a non-specific DNA cleavage module. These chimeric nucleases enable efficient and precise genetic modifications by inducing targeted DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) that stimulate the cellular DNA repair mechanisms, including error-prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology-directed repair (HDR).

Case in point.

CRISPR/Cas9 and Targeted Genome Editing: A New Era in Molecular Biology

The development of efficient and reliable ways to make precise, targeted changes to the genome of living cells is a long-standing goal for biomedical researchers. Recently, a new tool based on a bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease (Cas9) from Streptococcus pyogenes has generated considerable excitement. This follows several attempts over the years to manipulate gene function, including homologous recombination and RNA interference (RNAi).

RNAi, in particular, became a laboratory staple enabling inexpensive and high-throughput interrogation of gene function, but it is hampered by providing only temporary inhibition of gene function and unpredictable off-target effects. Other recent approaches to targeted genome modification – zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), and transcription-activator like effector nucleases (TALENs) – enable researchers to generate permanent mutations by introducing double stranded breaks to activate repair pathways. These approaches are costly and time-consuming to engineer, limiting their widespread use, particularly for large scale, high-throughput studies.

The Biology of Cas9

The functions of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) genes are essential in adaptive immunity in select bacteria and archaea, enabling the organisms to respond to and eliminate invading genetic material. These repeats were initially discovered in the 1980s in E. coli, but their function wasn’t confirmed until 2007 by Barrangou and colleagues, who demonstrated that S. thermophilus can acquire resistance against a bacteriophage by integrating a genome fragment of an infectious virus into its CRISPR locus.

Three types of CRISPR mechanisms have been identified, of which type II has been the most studied. In this case, invading DNA from viruses or plasmids is cut into small fragments and incorporated into a CRISPR locus amidst a series of short repeats (around 20 bps). The loci are transcribed, and transcripts are then processed to generate small RNAs (crRNA – CRISPR RNA), which are used to guide effector endonucleases that target invading DNA based on sequence complementarity (Figure 1) (not shown).

In the acquisition phase, foreign DNA is incorporated into the bacterial genome at the CRISPR loci. CRISPR loci is then transcribed and processed into crRNA during crRNA biogenesis. During interference, Cas9 endonuclease complexed with a crRNA and separate tracrRNA cleaves foreign DNA containing a 20-nucleotide crRNA complementary sequence adjacent to the PAM sequence.

Investment in CRISPR technology

CRISPR Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company created to translate CRISPR-Cas9, a breakthrough genome-editing technology, into transformative medicines for serious human diseases. We are uniquely positioned to translate CRISPR-Cas9 technology into human therapeutics, thanks to its multi-disciplinary team of world-renowned academics, clinicians and drug developers.

CRISPR Therapeutics’ vision is to cure serious human diseases at the molecular level using CRISPR-Cas9. The company is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland and has operations in London, UK and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The biopharmaceutical company that is focused on translating CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology into transformative medicines for serious human diseases, congratulates its scientific founder, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, for being named to TIME Magazine’s TIME 100 Most Influential People in the World alongside fellow CRISPR-Cas9 discoverer, Dr. Jennifer Doudna. In addition, Dr. Emmanuelle was awarded the Louis Jeantet Prize for Medicine, considered the most prestigious European award for researchers in the life sciences, for her discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool. She will receive the award in a ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 22, 2015.

Dr. Charpentier has received numerous additional awards for her research, including in 2014 the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship, the Dr Paul Janssen Award, the Grand-Prix Jean-Pierre Lecocq (French Academy of Sciences), the Göran Gustafsson Prize (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) and in 2015 the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences. She was also selected as one of the American Foreign Policy magazine’s 100 Leading Global Thinkers for 2014.

Cambridge-based Editas Medicine announced a $120 million Series B round led by Bill Gates’s chief advisor for science and technology, Boris Nikolic. The list of financiers teaming with Nikolic reads like a rolodex of so-called crossover investors. Nikolic, who joined Editas’ board, made the investment through what’s been called “bng0,” a new U.S.-based investment company backed by “large family offices with a global presence and long-term investment horizon” and formed specifically to invest in Editas. CEO Katrine Bosley confirmed that Gates is one of the individuals investing in Editas alongside Nikolic. Editas has become the first of the group not only to attract crossover backers, but to begin discussing the diseases that its targeting.

Caribou Biosciences, one of the biotech startups working to advance a much-watched new technology for precise gene editing, has raised an $11 million Series A round from venture capital firms and Swiss drug giant Novartis.

The money will help Berkeley, CA-based Caribou speed up its efforts to adapt a versatile genome editing technique co-discovered by one of its founders, UC Berkeley professor Jennifer Doudna, for a range of uses, including drug research and development, and industrial technology.

Doudna and her collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Helmholtz Center for Infection Research in Braunschweig, Germany, and Umeå University in Sweden, figured out how to transform a bacterial defense against viral infection into a tool to edit out abnormal sections of genes, such as those that cause hereditary diseases.

Caribou’s gene editing platform is based on two elements of that bacterial molecular machinery: a guiding mechanism called CRISPR (clustered, regularly interspaced palindromic repeats), and an enzyme called Cas9, or CRISPR-associated protein 9, molecular scissors that cut a segment of DNA. Caribou was founded in 2011 to commercialize the work from Doudna’s lab.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Transaction-based Web Site Design Considerations for M3DP

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD RN

Web Site Design Versions

Non-Transactional Web Site Design 

http://www.amgen.com/sitemap.html

The Site Map is Great. Amgen is in the Top 10 Biotech in the World in business  15 years. We Need to be inspired by that website.

Transactional Web Site Design 

  1.  dfus3d — 3D Printing Start Up in Israel – Vertical Integrated Small Business

    http://www.dfus3d.com/

    VIEW VIDEO

    http://www.dfus3d.com/index

  2. NVIGEN.com

http://www.nvigen.com/

     3.   http://m.bocsci.com/

LPBI’s Vision on Web Design for M3DP

The website that I shared with the Team includes the facility to conduct TRANSACTIONS online.

Team, please send comments on that concept, shall M3DP have a website with it without online Transactions functionality??

A global customer will be able to submit an

– Order to a 3D Printer from a Menu of Printers by multiple vendors to M3DP Sales Dept

– Select a BioInk from a Menu of supplies to M3DP Sales Dept

– Submit a Request for a Co-Design concept for Co-Development to M3DP R&D Dept

– Schedule a Brainstorming Consultation Skype session on a New Product Concept for Implementation of internally developed blue prints To M3DP Concept Implementation Team – last column in M3DP Matrix Organization

Please review the website of Nvigen.com, (CEO is my friend, Berkeley PhD)

This is a Transaction driven Website. There are other examples.

The intent is for M3DP to be Global hub for Medical 3D Printing:

– Product Sales   (Multivendor Printers and BioInks)

– R&D and Consulting for Medical Product Concepts using 3D Printers and newly co-developed BioInk: I.e., Cytokines by Dr. R. Nir in Hydrogels by Dr. N. Artzi – M3DP is the intermediary for the development of BioInk, we introduced two parties that JOINTLY created a non-existing product

– DIGITAL MARKET PLACE for Customers to submit Product Designs for Implementation, using M3DP Expertise in Self assembly design, CAD-CAM process design in fabrication (last column of the Matrix Organization)

I am the designer of seven Computation engines for Digital Market Places, including one for Analytical Services. If the Team has an interest, I can present that work done at MITRE, 1995-1997.

(To read about that go to Founder, click on link on Electronic Commerce)

Read Full Post »

AGENDA – ICI Meeting 2015 – International Conference for Innovations in Cardiovascular Systems (Heart, Brain and Peripheral Vessels) and High-Tech Life Science Industry, December 13-15, 2015, David InterContinental Hotel, Tel Aviv, Israel

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Dear Colleagues,
It is with great pleasure that we invite you to the ICI Meeting 2015, to be held on December 13-15, at the David InterContinental Hotel, Tel Aviv, Israel – the premier International Conference for Innovations in cardiovascular systems (Heart Brain and Peripheral Vessels) and High-Tech Life Science Industry.ICI aims to explore, fuel spark and be part of the innovations that will shape the future of our cardiovascular systems and BEYOND.

Over the last 2 decades, Israel has turned into a medical start up nation and ICI has contributed to this process by facilitating the global interaction and building bridges of innovations between Israel, and the world, expanding as far west as California and as far east as China and Japan.

The route of the ICI meeting takes you through the process of innovation- starting from the ICI Academy of Innovation where we learn and exercise how to innovate, we then continue to a 2 days conference focusing on the use of advanced technologies to save hearts and lives. We challenge the horizons in coronary and vascular interventions, transcatheter valvular therapies, stroke prevention and intervention and heart failure. We explore the treatment of hypertension with renal denervation, have a special track on digital health, mobile solutions and the Cellular Revolution, and have some fascinating lectures by the leading professional in our field.

We invite you, Physicians, Nurses, Technicians, Researchers, Entrepreneurs, Investor, Engineers, Venture Capital Firms, Private Equity Firms, Patent Experts, Pharmaceutical Companies, and Medical Device Companies to join us at ICI 2015, and we are certain that each one of you will find his/her field of interest and be updated on other related fields.
By the end of the meeting you will walk out with a better understanding of the frontiers in each field, with unmet needs in our disciplines and with many new ideas.

Enjoy ICI; enjoy Tel Aviv; enjoy Israel.

ICI Mission:

  • Innovation- Focus on the Process and Not on the Outcomes

To bring the most advanced cutting-edge innovative technologies and therapies in the cardiovascular systems
(Heart Brain and Peripheral Vessels) and to help guide innovators through the process of innovation.

  • Academy- The “how” of Innovation

To focus on education regarding the entire medical innovation process, bringing together parties involved
in all phases of the innovation process to provide knowledge, insights and views.

  • Science- Share News & Announcements

To enable public and private discussions around issues relevant to the innovation process.
Transition the ICI meeting to a continuous, 365-days a year experience

  • Industry- Learn from Experiences

Network with the leading, most experienced companies in the industry

 

Sincerely yours,
Beyar-WEB Lotan-WEB
Rafael Beyar Chaim Lotan
 Meeting Directors
On behalf of the Organizing Committee

 

 

WHAT IS ICI

It is with great pleasure that we invite you to the ICI Meeting 2015 – the premier International Conference for Innovations in cardiovascular systems (Heart Brain and Peripheral Vessels) and High-Tech Life Science Industry.

ICI aims to explore, fuel spark and be part of the innovations that will shape the future of our cardiovascular systems and BEYOND.

Over the last 2 decades, Israel has turned into a medical start up nation and ICI has contributed to this process by facilitating the global interaction and building bridges of innovations between Israel, and the world, expanding as far west as California and as far east as China and Japan.

Conference Secretariat:
Paragon Israel (Dan Knassim)
Telefax: +972-3-5767730/7
Email: secretariat@icimeeting.com

 

VIEW VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BtZQG0n0To

 

PROGRAM – DAY 1

 

http://2015.icimeeting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ICI-2015-Preliminary-Program-Day-1-160815.pdf

 

PROGRAM – DAY 2

http://2015.icimeeting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ICI-2015-Preliminary-Program-Day-2-160815.pdf

 

REGISTRATION

http://2015.icimeeting.com/registration/

 

Other related articles 

AGENDA – ICI Conference – Innovation in Cardiovascular Interventions – December 14-16, at the David InterContinental Hotel, Tel Aviv, Israel

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/11/05/agenda-ici-conference-innovation-in-cardiovascular-interventions-december-14-16-at-the-david-intercontinental-hotel-tel-aviv-israel/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »