Drag-and-drop DNA builds cancer-combating drug

A drug has been developed to combat a lethal brain cancer using a drag-and-drop DNA-self assembly technique.

A team from Parabon Nanolabs built the drug up, molecule by molecule, using a computer program called inSçquio. It combines computer-aided-design principles with nanoscale fabrication processes.

In a press release, the US national science foundation, which funded the research, said that the approach “could drastically reduce the time required to create and test medications”.

View the original article here: Drag-and-drop drug targets brain cancer

Amgen buys deCODE: What are the implications for genetic testing customers?

The big biotech news of the day is the $415 million sale of deCODE Genetics to Amgen. Coverage of the deal is everywhere, including a typically excellent overview from Matthew Herper of Forbes.

We’ve written extensively about deCODE here at the Genomics Law Report over the years, including the company’s well-publicized bankruptcy and privatization two years ago. That transaction left plenty of deCODE shareholders out in the cold, and those shareholders aren’t likely to be feeling any better about things this winter.

Two years ago, questions were raised regarding how the newly private deCODE would utilize one of its most noteworthy assets: it’s database of genetic and other personal health information about Icelandic citizens. Those questions are likely to resurface now, as Amgen seeks to extract $415 million worth of a company that it bought – at least according to one of deCODE’s owners – in large part for access to deCODE’s data. Expect the usual assurances, but remember that those assurances are only as strong as the paper – and legal framework – upon which they are premised.

View the original article here: Implications of Amgen/deCODE Deal for Genetic Testing Consumers

Speed up roll-out of GM crops, says British prime minister

Downing Street said it was working behind the scenes to encourage European Commission officials to make it easier for farmers to grow GM crops.

The news came after Owen Paterson, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that GM food should be grown and sold widely in Britain.

Mr Paterson also described consumer opposition to the technology as a “complete nonsense” and said the artificially developed food had “real environmental benefits”. People were even eating it in London restaurants without knowing it, he said.

Downing Street backed Mr Paterson’s comments, insisting that the Prime Minister was pushing officials at the European Commission to make the regulatory system governing GM crops “more efficient and more effective”.

View the original article here: Speed up roll-out of GM crops, says Downing Street

Scottish government responds to UK minister’s pro-GM comments

While the UK government may have decided to ignore overwhelming public opinion over many years on this issue, it’s worth reminding the media, the politicians and the people that agriculture and food here in Scotland is a devolved matter and that the Scottish Government has quite a different policy on GM. As it says here: ‘The Scottish Government is opposed to the cultivation of GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops could damage Scotland’s rich environment and would threaten our reputation for producing high quality and natural foods. It would damage Scotland’s image as a land of food and drink.’

View the original article here: GM Free Scotland 

Does whole genome sequencing circumvent gene patents?

 What happens when, during the course of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) a patient or research subject, an investigator sequences and analyzes a disease gene that has been patented? The U.S. Supreme Court will shed some light on this question next year when it issues its ruling in the long-running Myriad Genetics saga. 

View the original article here: Does Whole Genome Sequencing Circumvent Gene Patents?

Genetic testing helps to preserve Samaritan way of life

Samaritans, who trace their roots back about 2,700 years, are best known for clinging to strict biblical traditions that have largely disappeared, including animal sacrifice, isolation of menstruating women and, until recently, a ban on marrying outsiders.

But after facing near-extinction and being devastated by a high rate of birth defects because of inbreeding, the community is using modern science — including genetic testing, in vitro fertilization and abortion — to preserve their traditional way of life.

View the original article here: Genetic testing breathes new life into Israel’s Samaritans

ABC’s Jim Avila launches another fishy food attack

Dinner at Jim Avila’s house must be a real party – that is, if Avila himself believes his hysterical food scaremongering. The ABC senior national correspondent has launched job-killing attacks against the beef industry and the poultry industry, and now he’s having a go at the fish.

Avila’s latest bogie-food is a new breed of salmon he worries could cause cancer, and he’s going after the company aspiring to market it. But, as usual with Avila’s reporting, something seems fishy

View the original article here: ABC’s Avila Launches Fishy Food Attack

New evidence of Prop 37 voting fraud?

It seems there were significant “irregularities” in the vote totals for Proposition 37, the ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods, that could not be explained by random coincidence.

 
On election day, November 6, Proposition 37 – the ballot initiative for mandatory labeling of food with GMO content – failed by a narrow margin. With 4,277,985 people voting “yes” (47.9%) and 4,835,045 people voting “no” (53.1%), it was very close.

 

Since then, some rumors have been going around about possible election fraud. Food Democracy Now!, one of the groups involved in Prop 37 has been closely monitoring the results as they came in, and they hadn’t seen any credible reports of voting irregularities, that is up until now.

View the original article here: Op-Ed: Proposition 37 — possible that election fraud made it fail

Genetic pre-natal test opens window to improved diagnoses, stirs concerns

babies

New fetal screening tests using gene chips instead of conventional chromosomal evaluation to identify congenital diseases may ignite a turf war in the pre-natal screening industry.

The chromosomal microarray analysis, outlined last week in three papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is a test that finds small amounts of genetic material that traditional karyotyping—which has been the gold standard for 60 years—cannot detect.

According to Ronald Wapner, MD, the Director of the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Columbia University and co-author of 2 of 3 papers, the advanced screening technique doesn’t look at chromosomes but at smaller pieces of DNA.

The gene tests found abnormalities in the cells of 6 percent of fetuses declared normal by conventional chromosomal evaluation, according to the study of 4,400 pregnant women. Physicians and scientists will now be able to spot abnormalities that more traditional tests often miss, such as DiGeorge syndrome, a genetically-linked heart defect. It could also help prevent many common conditions, including autism, developmental delay, intellectual disability and stillbirth.

Genetic abnormalities have been associated with 6 to 13% of stillbirths, but the true prevalence may be even higher. One of every 160 births in the United States is a stillbirth, and parents and doctors often don’t know why the babies didn’t survive.

Women will still have to undergo amniocentesis, a procedure generally done between the 15th and 18th weeks of pregnancy in which a needle is inserted into the placenta to obtain cell samples. The chromosomal microarrays are scanned with gene chips rather than examined under a microscope. Ricki Lewis, a geneticist who blogs for Scientific American, draws from her own experience to explain how the procedures differ.

Although some clinicians have already made the switch to microarray for prenatal genetic testing, and the advanced screening technique is welcomed by most physicians, it stirs caution and even concerns in some circles. For example, not all the abnormalities identified will lead to a clinical illness, which could confuse patients if they are not properly counseled, although that’s true of karyotyping as well.

“When we do a microarray, we have to ask, ‘If you have a finding of unknown significance, do you want us to tell you?’” Wapner told Time’s Bonnie Rochman.

“It’s a great promising new technology, but the clinical application really needs some careful evaluation” because of any potential ethical issues, Dr. Nancy Rose, chair of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ committee on genetics, told CNN. She acknowledged, “It’s a great test for patients who have a pregnancy loss … and it’s superior to detect genetic changes in fetuses that have birth defects.”

Ethics organizations and social scientists are usually slow adaptors to new technology, and that’s the case when it comes to gene screenings. Just last week, NPR ran a story about the anxiety over a related screening procedure, whole genome sequencing for new babies and prenatally.

“In theory it sounds absolutely fantastic,” the article quotes sociologist Stefan Timmermans, who studies newborn screening at UCLA. “The reality is that there’s a lot of uncertainty about each of the data points you receive. So if people start making health decisions or life-or-death decisions based on information that is so tenuous at this point, I think this could indeed be a nightmare scenario.”

That’s a red herring of course. If the information is available, most people will demand it. The challenge then is appropriate counseling, not censorship or limiting the availability of an advanced screening technique.

Jon Entine, senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication, is executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project.

DNA evidence shows gypsies came from India

c fe x

Modern-day gypsies,  Europe’s widespread Romani population, are now as diverse in language, lifestyle, and religion as any demographic but they all share a common past.

And that past started about 1,500 years ago  in northwestern India, according to the first genome-wide perspective on Romani origins and demographic history.

View the original article here: DNA Evidence Shows Gypsies Began Their Exodus From India 1500 Years Ago

Seralini paper to blame for Kenya’s GMO ban

Kenya’s government has banned genetically modified (GM) organisms from entering the country, a move that reports say could result in a big negative impact on the country’s plans for biotechnology research and development.

The driving force behind the Kenyan government’s decision to bypass its own biotech watchdog and ban GM imports out of hand? The Seralini et al. GM rat study, possibly one of the most ill-received high-profile scientific publications in recent memory, with the possible exception of the “arsenic life” debacle.

And it’s not going to stop there, it seems. After 2011, when several African nations, including Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda, appeared to be leaning toward allowing GM crops, now Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, also is reported to be reconsidering a pending biotechnology bill out of renewed concerns over GM technology.

View the original article here: Seralini Paper Influences Kenya Ban of GMO Imports

Cheerios anti-GM attacks demonstrate a need for food transparency

In yet another social media campaign that turned into a “Be Careful What You Wish For” episode, anti-GMO campaigners have hijacked General Mills‘  Cheerios Facebook page. What was supposed to be a warm-and-fuzzy page dedicated with childhood odes to Cheerios has turned into an anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) rant.

View the original article here: General Mills’ Cheerios Facebook Page Morphs into an Anti-GMO Campaign

Anti-GM activists rally in India

Even as MNCs are trying to woo various state governments to allow them sell genetically modified (GM) food products and Punjab government also showing keen interest in this regard, volunteers of various organizations and public forums and members of different communities like students, lawyers, engineers and doctors came together on a common platform here on Sunday to raise their voice against GM foods.

Starting their campaign by organizing a workshop at Panjab University on Sunday to highlight the ill effects of GM foods, the activists have targeted US-based food products firm Monsanto with a campaign named “Monsanto – A threat to health, environment and human rights.”

View the original article here: Campaign against genetically modified food products takes root

UK to map genomes of 100,000 people

c DNA sequence transparency x

Up to 100,000 people in England will have their entire genetic makeup mapped in the first stage of an ambitious public health programme the government hopes could revolutionise the treatment and prevention of cancer and other diseases.

The first complete map of the human genome, completed in 2003, took more than a decade to complete, at a price of £750m. However, since then the cost of genome sequencing had been “falling off a cliff”, making it viable for everyday use, said Sir John Bell, professor of medical sciences at Oxford University: “We’re headed for £100 a genome. We’re not there yet. But that will happen in the very near future.”

View the original article here: DNA of 100,000 people to be mapped for NHS

Should the FDA regulate DTC genome sequencing?

The Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) gene testing industry has generated a lot of press over the last five or six years. But the business plan has always seemed rather on the South Park side of logical:

  1. Collect DNA from humans
  2. ?????
  3. PROFIT!!!

The company that generated the initial wave of publicity, and remains by far the best known, is 23andMe. Many people thought at first that their business plan was purely consumer focused: individuals would pay to get their spit kits and have their genes analyzed and the company would make a buck on the procedure. But as early as 2007 there were suggestions that Google had an interest in gathering genetic data. And it soon became clear that the fine print reserved the company the right to sell (theoretically anonymized) customer data to researchers.

View the original article here: New Business Plans for the Direct-to-Consumer Gene Testing Industry?

Genetically reprogrammed AIDs virus rescues girl from cancer

Leukemia Treatment

In the first of its kind experimental treatment, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS to genetically reprogram a young girl’s immune system to kill cancer cells.The treatment nearly killed her, but she emerged from it cancer-free and seven months later is in remission.

View the original article here: In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia

Greenpeace’s disinformation campaign against Golden Rice, and science, prevails in China

agriculture

In late summer, the Asian arm of Greenpeace issued an alarming press release headlined: “24 children used as guinea pigs in genetically engineered ‘Golden Rice’ trial.”

“Big business hustling in of one the world’s most sacred things: our food supply,” Greenpeace warned in the release. The Philippines, it said, was the next ‘target.’

The Chinese press, which rivals Rupert Murdoch for sensationalism, jumped on the story, embellishing even the gross exaggerations of the original story. Reporters played the anti-American card, claiming that researchers at Tufts University in Boston, with the approval of the US Department of Agriculture, had conspired with Chinese scientists to carry out a secretive and unauthorized experiment to feed “potentially dangerous” modified rice to as many as 80 rural children, ages 6-8, in Hunan. The Chinese blogosphere, including Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, lit up with outrage.

Although no children were harmed—in fact they benefitted from eating vitamin-enhanced rice—this story has an unhappy ending. And it’s not because American or Chinese researchers “experimented” on children, as one of the world’s most anti-science NGOs (non-governmental agencies) claims. Chinese officials, in a panic fanned by its own media, decided last week to fire three officials from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, which had coordinated the project and had been named in the Greenpeace report.

Golden Rice story

So-called Golden Rice—the genetically modified, vitamin A-enhanced version of white rice—has been in development for more than a decade. It is a dramatic improvement over the world’s most popular staple. In 1999, Swiss and German scientists used “open source” technology to develop Golden Rice, the first major genetically enhanced food in the new generation of bio-engineered grains, fruits, and vegetables that consumers actually eat directly.

The new rice variety was produced by splicing two genes (one from the daffodil, which gives the rice its golden color, and one from a bacterium that helps the process along) into white rice so it produces beta-carotene, which the body can convert to Vitamin A. Newer varieties have been tweaked to add iron, and to help the body more readily absorb the iron already in white rice.

According to the United Nations, more than half the world is vitamin deficient. White rice represents 72 percent of the diet for the people of Bangladesh and nearly as much in Laos and Indonesia; more than 40 percent in the Philippines, Madagascar and Sierra Leone; around 40 percent in Guyana and Suriname. Although white rice is a filling food and can be grown in abundance, it has a major drawback: it lacks Vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) weakens the immune system, increasing the risk of infections such as measles and malaria. Severe deficiencies can lead to corneal ulcers or blindness. It especially targets children and pregnant women. The World Health Organization notes there are more than 100 million VAD children around the world. Some 250,000 to 500,000 of these children become blind every year, with 50 percent of them dying. In Asia and Africa, nearly 600,000 vitamin A-deficient women die from childbirth-related causes.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has taken a lead role in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, to bring Golden Rice to market. Field trials are now underway in the Philippines and Bangladesh with the hope of introducing it to the market by 2015. Helen Keller International, a leading global health organization that reduces blindness and prevents malnutrition worldwide, joined the Golden Rice project to further develop and evaluate Golden Rice

Greenpeace and like-minded groups argue that tinkering with the genome of food or crops will unleash a genetic Godzilla that threatens the future of mankind. This is not hyperbole. They claim that Trojan-horse genes not subject to checks and balances in nature could be “released” into the environment causing untold havoc, and could physically harm children, as it said in its August news release.

Which is total hogwash.

Greenpeace’s “investigation” amounted to reading an August article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which published a summary of the four year old study by the joint Chinese-American team, which has been publically discussing the project for years. The Hunan trial was meant to determine whether a small bowl a day of the modified rice could effectively deliver enough Vitamin A and other nutrients to make a difference—and by all measures, according to the article, it was enormously successful—which was apparently enough of a reason to send Greenpeace’s disinformation campaign into over-drive.

Greenpeace’s fear campaign

“Food insecurity is brought about by lack of enough land, by decreasing rice production and decreasing incomes,” said one Golden Rice opponent. “Only through a genuine land reform which ensures farmers’ access to sufficient rice and other food sources will farmers start to become healthy again.”

Greenpeace is campaigning vigorously to block Golden Rice trials throughout Southeast Asia, instead promoting vitamin pills, organic gardening and political empowerment rather than readily available food—which of course does little for children going to bed hungry and malnourished each night.

Four years after the end of the trial, no health problems have been reported. Nonetheless, to quell the outcry, local government officials last week paid each of 25 families, whose children were in the study 80,000 Yuan ($12,800). According to China Daily, parents claim they were told their children were eating nutritionally enhanced rice but it was not specifically explained to them that the rice had been enhanced through modification. Tufts University says it is looking into those claims, but both Chinese and American researchers say the research was transparent.

China is the world’s top rice producer and consumer and supports agricultural biotechnology. It has approved one locally developed strain of genetically modified rice, known as the Bt rice, but has not yet begun commercial production. Its capitulation to the hysteria campaign has disappointed scientists around the world.

Greenpeace’s campaign is a “crime against humanity, says Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who broke with the NGO over its GM policy and now serves as Chair and Chief Scientist with Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, Canada.

While Golden Rice was developed over ten years at the miniscule total cost of $2.6 million, in an extraordinary public-private partnership using funds donated by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federation, the National Science Foundation, and the European Union, Greenpeace International alone annually spends about $270 million annually, and upwards of $7 million each year specifically dedicated to burying Golden Rice and any other food or crop developed using biotechnology.

Jon Entine, senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication, is executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project.

How accurate is 23andMe?

a f daugpaint x

My initial inclination in this post was to discuss a recent ordering snafu which resulted in many of my friends being quite peeved at 23andMe. But browsing through their new ‘ancestry composition’ feature I thought I had to discuss it first, because of some nerd-level intrigue. Though I agree with many of Dienekes concerns about this new feature, I have to admit that at least this method doesn’t give out positively misleading results. For example, I had complained earlier that ‘ancestry painting’ gave literally crazy results when they weren’t trivial. For example, it said I was ~60 percent European, which makes some coherent sense in their non-optimal reference population set, but then stated that my daughter was >90 percent European. Since 23andMe did confirm she was 50% identical by descent with me these results didn’t make sense; some readers suggested that there was a strong bias in their algorithms to assign ambiguous genomic segments to ‘European’ heritage (this was a problem for East Africans too).

View the original article here: Is Daniel MacArthur ‘desi’?