Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2015

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Read Full Post »

Dr. Francis S. Collins to Accept Award, Deliver Comments During 11th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at Harvard Medical School

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The 11th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, November 18-19, 2015,  Joseph B. Martin Conference Center of the Harvard New Research Building at Harvard Medical School,  77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, MA

Real Time Conference Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

www.personalizedmedicineconference.org

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/07/09/the-11th-annual-personalized-medicine-conference-november-18-19-2015-joseph-b-martin-conference-center-of-the-harvard-new-research-building-at-harvard-medical-school/

 

Contact: Chris Wells

Personalized Medicine Coalition

cwells@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org

202-589-1755

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

PMC to Recognize NIH Director With Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award

Dr. Francis S. Collins to Accept Award, Deliver Comments During 11th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at Harvard Medical School

WASHINGTON (Aug. 27, 2015) — In recognition of a career that has resulted in four of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of personalized medicine, the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) will present National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., with the 11th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award during the Personalized Medicine Conference at Harvard Medical School on Nov. 19.

In his letter nominating Collins for the award, Harvard Medical School Professor Raju Kucherlapati, Ph.D., noted that Collins “has made sustained and critical contributions for the establishment of personalized medicine.” A physician-geneticist, Collins earned national recognition in 1989, more than a decade before the complete sequencing of the human genome, for his team’s discovery of the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis. He then served as the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), where he was the overall project manager of the international Human Genome Project, which produced a complete map of the human genome in 2003. He also played a key role in the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in 2008, which has helped to ensure that the insights from his extraordinary achievements and those of many others are not used for discriminatory purposes.

President Obama nominated him as NIH director in 2009, proclaiming that his work had already “changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease.” As NIH director, Collins’ relentless advocacy helped shape President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), which was announced earlier this year as part of the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016.

Collins remains one of the field’s most passionate champions.

“I see a day in the not too distant future when every person will have his or her genome sequenced and other important data collected as a routine part of medical care with individualized strategies developed for diagnosing, treating and preventing their disease,” said Dr. Collins. “I know that the PMC shares this vision and I am truly honored to receive this award from an organization that continues to pursue the vision with such great passion.”

Collins will accept the award and deliver remarks at 10:30 a.m. on the second day of the conference, which will take place from Nov. 18 – 19 at the Harvard School of Medicine. The event kicks off with PMC’s cocktail reception at the Hotel Commonwealth on Nov. 17.

Register for PMC’s cocktail reception on Nov. 17

Register for the Personalized Medicine Conference (Nov. 18 – 19)

###

About the Personalized Medicine Coalition:
The Personalized Medicine Coalition, representing innovators, scientists, patients, providers and payers, promotes the understanding and adoption of personalized medicine concepts, services and products to benefit patients and the health system. For more information, please visit
www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org.

About the Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award:
The Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award recognizes an individual whose contributions in science, business and/or policy have helped advance the frontiers of personalized medicine. Previous recipients of the award include Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Dr. Elizabeth G. Nabel, former director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Ralph Snyderman, chancellor emeritus of Duke University, former Health and Human Services secretary Michael Leavitt, Brook Byers of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Dr. William Dalton, president and CEO of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Dr. Leroy Hood, president and co-founder of the Institute for Systems Biology, Dr. Randal W. Scott, founder, Genomic Health Inc. and current chairman and CEO, InVitae Corporation, Kathy Giusti, founder and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, and Mark Levin, co-founder and partner at Third Rock Ventures.

SOURCE

From: <cwells@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org>

Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 10:17 AM

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

Subject: NIH Director Francis Collins to Accept PMC Award at Harvard on Nov. 19

Read Full Post »

Fertilization: Protein Architecture of the Sperm’s Acrosomal Matrix, Filaments in Sperm Head Organelle Target the Egg

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Andrology. 2015 Jul;3(4):756-71. doi: 10.1111/andr.12057.

Sperm Lysozyme-Like Protein 1 (SLLP1), an intra-acrosomal oolemmal-binding sperm protein, reveals filamentous organization in protein crystal form.

Zheng H1, Mandal A2, Shumilin IA1, Chordia MD1, Panneerdoss S2, Herr JC2, Minor W1.

Abstract

Sperm lysozyme-like protein 1 (SLLP1) is one of the lysozyme-like proteins predominantly expressed in mammalian testes that lacks bacteriolytic activity, localizes in the sperm acrosome, and exhibits high affinity for an oolemmal receptor, SAS1B. The crystal structure of mouse SLLP1 (mSLLP1) was determined at 2.15 Å resolution. mSLLP1 monomer adopts a structural fold similar to that of chicken/mouse lysozymes retaining all four canonical disulfide bonds. mSLLP1 is distinct from c-lysozyme by substituting two essential catalytic residues (E35T/D52N), exhibiting different surface charge distribution, and by forming helical filaments approximately 75 Å in diameter with a 25 Å central pore comprised of six monomers per helix turn repeating every 33 Å. Cross-species alignment of all reported SLLP1 sequences revealed a set of invariant surface regions comprising a characteristic fingerprint uniquely identifying SLLP1 from other c-lysozyme family members. The fingerprint surface regions reside around the lips of the putative glycan-binding groove including three polar residues (Y33/E46/H113). A flexible salt bridge (E46-R61) was observed covering the glycan-binding groove. The conservation of these regions may be linked to their involvement in oolemmal protein binding. Interaction between SLLP1 monomer and its oolemmal receptor SAS1B was modeled using protein-protein docking algorithms, utilizing the SLLP1 fingerprint regions along with the SAS1B conserved surface regions. This computational model revealed complementarity between the conserved SLLP1/SAS1B interacting surfaces supporting the experimentally observed SLLP1/SAS1B interaction involved in fertilization.

© 2015 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.

SOURCE

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=26198801

Fertilization Discovery: Do Sperm Carry Tiny Harpoons?

SLLP1-filament-side

Figure SOURCE
The SLLP1 filament viewed along the side with each neighboring monomer colored alternatively
Andrology. 2015 Jul;3(4):756-71. doi: 10.1111/andr.12057. Sperm Lysozyme-Like Protein 1 (SLLP1), an intra-acrosomal oolemmal-binding sperm protein, reveals filamentous organization in protein crystal form.

AUGUST 26, 2015

Could the sperm harpoon the egg to facilitate fertilization? That’s the intriguing possibility raised by the University of Virginia School of Medicine’s discovery that a protein within the head of the sperm forms spiky filaments, suggesting that these tiny filaments may lash together the sperm and its target.

The finding, 14 years in the making, has earned the cover of the scientific journal Andrology. It represents a significant step forward in the fine dissection of the protein architecture of the sperm’s acrosomal matrix, an organelle in the sperm head, and suggests a new hypothesis concerning what happens during fertilization.

“This finding has really captured our imagination,” said U.Va. reproduction researcher John Herr of the Department of Cell Biology. “One of the major proteins that is abundant in the acrosome [in the anterior region of the sperm head] is crystallizing into filaments, and we now postulate they’re involved in penetrating the egg ­– that’s the new hypothesis emerging from the finding, which leads to a whole new set of questions and new hypotheses about the very fine structure of molecular events during fertilization.”

The discovery is the result of a longstanding collaboration between Herr’s lab and the lab of Wladek Minor of the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics. Years ago, Herr’s lab discovered the protein that has now been shown to form the filaments, which they dubbed sperm lysozyme-like protein 1, or SLLP1. This protein is a member of a family of proteins now known to reside inside the acrosome.

Herr’s lab, however, had no way to determine the shape and structure of the protein. That’s where Minor’s lab came in. To figure it out, Minor’s team had to capture the protein within a static crystal, cool the crystal to cryogenic temperatures to prevent decay and then blast it with X-rays. By examining how those X-rays were refracted, they could calculate the shape of the protein, somewhat like mapping out a shipwreck with sonar.

It was no easy task, requiring many attempts and much analysis. But in the end, they were able to produce one of the first descriptions of a sperm protein.

“This is an important protein, because it’s the first crystal structure from a protein within the sperm acrosome,” said Heping Zheng, the lead author of the paper outlining the discovery. “It is also the first structure of a mammalian sperm protein with a specific oocyte-side binding partner characterized. To our knowledge, only nine proteins specifically obtained from mammalian sperm have known structures.”

The new understanding of the structure will now act as a map for Herr and other reproductive biologists exploring how fertilization occurs. “At the very fundamental level, understanding that fine molecular architecture leads me, the biologist, to be able to posit new functions for this family of proteins my lab discovered in the acrosome,” Herr explained.

The mutually beneficial collaboration between the labs is vital, Minor noted. “You have to explain the relation between structure and function,” he said. “You can make a beautiful picture of the Himalayas, for example. For some time, when nobody knew the Himalayas, it was enough to show the picture. It was a beautiful picture; nobody had seen that before. Now, you can go close to Mount Everest, you can make a picture, you can send it to the Washington Post or the New York Times. Nobody will print that, because who cares? They have millions of these pictures. But if you have a story about someone who climbed the mountain in winter, skied down and saved the life of another climber, you have a story for the front page of the New York Times. It’s the same here. You must have a story, a novel understanding, to go with the structure on the cover of the journal.”

The structure has been detailed in an article published in Andrology by Heping Zheng, Arabinda Mandal, Igor A. Shumilin, Mahendra D. Chordia, Subbarayalu Panneerdoss, John Herr and Wladek Minor.

Read Full Post »

Open Innovation Summit  October 28 & 29, Boston, 2015, Hilton Hotel, Back Bay

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

https://theinnovationenterprise.com/summits/open-innovation-summit-boston-2015/registration#sthash.fMuKPMw0.dpuf

OVERVIEW

http://theinnovationenterprise.com/summits/open-innovation-summit-boston-2015#overview

BROCHURE

ie.theinnovationenterprise.com/eb/OpenInno_US15.pdf

AGENDA

http://theinnovationenterprise.com/summits/open-innovation-summit-boston-2015/schedule?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokva7Ie%2B%2FhmjTEU5z16u4pX6a2g5141El3fuXBP2XqjvpVQcBmMb3LRw8FHZNpywVWM8TIKdQQt9l1IAzmCmk%3D

 

Read Full Post »

MD Anderson Cancer Center: Treatment Options for Lung Cancer

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Seeking a Second Opinion for NSCLC –>>>>> Consider MDACC

 

Surgeon David Rice, M.D., is dedicated to providing the most-advanced
personalized lung cancer treatments, including minimally invasive surgeries.

Oncologist George Simon, M.D., FACP, FCCP, examines one of his patients. Dr. Simon specializes in targeted
therapies to improve outcomes for patients with small cell and non-small cell lung cancers.

George Simon, M.D., FACP, FCCP
Section Chief, Translational Research; Professor

If you have been diagnosed with lung cancer, we’re here to help. Call 1-877-632-6789 to make an appointment or request an appointment online.

Lung Cancer Treatment Options

Our Treatment Approach

At MD Anderson, some of the nation’s top lung cancer specialists focus their extraordinary expertise on you. We customize your treatment to deliver the most advanced, least invasive treatments available for lung cancer. And because your peace of mind is important to us, we specialize in techniques and therapies than can help preserve lung function.

MD Anderson offers the most advanced lung cancer treatments, many available at only a few locations in the United States. Your lung cancer therapy may include:

And we’re constantly researching newer, safer, more-effective lung cancer treatments – with fewer side effects. We are proud to be one of the few cancer centers in the nation to house a prestigious federally funded lung cancer SPORE (Specialized Program of Research Excellence) program. This translates to a wide variety of clinical trials for new treatments.

Our Lung Cancer Treatments

If you are diagnosed with lung cancer, your doctor will discuss the best options to treat it. This depends on several factors, including:

  • The stage and type of lung cancer
  • Other lung problems, such as emphysema or chronic bronchitis
  • Possible side effects of treatment
  • Your general health

Your treatment for lung cancer will be customized to your particular needs. It may include one or more of the following therapies to treat the cancer or help relieve symptoms.

If you have been diagnosed with lung cancer, we’re here to help. Call 1-877-632-6789 to make an appointment or request an appointment online.

 

Make Your First Appointment

Why Choose MD Anderson?

  • Latest, most-advancedlung cancer treatmentsincluding delivery of chemotherapy by nanoparticles, minimally invasive surgical techniques, targeted therapies and gene therapies
  • Leading-edge radiotherapy approaches including proton therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic radiotherapy
  • Focus on saving lung function and reducing damage to healthy tissue
  • Nationally recognized lung cancer research program, range of clinical trials
  • Lung cancer is part of MD Anderson’sMoon Shots Program: an ambitious effort to reduce cancer deaths through the rapid discovery of new treatments

Lung Cancer Knowledge Center

Treatment at MD Anderson

Lung cancer is treated in our:

Find Your MD Anderson Location

Surgery

Surgeon David Rice, M.D., is dedicated to providing the most-advanced
personalized lung cancer treatments, including minimally invasive surgeries.

Like all surgeries, lung cancer surgery is most successful when performed by a specialist with a great deal of experience in the particular procedure.

MD Anderson lung surgeons are among the most skilled and recognized in the world. They perform a large number of surgeries for lung cancer each year, using the least invasive and most effective techniques. For some patients, our advanced Cyberknife® stereotactic radiosurgery system provides an effective minimally invasive approach.

Lung cancer may be treated with surgery alone or combined with other treatments. Chemotherapy or radiation may be given:

  • Before surgery to shrink tumors. This is called induction or neoadjuvant therapy.
  • After surgery to help destroy cancer cells that may remain in the body. This is called adjuvant therapy.

Surgery is used less often for small cell lung cancer because this type of cancer spreads more quickly through the body and is not often found in the early stages when it is confined to the lungs.

The most common types of surgery for lung cancer are:

  • Wedge resection: Removal of the tumor and a pie- or wedge-shaped piece of the lung around the tumor
  • Lobectomy: Removal of the lobe of the lung with cancer
  • Segmentectomy or segmental resection: Removal of a segment, or part, of the lobe where the cancer is located
  • Pneumonectomy: Removal of the entire lung
  • Sleeve resection: Removal of part of the bronchus

In addition, lymph nodes in the chest will be removed and looked at under a microscope to find out if the lung cancer has spread. This will help doctors decide if you need further treatment after surgery.

Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS): MD Anderson surgeons are specially trained and highly skilled at performing this minimally invasive surgery, and they use the latest equipment available.

Other types of surgery

Sometimes surgery is needed to help problems caused by lung cancer or its treatment. This may include:

  • Laser surgery to open a blocked airway
  • Placement of small tubes (stents) to keep airways open
  • Cryosurgery to freeze and destroy cancer tissue
  • Placement of a Pleurx-Denver catheter to drain fluid that may accumulate in the pleural cavity (the layer of tissue that surrounds the lungs)
  • Cyberknife® stereotactic radiosurgery

Chemotherapy

MD Anderson offers the most up-to-date and effective chemotherapy options for lung cancer. Chemotherapy is often the main treatment for small cell lung cancer or if the cancer has spread (metastasized). MD Anderson offers techniques to help make chemotherapy more effective, including delivery by nanoparticles. If surgery is not an option for you, your doctor may suggest chemotherapy and radiation.

Targeted Therapies

MD Anderson is among just a few cancer centers in the nation that are able to offer you targeted therapies for some types of lung cancer. These innovative new drugs stop the growth of cancer cells by interfering with certain proteins and receptors or blood vessels that supply the tumor with what it needs to grow.

Radiation Therapy

New radiation therapy techniques and remarkable skill allow MD Anderson doctors to target lung cancer more precisely, delivering the maximum amount of radiation with the least damage to healthy cells. Radiation therapy may be used with chemotherapy and/or surgery.

The Thoracic Center provides the very latest radiation treatments for lung cancer, including:

  • Brachytherapy: Tiny radioactive seeds are placed in the body close to the tumor
  • 3D-conformal radiation therapy: Several radiation beams are given in the exact shape of the tumor
  • Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): Treatment is tailored to the specific shape of the tumor

Proton Therapy

The Proton Therapy Center at MD Anderson is one of the world’s largest and most advanced centers. It’s the only proton therapy facility in the country located within a comprehensive cancer center. This means this cutting-edge therapy is backed by all the expertise and compassionate care for which MD Anderson is famous.

Proton therapy delivers high radiation doses directly into the tumor, sparing nearby healthy tissue and vital organs. For many patients, this results in better cancer control with fewer side effects.

Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)

In photodynamic therapy, a light-sensitive chemical is injected into the body, where it remains longer in cancer cells than it does in normal cells. The chemical is activated with a laser that initiates the destruction of cancer cells. PDT often is used on very small tumors or to reduce certain symptoms of lung cancer.

Our Lung Cancer Clinical Trials

Because of its status as one of the world’s premier cancer centers, MD Anderson participates in many clinical trials (research studies) for lung cancer. Sometimes they are your best option for treatment. Other times, they help researchers learn how to treat cancer and improve the future of cancer treatment.

To find out more about clinical trials at MD Anderson for lung cancer, visit our Clinical Trials database or speak to your doctor.

Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology

While encompassing the overall mission of MD Anderson Cancer Center, the particular goals of the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology are to provide the highest quality of care to our patients and to advance the treatment and prevention of aerodigestive cancers through innovative clinical and laboratory research.

Our investigations involve many of the most promising molecularly-targeted agents and combinations of agents currently known. We emphasize rigorous study conduct and impeccable study design, and many of our studies have been developed through cooperative group mechanisms.

The Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology staff directly responsible for patient care is comprised of 21 physicians, 24 research nurses, two inpatient mid-level providers, and 13 outpatient mid-level providers. Our physician team includes ten physicians who care only for thoracic medical oncology patients in the Thoracic Center and eleven medical oncologists who treat both lung cancer and head/neck cancer patients in those respective outpatient clinic areas.

Why Choose MD Anderson?

  • Latest, most-advancedlung cancer treatmentsincluding delivery of chemotherapy by nanoparticles, minimally invasive surgical techniques, targeted therapies and gene therapies
  • Leading-edge radiotherapy approaches including proton therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic radiotherapy
  • Focus on saving lung function and reducing damage to healthy tissue
  • Nationally recognized lung cancer research program, range of clinical trials
  • Lung cancer is part of MD Anderson’sMoon Shots Program: an ambitious effort to reduce cancer deaths through the rapid discovery of new treatments

Faculty & Staff

Ethan Dmitrovsky, M.D.
Provost and Executive Vice President; Professor

Waun Ki Hong, M.D.
Head, Division of Cancer Medicine and Vice Provost; Professor

John V. Heymach, M.D., Ph.D.
Chair, Thoracic/ Head & Neck Medical Oncology and Chief, Thoracic Medical Oncology; Professor

Bonnie S. Glisson, M.D., FACP
Associate Chair, Thoracic/ Head & Neck Medical Oncology; Professor

George R. Blumenschein, Jr., M.D.
Associate Professor

Lauren Byers, M.D.
Assistant Professor

Frank V. Fossella, M.D.
Medical Director, Thoracic Multidisciplinary Care Center; Professor

Don Gibbons, M.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

Kathryn Gold, M.D.
Assistant Professor

Faye M. Johnson, M.D., Ph.D.
Co-Chief, Section of Head & Neck Medical Oncology; Associate Professor

Merrill S. Kies, M.D.
Deputy Division Head for Global Oncology; Professor

Jonathan M. Kurie, M.D.
Professor

Charles Lu, M.D., S.M.
Associate Professor; Associate Medical Director, Head and Neck Center

Erminia Massarelli, M.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

Vassiliki A. Papadimitrakopoulou, M.D.
Professor, Deputy Section Chief Thoracic Medical Oncology

Katherine M. Pisters, M.D.
Professor

Hai T. Tran, Pharm.D.
Associate Professor

George Simon, M.D., FACP, FCCP
Section Chief, Translational Research; Professor

Anne Tsao, M.D.
Director, Mesothelioma Program; Associate Professor

William N. William, Jr., M.D.
Chief, Section of Head & Neck Medical Oncology; Assistant Professor

Related Care Centers

Related Diseases

Related Programs

Thoracic Center

Thoracic Center Banner

MD Anderson’s Thoracic Center is dedicated to providing personalized care for every type and stage of lung cancer and other cancers in the chest. Our goal is to give patients exceptional outcomes while focusing on quality of life and optimum lung function. We specialize in treating:

And at MD Anderson you’re surrounded by the strength of one of the nation’s largest and most experienced comprehensive cancer centers, which has all the support and wellness services needed to treat the whole person – not just the disease.

If you have been diagnosed with lung cancer or another thoracic cancer, we’re here to help. Call 1-877-632-6789 to make an appointment or request an appointment online.

Why Choose MD Anderson’s Thoracic Center?

  • Latest treatments, including less-invasive surgery, sterotactic radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy
  • Dedication to optimum lung function and quality of life
  • Accurate diagnosis with most-advanced technology
  • Team approach to customized care
  • Clinical trials, including new chemotherapy agents, targeted therapies, antibodies and gene therapy

Our Diagnostic Approach

Early and precise diagnosis and staging of lung cancer and other thoracic cancers is important for successful treatment. MD Anderson’s Thoracic Center offers you the most advanced diagnostic methods and tools including:

  • PET (positron emission tomography) scans
  • High-resolution CT (computed tomography) scans
  • Endobronchial and esophageal ultrasound
  • Advanced bronchoscopic imaging
  • Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Our Treatments

Lung cancer and other thoracic cancers often are complex and challenging cancers that may require multiple types of treatment. Our teams of surgeons, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists specialize in thoracic cancers. They focus a remarkable amount of talent and expertise on you, providing personal, customized care.

We offer the most-advanced treatment options for thoracic cancers including:

  • Less-invasive surgical techniques
  • Proton therapy with the only pencil scanning beam capability in the United States
  • Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
  • Four-dimensional radiation therapy
  • Image-guided radiation therapy
  • Stereotactic radiation therapy
  • Techniques to help save lung function
  • Targeted therapies

Our Clinical Trials

We are proud to be one of the few cancer centers in the nation with a prestigious federally funded lung cancer SPORE (Specialized Program of Research Excellence) program. We’re studying new ways to prevent and treat lung cancers, and we offer clinical trials (research studies) for almost every type and stage of lung cancer and other types of thoracic cancer.

The Thoracic Center collaborates with Massachusetts General Hospital in the only National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trial to establish standards and guidelines for using proton therapy to treat lung cancer.

To find out more about clinical trials at MD Anderson for thoracic cancers, visit ourClinical Trials database or speak to your doctor.

 

 

Read Full Post »

LPBI Group’s M3DP – Matrix Organization

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

@M3DP – We need $20 Million to develop this Business, a goal for LPBI Group level Private Equity & Business Development Senior Executive

We need INVESTOR(S) to become like a Business Partner, involved, See Departmental Funding needs, below

CEO – TBA

COO [interim – Aviva]

CFO – TBA

BD & Departmental Finance – Gerard Loiseau

Sales Department

A Global distributorship of Medical 3D Printers from OEMs:

PRODUCTS:

  • Medical Printers and
  • BioInks 

We need VP Sales

R&D in Medical 3D BioPrinting: BIOLOGICS Department  (N=9)

Dr. Williams, VP

  • Novel Immunology, Cancer Drugs & Diagnostics:

Dr. Codrington, Dr. Raphael Nir, Dr. Evelina Cohn — FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

  • Gene Therapy & Gene Editing:

Dr. Williams, Dr. Goswami, Dr. Gilad Evrony — FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

  • Tissue Engineering:

Dr. Irina Robu and Dr. Tilda Barlyia – FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

R&D in Medical Devices, BioMed Applications, Product Concepts & Design (N=4) 

Dr. Pearlman, VP

Bill Zurn

Dr. Dragoi

Steven Lerner

FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

The MATRIX at WORK

Management Sales

3D Printers & BioInks

 

·      Consulting Services

·      3D Organ Printing

·      4D BioPrinting

·      4D Tissue Eng

·      System Integration

R&D Biologics, Gene Teraphy, Gene Editing, Tissue Engineering

 

VP R&D 

Dr. Williams

 

·      Consulting Services

·      Tissue Engineering

·      Drug Dosing and Printing

·      Nano Particles

BioMed Applications:

Materials and Medical Devices

 

VP R&D 

Dr. Pearlman

 

·      Medical Product Concepts

·      Medical Product Designs

·      Failure Analysis & QA

CEO – TBA
COO [interim – Aviva]
CFO
BD & Departmental Finance

Gerard Loiseau

M3DP – We need $20 Million to develop this Business, we need INVESTOR(S) to become like a Business Partner, involved, See Funding needed, below

Sales Department:

a Global distributor of Medical 3D Printers OEMs: Printers and BioInks 

We need VP Sales

R&D in Medical 3D BioPrinting: BIOLOGICS Department

Dr. Williams, VP

  • Novel Immunology, Cancer Drug & Diagnostics:

Dr. Codrington, Dr. Raphael Nir, Dr. Evelina Cohn — FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

  • Gene Therapy & Gene Editing:

Dr. Williams, Dr. Goswami, Dr. Gilad Evrony — to FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

  • Tissue Engineering:

Dr. Irina Robu and Dr. Tilda Barlyia 

FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

R&D in Medical Devices, BioMed Applications, Product Concepts & Design

Dr. Pearlman, VP

Bill Zurn

Dr. Dragoi

FUNDING for R&D NEEDED

Members of Technical Staff by Domains

     
Bill Zurn

MEMS

yes yes
Steven Lerner

BioSensors

yes
Dr. Stephen J Williams

Pharma & Genomics

CRISPR & 3D BioPrinting

yes yes
Dr. Tilda Barliya

Nano & Pharma

yes
Dr. Irina Robu

Tissue Engineering

yes yes yes
Dr. Danut Dragoi

Materials & Metals

yes yes
Dr. D. Goswami

Pharma & Genomics

CRISPR & 3D BioPrinting

yes
Dr. Pearlman – Cardiovascular Applications yes yes yes
Dr. Pearlman –

Medical

Applications

yes yes yes
Dr. Evelina Cohn

Diagnostics, Materials

yes yes
Dr. Rosalind Codrington

Diagnostics, Nanotech

yes
Dr. Raphael Nir

Cytokins & 3D Printing

                                   yes

Read Full Post »

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Read Full Post »

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Read Full Post »

Business and Financial Metrics for Start Ups by the Founders of the Venture Capital Firm, Andreessen Horowitz, Menlo Park, CA

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

SOURCE

http://a16z.com/2015/08/21/16-metrics/

See

Portfolio of Andreessen Horowitz

http://portfoliojobs.a16z.com/

16 Startup Metrics

We have the privilege of meeting with thousands of entrepreneurs every year, and in the course of those discussions are presented with all kinds of numbers, measures, and metrics that illustrate the promise and health of a particular company. Sometimes, however, the metrics may not be the best gauge of what’s actually happening in the business, or people may use different definitions of the same metric in a way that makes it hard to understand the health of the business.

So, while some of this may be obvious to many of you who live and breathe these metrics all day long, we compiled a list of the most common or confusing ones. Where appropriate, we tried to add some notes on why investors focus on those metrics. Ultimately, though, good metrics aren’t about raising money from VCs — they’re about running the business in a way where founders know how and why certain things are working (or not) … and can address or adjust accordingly.

Business and Financial Metrics

#1 Bookings vs. Revenue

A common mistake is to use bookings and revenue interchangeably, but they aren’t the same thing.

Bookings is the value of a contract between the company and the customer. It reflects a contractual obligation on the part of the customer to pay the company.

Revenue is recognized when the service is actually provided or ratably over the life of the subscription agreement. How and when revenue is recognized is governed by GAAP.

Letters of intent and verbal agreements are neither revenue nor bookings.

#2 Recurring Revenue vs. Total Revenue

Investors more highly value companies where the majority of total revenue comes from product revenue (vs. from services). Why? Services revenue is non-recurring, has much lower margins, and is less scalable. Product revenue is the what you generate from the sale of the software or product itself.

ARR (annual recurring revenue) is a measure of revenue components that are recurring in nature. It should exclude one-time (non-recurring) fees and professional service fees.

ARR per customer: Is this flat or growing? If you are upselling or cross-selling your customers, then it should be growing, which is a positive indicator for a healthy business.

MRR (monthly recurring revenue): Often, people will multiply one month’s all-in bookings by 12 to get to ARR. Common mistakes with this method include: (1) counting non-recurring fees such as hardware, setup, installation, professional services/ consulting agreements; (2) counting bookings (see #1).

#3 Gross Profit

While top-line bookings growth is super important, investors want to understand how profitable that revenue stream is. Gross profit provides that measure.

What’s included in gross profit may vary by company, but in general all costs associated with the manufacturing, delivery, and support of a product/service should be included.

So be prepared to break down what’s included in — and excluded — from that gross profit figure.

#4 Total Contract Value (TCV) vs. Annual Contract Value (ACV)

TCV (total contract value) is the total value of the contract, and can be shorter or longer in duration. Make sure TCV also includes the value from one-time charges, professional service fees, and recurring charges.

ACV (annual contract value), on the other hand, measures the value of the contract over a 12-month period. Questions to ask about ACV:

What is the size? Are you getting a few hundred dollars per month from your customers, or are you able to close large deals? Of course, this depends on the market you are targeting (SMB vs. mid-market vs. enterprise).

Is it growing (and especially not shrinking)? If it’s growing, it means customers are paying you more on average for your product over time. That implies either your product is fundamentally doing more (adding features and capabilities) to warrant that increase, or is delivering so much value customers (improved functionality over alternatives) that they are willing to pay more for it.

See also this post on ACV.

#5 LTV (Life Time Value)

Lifetime value is the present value of the future net profit from the customer over the duration of the relationship. It helps determine the long-term value of the customer and how much net value you generate per customer after accounting for customer acquisition costs (CAC).

A common mistake is to estimate the LTV as a present value of revenue or even gross margin of the customer instead of calculating it as net profit of the customer over the life of the relationship.

Reminder, here’s a way to calculate LTV:

Revenue per customer (per month) = average order value multiplied by the number of orders.

Contribution margin per customer (per month) = revenue from customer minus variable costs associated with a customer. Variable costs include selling, administrative and any operational costs associated with serving the customer.

Avg. life span of customer (in months) = 1 / by your monthly churn.

LTV = Contribution margin from customer multiplied by the average lifespan of customer.

Note, if you have only few months of data, the conservative way to measure LTV is to look at historical value to date. Rather than predicting average life span and estimating how the retention curves might look, we prefer to measure 12 month and 24 month LTV.

Another important calculation here is LTV as it contributes to margin. This is important because a revenue or gross margin LTV suggests a higher upper limit on what you can spend on customer acquisition. Contribution Margin LTV to CAC ratio is also a good measure to determine CAC payback and manage your advertising and marketing spend accordingly.

See also Bill Gurley on the “dangerous seductions” of the lifetime value formula.

#6 Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) vs. Revenue

In marketplace businesses, these are frequently used interchangeably. But GMV does not equal revenue!

GMV (gross merchandise volume) is the total sales dollar volume of merchandise transacting through the marketplace in a specific period. It’s the real top line, what the consumer side of the marketplace is spending. It is a useful measure of the size of the marketplace and can be useful as a “current run rate” measure based on annualizing the most recent month or quarter.

Revenue is the portion of GMV that the marketplace “takes”. Revenue consists of the various fees that the marketplace gets for providing its services; most typically these are transaction fees based on GMV successfully transacted on the marketplace, but can also include ad revenue, sponsorships, etc. These fees are usually a fraction of GMV.

#7 Unearned or Deferred Revenue … and Billings

In a SaaS business, this is the cash you collect at the time of the booking in advance of when the revenues will actually be realized.

As we’ve shared previously, SaaS companies only get to recognize revenue over the term of the deal as the service is delivered — even if a customer signs a huge up-front deal. So in most cases, that “booking” goes onto the balance sheet in a liability line item called deferred revenue. (Because the balance sheet has to “balance,” the corresponding entry on the assets side of the balance sheet is “cash” if the customer pre-paid for the service or “accounts receivable” if the company expects to bill for and receive it in the future). As the company starts to recognize revenue from the software as service, it reduces its deferred revenue balance and increases revenue: for a 24-month deal, as each month goes by deferred revenue drops by 1/24th and revenue increases by 1/24th.

A good proxy to measure the growth — and ultimately the health — of a SaaS company is to look at billings, which is calculated by taking the revenue in one quarter and adding the change in deferred revenue from the prior quarter to the current quarter. If a SaaS company is growing its bookings (whether through new business or upsells/renewals to existing customers), billings will increase.

Billings is a much better forward-looking indicator of the health of a SaaS company than simply looking at revenue because revenue understates the true value of the customer, which gets recognized ratably. But it’s also tricky because of the very nature of recurring revenue itself: A SaaS company could show stable revenue for a long time — just by working off its billings backlog — which would make the business seem healthier than it truly is. This is something we therefore watch out for when evaluating the unit economics of such businesses.

#8 CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) … Blended vs. Paid, Organic vs. Inorganic

Customer acquisition cost or CAC should be the full cost of acquiring users, stated on a per user basis. Unfortunately, CAC metrics come in all shapes and sizes.

One common problem with CAC metrics is failing to include all the costs incurred in user acquisition such as referral fees, credits, or discounts. Another common problem is to calculate CAC as a “blended” cost (including users acquired organically) rather than isolating users acquired through “paid” marketing. While blended CAC [total acquisition cost / total new customers acquired across all channels] isn’t wrong, it doesn’t inform how well your paid campaigns are working and whether they’re profitable.

This is why investors consider paid CAC [total acquisition cost/ new customers acquired through paid marketing] to be more important than blended CAC in evaluating the viability of a business — it informs whether a company can scale up its user acquisition budget profitably. While an argument can be made in some cases that paid acquisition contributes to organic acquisition, one would need to demonstrate proof of that effect to put weight on blended CAC.

Many investors do like seeing both, however: the blended number as well as the CAC, broken out by paid/unpaid. We also like seeing the breakdown by dollars of paid customer acquisition channels: for example, how much does a paying customer cost if they were acquired via Facebook?

Counterintuitively, it turns out that costs typically go up as you try and reach a larger audience. So it might cost you $1 to acquire your first 1,000 users, $2 to acquire your next 10,000, and $5 to $10 to acquire your next 100,000. That’s why you can’t afford to ignore the metrics about volume of users acquired via each channel.

Product and Engagement Metrics

#9 Active Users

Different companies have almost unlimited definitions for what “active” means. Some charts don’t even define what that activity is, while others include inadvertent activity — such as having a high proportion of first-time users or accidental one-time users.

Be clear on how you define “active.”

#10 Month-on-month (MoM) growth

Often this measured as the simple average of monthly growth rates. But investors often prefer to measure it as CMGR (Compounded Monthly Growth Rate) since CMGR measures the periodic growth, especially for a marketplace.

Using CMGR [CMGR = (Latest Month/ First Month)^(1/# of Months) -1] also helps you benchmark growth rates with other companies. This would otherwise be difficult to compare due to volatility and other factors. The CMGR will be smaller than the simple average in a growing business.

#11 Churn

There’s all kinds of churn — dollar churn, customer churn, net dollar churn — and there are varying definitions for how churn is measured. For example, some companies measure it on a revenue basis annually, which blends upsells with churn.

Investors look at it the following way:

Monthly unit churn = lost customers/prior month total

Retention by cohort

Month 1 = 100% of installed base

Latest Month = % of original installed base that are still transacting

It is also important to differentiate between gross churn and net revenue churn —

Gross churn: MRR lost in a given month/MRR at the beginning of the month.

Net churn: (MRR lost minus MRR from upsells) in a given month/MRR at the beginning of the month.

The difference between the two is significant. Gross churn estimates the actual loss to the business, while net revenue churn understates the losses (as it blends upsells with absolute churn).

#12 Burn Rate

Burn rate is the rate at which cash is decreasing. Especially in early stage startups, it’s important to know and monitor burn rate as companies fail when they are running out of cash and don’t have enough time left to raise funds or reduce expenses. As a reminder, here’s a simple calculation:

Monthly cash burn = cash balance at the beginning of the year minus cash balance end of the year / 12

It’s also important to measure net burn vs. gross burn:

Net burn [revenues (including all incoming cash you have a high probability of receiving) – gross burn] is the true measure of amount of cash your company is burning every month.

Gross burn on the other hand only looks at your monthly expenses + any other cash outlays.

Investors tend to focus on net burn to understand how long the money you have left in the bank will last for you to run the company. They will also take into account the rate at which your revenues and expenses grow as monthly burn may not be a constant number.

See also Fred Wilson on burn rate.

#13 Downloads

Downloads (or number of apps delivered by distribution deals) are really just a vanity metric.

Investors want to see engagement, ideally expressed as cohort retention on metrics that matter for that business — for example, DAU (daily active users), MAU (monthly active users), photos shared, photos viewed, and so on.

Presenting Metrics Generally

#14 Cumulative Charts (vs. Growth Metrics)

Cumulative charts by definition always go up and to the right for any business that is showing any kind of activity. But they are not a valid measure of growth — they can go up-and-to-the-right even when a business is shrinking. Thus, the metric is not a useful indicator of a company’s health.

Investors like to look at monthly GMV, monthly revenue, or new users/customers per month to assess the growth in early stage businesses. Quarterly charts can be used for later-stage businesses or businesses with a lot of month-to-month volatility in metrics.

#15 Chart Tricks

There a number of such tricks, but a few common ones include not labeling the Y-axis; shrinking scale to exaggerate growth; and only presenting percentage gains without presenting the absolute numbers. (This last one is misleading since percentages can sound impressive off a small base, but are not an indicator of the future trajectory.)

#16 Order of Operations

It’s fine to present metrics in any order as you tell your story.

When initially evaluating businesses, investors often look at GMV, revenue, and bookings first because they’re an indicator of the size of the business. Once investors have a sense of the the size of the business, they’ll want to understand growth to see how well the company is performing. These basic metrics, if interesting, then compel us to look even further.

As one of our partners who recently had a baby observes here: It’s almost like doing a health check for your baby at the pediatrician’s office. Check weight and height, and then compare to previous estimates to make sure things look healthy before you go any deeper!

SOURCE

http://a16z.com/2015/08/21/16-metrics/

Read Full Post »

Agenda for 4D Printing & Meta Materials Conference, 10/6/2015 at AMOLF in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Venue

FOM Institute AMOLF is one of the research laboratories of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), part of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
AMOLF employs about 130 FTE research staff and 70 FTE support staff. AMOLF’s yearly budget is 14 million euro. The institute is located in Science Park Amsterdam.

Program

The seminar program for the first edition of the 4D Printing & Meta Materials Conference is being developed.

9:45 10:20 Registration and coffee
10:20 10:30 Opening and Welcome
10:30 11:00 Prof. Dr. Martin van Hecke, Leiden Institute of Physics / AMOLF Amsterdam. More information
11:00 11:30 Prof. Dr. Dirk J. Broer, Institute for Complex Molecular Systems (ICMS), Eindhoven University of Technology about ‘Morphing dynamics in light-triggered liquid crystal networks’ More information
11:30 12:00 Prof. Dr. Martin Wegener, Institute of Applied Physics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology about ‘3D optical laser lithography for 3D metamaterial’. More information
12:00 12:30 Panel discussion about future applications
12:30 13:30 Lunch
13:30 15:00
Daniel Dikovsky, Digital Materials R&D Manager, Stratasys, about ‘Fabrication of 4D Printing Systems by PolyJet Technology’ More information
Prof. Dr. Ir. Jo Geraedts, Mechatronic Design chair, Section head of Reliability and Durability, TU Delft / Faculty Industrial Design Engineering,’4D Printing: Integrated Properties and Mechatronic Elements in Products’  More information
Panel discussion about future applications
15:00 15:30 Break
15:30 17:00
Fergal Coulter , PhD Candidate, Nottingham Trent University about ‘3D Printing of Inflatable Elastomeric Tensegrity Structures’ More information
Ignacio García, Founder, Recreus
Panel discussion about future applications
17:00 18:30 Networking reception

If you want to be part of this coming edition, by presenting your view on/project about/experience with 4Dprinting/ mechanical meta materials as a speaker, please contact us by filling in this form.

Stay up to date about new speakers and latest developments by following @4DPrintingForum, and join the discussion at the  LinkedIn group.

 

SOURCE

http://www.4dpmmconference.com/program/

Dr. Daniel Dikovsky presents: Fabrication of 4D Printing Systems by PolyJet Technology

Daniel Dikovsky

Dr. Daniel Dikovsky presents at the 4D Printing & Meta Materials Conference: Fabrication of 4D Printing Systems by PolyJet Technology

In the recent years the Stratasys PolyJet 3D printing systems were used to fabricate multi-material devices capable of changing their 3D shape in response to an external trigger. A collaboration project between MIT and Stratasys yielded promising results and the term 4D printing, suggesting an additional dimension of form transformation that became possible by this approach. Dr. Daniel Dikovsky will speak about the materials and systems that were used to fabricate these 4D devices and suggest possible developments for the future.

About Daniel Dikovsky:

Daniel Dikovsky holds a Ph.D. degree in Biomedical Engineering from The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology and a M.Sc. degree in Applied Chemistry from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

He is a materials scientist and worked as R&D Manager for Stratasys Ltd., a manufacturer of 3D printing equipment and materials for creating physical objects directly from digital data. The Israeli branch of Stratasys (formerly Objet Ltd.) utilizes ink-jet technology for printing three-dimensional polymer objects. Daniel’s research focuses on Multi-Material 3D Printing technology enabling the generation of Digital Materials. These materials are created by simultaneous deposition of multiple material components onto the printing tray.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »