Learn Something New Every Day
There was an error. Please try again.
You're in! Thanks for signing up.
There was an error. Please try again.
Thank you for signing up.
Follow Us
Link:
Cell Biology - ThoughtCo
Monthly Archives: August 2017
Biocomputers Made From Cells Can Now Handle More Complex Logic – Singularity Hub
When it comes to biomolecules, RNA doesnt get a lot of love.
Maybe you havent even heard of the silent workhorse. RNA is the cells de facto translator: like a game of telephone, RNA takes DNAs genetic code to a cellular factory called ribosomes. There, the cell makes proteins based on RNAs message.
But RNA isnt just a middleman. It controls what proteins are formed. Because proteins wiz around the cell completing all sorts of important processes, you can say that RNA is the gatekeeper: no RNA message, no proteins, no life.
In a new study published in Nature, RNA finally took center stage. By adding bits of genetic material to the E. Coli bacteria, a team of biohackers at the Wyss Institute hijacked the organisms RNA messengers so that they only spring into action following certain inputs.
The result? A bacterial biocomputer capable of performing 12-input logic operationsAND, OR, and NOTfollowing specific inputs. Rather than outputting 0s and 1s, these biocircuits produce results based on the presence or absence of proteins and other molecules.
Its the greatest number of inputs in a circuit that a cell has been able to process, says study author Dr. Alexander Green at Arizona State University. To be able to analyze those signals andmake a decision is the big advance here.
When given a specific set of inputs, the bacteria spit out a protein that made them glow neon green under fluorescent light.
But synthetic biology promises far more than just a party trickby tinkering with a cells RNA repertoire, scientists may one day coax them to photosynthesize, produce expensive drugs on the fly, or diagnose and hunt down rogue tumor cells.
This isnt the first time that scientists hijacked lifes algorithms to reprogram cells into nanocomputing systems. Previous work has already introduced to the world yeast cells that can make anti-malaria drugs from sugar or mammalian cells that can perform Boolean logic.
Yet circuits with multiple inputs and outputs remain hard to program. The reason is this: synthetic biologists have traditionally focused on snipping, fusing, or otherwise arranging a cells DNA to produce the outcomes they want.
But DNA is two steps removed from proteins, and tinkering with lifes code often leads to unexpected consequences. For one, the cell may not even accept and produce the extra bits of DNA code. For another, the added code, when transformed into proteins, may not act accordingly in the crowded and ever-changing environment of the cell.
Whats more, tinkering with one gene is often not enough to program an entirely new circuit. Scientists often need to amp up or shut down the activity of multiple genes, or multiple biological modules each made up of tens or hundreds of genes.
Its like trying to fit new Lego pieces in a specific order into a room full of Lego constructions. Each new piece has the potential to wander off track and click onto something its not supposed to touch.
Getting every moving component to work in syncas you might have guessedis a giant headache.
With ribocomputing, Green and colleagues set off to tackle a main problem in synthetic biology: predictability.
Named after the R (ribo) in RNA, the method grew out of an idea that first struck Green back in 2012.
The synthetic biological circuits to date have relied heavily on protein-based regulators that are difficult to scale up, Green wrote at the time. We only have a limited handful of designable parts that work well, and these circuits require significant resources to encode and operate, he explains.
RNA, in comparison, is a lot more predictable. Like its more famous sibling DNA, RNA is composed of units that come in four different flavors: A, G, C, and U. Although RNA is only single-stranded, rather than the double helix for which DNA is known for, it can bind short DNA-like sequences in a very predictable manner: Gs always match up with Cs and As always with Us.
Because of this predictability, its possible to design RNA components that bind together perfectly. In other words, it reduces the chance that added RNA bits might go rogue in an unsuspecting cell.
Normally, once RNA is produced it immediately rushes to the ribosomethe cells protein-building factory. Think of it as a constantly on system.
However, Green and his team found a clever mechanism to slow them down. Dubbed the toehold switch, it works like this: the artificial RNA component is first incorporated into a chain of A, G, C, and U folded into a paperclip-like structure.
This blocks the RNA from accessing the ribosome. Because one RNA strand generally maps to one protein, the switch prevents that protein from ever getting made.
In this way, the switch is set to off by defaulta NOT gate, in Boolean logic.
To activate the switch, the cell needs another component: a trigger RNA, which binds to the RNA toehold switch. This flips it on: the RNA grabs onto the ribosome, and bamproteins.
String a few RNA switches together, with the activity of each one relying on the one before, and it forms an AND gate. Alternatively, if the activity of each switch is independent, thats an OR gate.
Basically, the toehold switches performed so well that we wanted to find a way to best exploit them for cellular applications, says Green. Theyre kind of the equivalent of your first transistors, he adds.
Once the team optimized the designs for different logic gates, they carefully condensed the switches into gate RNA molecules. These gate RNAs contain both codes for proteins and the logic operations needed to kickstart the processa molecular logic circuit, so to speak.
If youve ever played around with an Arduino-controlled electrical circuit, you probably know the easiest way to test its function is with a light bulb.
Thats what the team did here, though with a biological bulb: green fluorescent protein, a light-sensing protein not normally present in bacteria thatwhen turned onmakes the microbugs glow neon green.
In a series of experiments, Green and his team genetically inserted gate RNAs into bacteria. Then, depending on the type of logical function, they added different combinations of trigger RNAsthe inputs.
When the input RNA matched up with its corresponding gate RNA, it flipped on the switch, causing the cell to light up.
Their most complex circuit contained five AND gates, five OR gates, and two NOTsa 12-input ribocomputer that functioned exactly as designed.
Thats quite the achievement. Everything is interacting with everything else and there are a million ways those interactions could flip the switch on accident, says RNA researcher Dr. Julies Lucks at Northwestern University.
The specificity is thanks to RNA, the authors explain. Because RNAs bind to others so predictably, we can now design massive libraries of gate and trigger units to mix-and-match into all types of nano-biocomputers.
Although the technology doesnt have any immediate applications, the team has high hopes.
For the first time, its now possible to massively scale up the process of programming new circuits into living cells. Weve expanded the library of available biocomponents that can be used to reprogram lifes basic code, the authors say.
Whats more, when freeze-dried onto a piece of tissue paper, RNA keeps very well. We could potentially print RNA toehold switches onto paper that respond to viruses or to tumor cells, the authors say, essentially transforming the technology into highly accurate diagnostic platforms.
But Greens hopes are even wilder for his RNA-based circuits.
Because were using RNA, a universal molecule of life, we know these interactions can also work in other cells, so our method provides a general strategy that could be ported to other organisms, he says.
Ultimately, the hope is to program neural network-like capabilities into the bodys other cells.
Imagine cells endowed with circuits capable of performing the kinds of computation the brain does, the authors say.
Perhaps one day, synthetic biology will transform our own cells into fully programmable entities, turning us all into biological cyborgs from the inside. How wild would that be?
Image Credit: Wyss Institute at Harvard University
Continue reading here:
Biocomputers Made From Cells Can Now Handle More Complex Logic - Singularity Hub
Home | Neurosciences PhD Program | Stanford Medicine
The Stanford Neurosciences Interdepartmental Program (IDP) offers interdisciplinary training leading to a Ph.D. in Neuroscience. The primary goal of the program is to train students to become leaders in neuroscience research, education and outreach. Graduates of the program will be innovators, investigators, and teachers whose programs and pursuits are founded on research. The signature feature of the Stanford Neurosciences IDP is the combination of outstanding faculty researchers and exceedingly bright, energetic students in a community that shares a firm and longstanding commitment to understanding the nervous system at all its levels of function.
See the original post:
Home | Neurosciences PhD Program | Stanford Medicine
From fantasy to possibility – The Statesman
A landmark study suggests that scientists could soon edit out genetic mutations to prevent babies being born with diseases.
The technique could eventually let doctors remove inherited conditions from embryos before they go on to become a child. That, in turn, opens the possibility for inherited diseases to be wiped out entirely, according to doctors. But experts have warned that urgent work is needed to answer the ethical and legal questions surrounding the work.
Though the scientists only edited out mutations that could cause diseases, it modified the nuclear DNA that sits right at the heart of the cell, which also influences personal characteristics such as intelligence, height, facial appearance and eye colour.
The breakthrough means that the possibility of germline genome editing has moved from future fantasy to the world of possibility, and the debate about its use, outside of fears about the safety of the technology, needs to run to catch up, said Professor Peter Braude from Kings College London.
Scientists warned that soon the public could demand such treatment and that the world might not be ready. Families with genetic diseases have a strong drive to find cures, said Yalda Jamshidi, reader in genomic medicine at St Georges, University of London.
Whilst we are just beginning to understand the complexity of genetic disease, gene-editing will likely become acceptable when its potential benefits, both to individuals and to the broader society, exceeds its risks. The new research, published in Nature, marks the first time the powerful Crispr-Cas9 tool has been used to fix mutations. The US study destroyed the embryos after just a few days and the work remains at an experimental stage. In the study, scientists fertilised donor eggs with sperm that included a gene that causes a type of heart failure.
As the eggs were fertilised, they also applied the gene-editing tool, which works like a pair of specific scissors and cuts away the defective parts of the gene. When those problematic parts are cut away, the cells can repair themselves with the healthy versions and so get rid of the mutation that causes the disease. Some 42 out of 58 embryos were fixed so that they didnt carry the mutation stopping a disease that usually has a 50 per cent chance of being passed on.
If those embryos had been allowed to develop into children, then they would no longer have carried the disease. That would stop them from being vulnerable to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and would save their children, too. Every generation on would carry this repair because weve removed the disease-causing gene variant from that familys lineage, said Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov, from Oregon Health and Science University, who led the study. By using this technique, its possible to reduce the burden of this inheritable disease on the family and eventually the human population.
The heart problem is just one of more than 10,000 conditions that are caused by an error in the gene. The same tool could be used to cut out faults for all of those, and eventually be used to target cancer mutations. The work could lead to treatments that would be given to patients, once it becomes more efficient and safe. Using such a treatment on humans is illegal in both the US and the UK but some experts expect that law will soon be changed, and that the legal and ethical frameworks need to catch up with the technology. There is some suggestion that the editing work could take place in the UK.
Though using the research as treatment is illegal there as well as the US, the regulatory barriers are much higher in America and look unlikely to be changed. In the US, there are various regulations and restrictions on how embryos can be edited, including stipulations that such work cant be carried out with taxpayers money. UK regulators are more relaxed and liberal about those restrictions, leading to suggestions that it could eventually become the home of such work in the West.
The UK has become the first country that allows mitochondrial replacement therapy, another treatment that opponents warn could allow for the creation of designer babies. UK researchers can apply for a licence to edit human embryos in research, but offering it as a treatment is currently illegal, said a spokesperson for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which would regulate any such experiments.
Introducing new, controversial techniques is not just about developing the science gene editing would need to offer new options to couples at risk of having a child with a genetic disease, beyond current treatments like embryo testing. Our experience of introducing mitochondrial donation in the UK shows that high-quality public discussion about the ethics of new treatments, expert scientific advice and a robust regulatory system are crucial when considering new treatments of this kind.
Doctors said that any change in the law would have to strictly keep such treatment to being used for medical reasons, and not for designer babies that have other characteristics edited out. It may be that some countries never permit germline genome editing because of moral and ethical concerns, said Professor Joyce Harper from University College London. If the law in the UK was changed to allow genome editing, it would be highly regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as is PGD, to ensure it is only used for medical reasons.
But that work has already received significant opposition. Dr David King, director of the Human Genetics Alert, which opposes all tampering with the human genome, said, If irresponsible scientists are not stopped, the world may soon be presented with a fait accompli of the first genetically-modified baby.
We call on governments and international organisations to wake up and pass an immediate global ban on creating cloned or GM babies, before it is too late. Professor Robin Lovell-Badge from the Francis Crick Institute said the research only appears to work when the father is carrying the defective gene, and that it would not work for more sophisticated alterations.
The possibility of producing designer babies, which is unjustified in any case, is now even further away, he said.
(The independent)
Read more:
From fantasy to possibility - The Statesman
Appointment and reappointment to the Institute for Research in … – Markets Insider
MONTREAL, Aug. 7, 2017 /CNW Telbec/ - The Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer (IRIC) of the Universit de Montral (UdeM) is pleased to announce that the UdeM Executive Committee has reappointed Mr.Robert Tessier as Chairman of the Board and has appointed Ms.Lucie Rmillard as a Board member.
The IRIC welcomes with great enthusiasm Mr.Tessier's reappointment and looks forward to his three-year mandate. Mr.Tessier is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Caisse de dpt et placement du Qubec.
Drawing on 12 years of active involvement with the organization, Mr.Tessier, as Chairman of the Board, will be surrounded by a team of dedicated collaborators sharing a wealth of expertise and various academic, business and philanthropic networks which they may call upon.
The IRIC will now be able to rely on the support of Lucie Rmillard, a corporate director with an extensive knowledge of the philanthropic sector acquired over the years, on the multifaceted work experience of Frdric Bouchard, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) of the UdeM, as well as the dedication of current Board members: Dr.Marie-Jose Hbert, Vice-Rector of Research, Discovery, Creation and Innovation at the UdeM, Dr. Hlne Boisjoly, Dean of the UdeM's Faculty of Medicine, Jacques Bernier, Managing Partner at Teralys Capital, Marie-Jose Coutu, President of the Marcelle and Jean Coutu Foundation, Jean Royer, Vice-President of Distinction Capital, Michel Bouvier, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Investigator at the IRIC, and Marc Therrien, Scientific Director and Principal Investigator at the IRIC.
"The IRIC is truly fortunate to be able to count on a Board of such high calibre which, through its commitment and dedication to research, continues to support the Institute's objectives and development." Michel Bouvier, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Investigator at the IRIC
The IRIC would like to take this opportunity to extend its heartfelt thanks to the Board's outgoing members for their involvement and unwavering support throughout their mandate. Many thanks to Tania Saba, former interim Dean at the UdeM's FAS as well as Tenured professor of the UdeM, to Grard Boismenu, Vice-Rector of Academic Development and Institutional Transformation of the UdeM, to Johane Boucher-Champagne, former Chair of IRICoR's Board of Directors, and Jacques Parisien, director and advisor for several Canadian companies.
About the Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer (IRIC)An ultra-modern research hub and training centre located in the heart of the Universit de Montral, the Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer (IRIC) was created in 2003 to shed light on the mechanisms of cancer and discover new, more effective therapies to counter this disease. The IRIC operates according to a model that is unique in Canada. Its innovative approach to research has already led to discoveries that will, over the coming years, have a significant impact on the fight against cancer. For more information: http://www.iric.ca/en/
SOURCE Institut de recherche en immunologie et en cancrologie de l'Universit de Montral
Continue reading here:
Appointment and reappointment to the Institute for Research in ... - Markets Insider
Global Immunology Drugs Market to 2022; New Report Launched – Digital Journal
DrugPipeline.net has announced the addition of Global Immunology Drugs Market to 2022 - Increasing Prevalence, Repositioning Opportunities and Strong Uptake of Interleukin Receptor Inhibitors to Drive Growth research report to their website http://www.DrugPipeline.net
This press release was orginally distributed by SBWire
Bangalore, India -- (SBWIRE) -- 08/07/2017 -- Global Immunology Drugs Market to 2022 - Increasing Prevalence, Repositioning Opportunities and Strong Uptake of Interleukin Receptor Inhibitors to Drive Growth
Summary
Immunology is a therapy area characterized by disorders of the immune system, specifically an aberrant autoimmune response against healthy tissues in the body, leading to chronic or acute inflammation. Depending on the specific site affected, this can lead to various types of chronic pain and mobility loss, and have a negative impact on quality of life.
A number of therapies have been approved for immunological disorders, including the largely genericized disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) class of small molecule drugs. However, as these therapies often fail to elicit an adequate long-term response, a large second-line therapy segment has emerged in these markets, beginning with the approval of Remicade (infliximab) and Enbrel (etanercept) in 1998. There is currently no cure for immunological disorders due to the highly complex nature of the immune system and the fact that many components of the pathophysiological states of these diseases have roles in the healthy immune system.
Autoimmune disorders are currently incurable, and treatment is aimed at managing the disease, in order to reduce the severity of its symptoms and lower the risk of associated co-morbidities. Cytokines and their receptors, such as Tumor Necrosis Factor-? and Interleukin-6 are the most effective and most common therapies used in immunology. This class of compounds has been the most commercially successful in the past decade, particularly in the RA market, with many clinical trials underway across various immunological indications. The market for immunological disorders is largely accounted for by premium products, with only a relatively small revenue share accounted for by generics and biosimilars.
Inflectra, a biosimilar of Remicade was recently approved by the FDA in 2016. However, the gradual uptake of biosimilars such as Inflectra is not expected to act as a strong growth driver for the biosimilar segment within the forecast period. This therefore means existing products such as Remicade are expected to maintain high revenues during the forecast period
Although there is a high degree of failure and uncertainty in R&D of immunological drugs, there are 2,054 drugs in active development in the immunology pipeline. In the long-term, this is expected to drive growth in this market in spite of the anticipated approval of biosimilars for key blockbuster drugs and resultant erosion of revenues. Cytokines and their receptors account for the largest single segment of each of the pipelines which make up the largest individual class.
The report focuses on four key indications within immunology: Rheumatoid arthritis, Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Psoriasis and Inflammatory bowel disease (The two major types of Inflammatory bowel disease covered in this report are Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease). With no curative therapies available, symptomatic medications prescribed off-label are an important part of the treatment paradigm, especially in SLE, increasing the need for extensive R&D within this area.
Scope
- Global revenues for the immunology market are forecast to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 3.63%, from $57.7 billion in 2015 to $74.1 billion in 2022.
- Which drugs will achieve blockbuster status and how will the key player companies perform during the forecast period?
- The immunological disorders pipeline is large and diverse, and contains 2,054 products. How does the composition of the pipeline compare with that of the existing market?
- What molecular targets and molecule types are most commonly being trialed in pipeline products in the key indications?
- Which products will contribute to market growth most significantly, and which will achieve blockbuster status?
- Will the current market leaders retain their dominance over the forecast period, and how is their revenue share of the immunology market set to change?
Reasons to buy
- Understand the current clinical and commercial landscape by considering disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis, and the treatment options available at each stage of diagnosis
- Visualize the composition of the immunology market across each indication, in terms of dominant molecule types and targets, highlighting the key commercial assets and players
- Analyze the immunological disorders pipeline and stratify by stage of development, molecule type and molecular target, with a granular breakdown across key indications
- Understand the growth in patient epidemiology and market revenues for the immunology market, globally and across the key players and product types
- Stratify the market in terms of the split between generic and premium products, and assess the role of these product types in the treatment of the various immunological disorders.
- Identify commercial opportunities in the immunology deals landscape by analyzing trends in licensing and co-development deals
Spanning over 140 pages "Global Immunology Drugs Market to 2022 - Increasing Prevalence, Repositioning Opportunities and Strong Uptake of Interleukin Receptor Inhibitors to Drive Growth" report covers Introduction, Key Marketed Products, Pipeline Landscape Assessment, Multi-scenario Market Forecast to 2022, Company Analysis and Positioning, Strategic Consolidations, Appendix.
For more information Visit at: http://www.drugpipeline.net/gbi-research/global-immunology-drugs-market-2022-increasing-prevalence-repositioning-opportunities
Find all Pharma and Healthcare Reports at - http://www.drugpipeline.net/catalog/pharma-healthcare
Related Reports;
Pain Drug Development Pipeline Review, 2017 - Visit at - http://www.drugpipeline.net/gbi-research/pain-drug-development-pipeline-review-2017
Skeletal Disease Drug Development Pipeline Review, 2017 - Visit at - http://www.drugpipeline.net/gbi-research/skeletal-disease-drug-development-pipeline-review-2017
About DrugPipeline.netDrugPipeline.net is a market research reports distribution platform which hosts research reports from all leading global market research firms related to pharma industry. It also assist decision makers locate the right market research solution from a single place.
For more information on this press release visit: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/global-immunology-drugs-market-to-2022-new-report-launched-843163.htm
See the article here:
Global Immunology Drugs Market to 2022; New Report Launched - Digital Journal
Modius wants to zap your brain with neuroscience to fight the fat – Wareable
Can a wearable actually help you lose weight? British startup Neurovalens believes it's come up with one that will do just that.
It's launching its fat-fighting headset on Indiegogo today and it's looking to neuroscience to help the headgear do its magic.
Read this: Neuroscience wearables explained
So how does it work? Much like the Halo Sport and Thync neuroscience wearables we've covered before, the Modius headset is all about tapping into the part of the brain that is associated with and controls fat storage. It uses low-power electrical pulses to stimulate the vestibular nerve, which runs to the brain from behind the ear.
By stimulating the vestibular system for 45 minutes per day, the brain then interprets the stimulation as the body being more physically active, triggering the brain to reduce fat storage. This can in turn increase fat burning, decrease appetite and activate metabolic hormones. Apparently the evidence that vestibular stimulation can reduce body fat has been around for years, but this is the first time you'll be able to do it from a non-invasive wearable.
While that all sounds impressive, the question is whether it works. The startup, which was founded by neuroscientists Dr. Jason McKeown and Dr. Paul McGeoch, carried out research which showed that it does make a difference and found there was a reduction in body fat along with a change in metabolic hormones and a proportion of energy derived from fat metabolism.
"Within one hour, there was a significant change in both appetite and metabolic hormones insulin & leptin", said chief science officer McGeoch.
"There was also a significant increase in the proportion of energy derived from fat metabolism. And over a 16-week period, with an average of three hours use per week, the average reduction in central body fat was 8%, with a range of 2% to 16%. These studies were carried out without changes in either diet or exercise."
The Modius headset is available for pre-order now on Indiegogo and will be available to all in the autumn/fall. We'll be trying it out in the coming months to see if it can really deliver.
See the article here:
Modius wants to zap your brain with neuroscience to fight the fat - Wareable
Collaborative Co-Parenting and Heteronormativity: Recognising the Interests of Gay Fathers – Family Law
Philip Bremner,Lecturer, School of Law, University of Sussex
Keywords: same-sex parents - gay fathers - family law -assisted reproduction -procreative consciousness -multiple parents
Find out moreorrequest a free 1-week trialof Child and Family Law Quarterly. Please quote: 100482.
The article further argues that the lamentable lack of explicit judicial consideration of the interests of gay men involved in collaborative co-parenting reflects the gender-based disparity perpetuated by the parenthood provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. These provide for the recognition without court involvement of women-led, homonuclear families but not male-led parenting. Therefore, courts must be sensitive to this disparity by explicitly considering the procreative consciousness of gay men, as they currently do with the potential vulnerability of women-led families. Only in this way, will judicial reasoning reflect the various interests at stake in collaborative co-parenting arrangements rather than privileging a particular family form.
Read the original here:
Collaborative Co-Parenting and Heteronormativity: Recognising the Interests of Gay Fathers - Family Law
Men, delayed childbearing and age-related fertility decline – BioNews
While media reports regularly remind us of women's biological clocks and warn of the dangers of women leaving it 'too late'to have children, until recently little attention has been paid to the role of men in timing when to have children, and the effect of age on male fertility. However, July 2017 saw a surge of interest in this in mainstream media, following evidence from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School presented at the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology's (ESHRE) annual conference. Findings from a study of 18,802 IVF cycles suggest that amongst couples undergoing the procedure, for men over 35 increasing age was associated with lower cumulative incidence of live birth. Outlets including TheGuardian, theBBC (includingBBC Radio 4) and BioNews picked up on these findings, bringing this discussion into the public domain. The Guardian and theBBC also reported findings from asystematic review, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, of recent trends in sperm counts, which reported a decline in sperm concentration and count between 1971 and 2011.
Thus the accepted wisdom that men can continue to have children into later life, easily and without consequence, has been called into question. In some articles, authors blame men's lack of awareness of age-related fertility decline, and lazy or glib attitudes towards having children, either explicitly or implicitly. Alongside this, coverage of recent research (Inhorn, Baldwin, Gurten) on egg freezing suggests that women freeze their eggs because they are not able to find a suitable male partner; there is a 'dearth of eligible men' wherein the number of qualified, professional women is not matched by an equivalent number of qualified, professional men. These accounts have added weight to the idea that men's roles in relationships, in starting a family, and in when to start a family are of crucial importance.
Prior to this, to a large extent media attention had mirrored social science research on the topic: the minimal focus on men being greatly outweighed by a focus on women. This is also reflected in our national data collection: while the Office for National Statistics (ONS) gathers data on women's ages at the birth of their first child, this is not the case for men; for men, a distinction between first and subsequent children is not made, as it is for women. Consequently, while we can track changes in the age at which women are becoming mothers, we cannot track trends in when men are becoming fathers.
Nonetheless, ONS data does suggest that the average age of men at the birth of any children has risen from 31.1 in 1993 to 33.2 in 2015. Research suggests that the majority of men want children, and being an 'older' father isn't something most desire. Men identify certain pre-conditions as necessary before embarking on parenthood, including being in a good relationship with the right partner and someone whom they feel would make a good parent; having financial and material security; and feeling emotionally and psychologically ready. Men's aspirations to be both the breadwinner, as well as a nurturing and involved father, also create added pressures.
However, scientific evidence about the impact of age on men's fertility, while still contested, appears to be a growing. A 2015systematic review of 90 studies identified age-associated declines in semen volume, percentage motility, progressive motility, normal morphology and unfragmented cells. Elsewhere,evidence suggests that advanced paternal age is also linked with increased risk of infertility, miscarriage and various pathological conditions in offspring. In addition, the 2013 NICE fertility guidelines reported that there was now evidence of declining male fertility with increasing age, for the first time.
All these developments point towards the need to take greater consideration of the role of men in reproductive timings (and in whether, when and why women opt to freeze their eggs) and related research both social and medical. If age does indeed play a role in men's fertility health, this needs to be taken into account in research, policy and practice.
Finally, we need to question why women's behaviours and reproductive 'choices' are routinely held to account in delayed childbearing, not men's; a greater focus on men will go some way to redress the balance. In 2013 Reproductive Biomedicine Online published a special issue on age-related fertility decline, beginning with the piece 'Cassandra's prophecy: why we need to tell the women of the future about age-related fertility decline and 'delayed' childbearing'. In the lively debate that followed, authors considered whether 'telling' women is sufficient, and grappled with how this complex issue can be addressed. Perhaps the recent media interest in men, age and fertility is a sign that the time for a full and frank debate about talking to men about age-related fertility decline both women's and men's - will soon be upon us.
Read more here:
Men, delayed childbearing and age-related fertility decline - BioNews
Veritas Genetics Scoops Up an AI Company to Sort Out Its DNA – WIRED
Genes carry the information that make you you. So it's fitting that, when sequenced and stored in a computer, your genome takes up gobs of memoryup to 150 gigabytes. Multiply that across all the people who have gotten sequenced, and you're looking at some serious storage issues. If that's not enough, mining those genomes for useful insight means comparing them all to each other, to medical histories, and to the millions of scientific papers about genetics.
Sorting all that out is a perfect task for artificial intelligence. And plenty of AI startups have bent their efforts in that direction. On August 3, sequencing company Veritas Genetics bought one of the most influential: seven-year old Curoverse. Veritas thinks AI will help interpret the genetic risk of certain diseases and scour the ever-growing databases of genomic, medical, and scientific research. In a step forward, the company also hopes to use things like natural language processing and deep learning to help customers query their genetic data on demand.
It's not totally surprising that Veritas bought up Curoverse. Both companies spun out of George Church's prolific Harvard lab. Several years ago, Church started something called the Personal Genomics Project, with the goal of sequencing 100,000 human genomesand linking each one to participants' health information. Veritas' founders helped lead the sequencing partstarting as a prenatal testing service and launching a $1,000 full genome product in 2015while Curoverse worked on academic strategies to store and sort through all the data.
But more broadly, genomics and AI practically call out for one another. As a raw data format, a single person's genome takes up about 150 gigabytes. How!?! OK so, yes, storing a single base pair only takes up around two bits. Multiply that by roughly 3 billionthe total number of base pairs in your 23 chromosome pairsand you wind up with around 750 megabytes. But genetic sequencing isn't perfect. Mirza Cifric, Veritas Genetics cofounder and CEO, says his company reads each part of the genome at least 30 times in order to make sure their results are statistically significant. "And you gotta keep all that data, so you can refer back to it over time," says Cifric.
That's just storage. "Everything after that is going to specific areas and asking questions: Theres a variant at this location, a substitution of this base, a deletion here, or multiple copies of this same gene here, here, and here," says Cifric. Now, interpret all that. Oh, and do it across a thousand, hundred thousand, or million genomes. Querying all those genetic variations is how scientists get leads to find new drugs, or figure out how existing drugs work differently on different people.
But cross-referencing all those genomes is just the beginning. Curoverse, which was focusing on projects to store and sort genomic data, also has its work cut out for it in searching through the 6 millionand countingjargon-filled academic papers detailing gene behavior, including visual information found in charts, graphs, and illustrations.
That's pretty ambitious. Natural language processing is one of the stickiest problems in AI. "Look, I am a computer scientist, I love AI and machine learning, and no amount of coding makes sense to solve this," says Atul Butte, the director of UCSF's Institute of Computational Health Sciences. At his former job at Stanford University, Butte actually tried to do the same thinguse AI to dig through genetics research. He says in the end, it was way cheaper to hire people to read the papers and input the findings into his database manually.
But hey, never say never, right? However they accomplish it, Veritas wants to move past what companies like 23andMe and Color offer: genetic risk based on single-variant diseases. Some of America's biggest dangers come from diseases like diabetes and heart disease, which are activated by interactions between multiple genesin addition to environmental factors like diet and exercise. With AI, Cifric believes Veritas will be able to not only dig up these various genetic contributors, but also assign each a statistical score showing how much it contributes to the overall risk.
Again, Butte hates to be a spoilsport, but ... there's all sorts of problems with doing predictive diagnostics with genetic data. He points to a 2013 study that used polygenic testing to predict heart disease using the Framingham Heart Study dataabout as good as you can get, when it comes to health data and heart disease. "They authors showed that yes, given polygenic risk score, and blood levels, and lipid levels, and family history, you can predict within 10 years if someone will develop heart disease," says Butte. "But doctors could do the same thing without using the genome!"
He says the problems come down to just how messy it is trying to square up all the different research on each gene alongside the environmental risks, and all the other compounding factors that come up when you try to peer into the future. "Its been the holy grail for a long time, structured genome reporting," says Butte. Even attempts to get researchers to write and report data in a standard, machine-readable way, have fallen flat. "You get into questions that never go away. One researcher defines autism different from another one, or high blood pressure, or any number of things," he says.
Butte isn't a total naysayer. He says partnerships like the one between Veritas and Curoverse are becoming more commonlike the data processing deal between genetic sequencing giant Illumina and IBM Watsonbecause there's a clear need for new computing methods in this area. "You want to get to a point where you are developing stuff that improves clinical care," he says.
Or how about directly to the owners of the genomes? Cifric hopes the merger will improve the consumer experience of using genetic data, even seamlessly integrating it into daily life. For instance, linking your genome and health records to your digital assistant. Alexa, should I eat this last piece of pizza? Maybe you should skip it, depending on your baseline genetic risk for cholesterol and latest blood test results. Diet isn't the only area where genomics could help improve your day to day life. Some people are more or less sensitive to over the counter drugs. A quick query might tell you whether you should take a little less Tylenol than is recommended.
Cifric thinks this acquisition could position Veritas as a global powerhouse of genomic data. "Apple recently announced that they had shipped 41 million iPhones in a quarter, right? I think in not too distant future, well be doing 41 million genomes in a quarter," he says. That might seem ambitious, given that the cost to consumers is nearly $1,000. But that cost is bound to come down. And artificial intelligence will make paying for the genome a matter of common sense.
This story has been updated to reflect that the company is named Veritas Genetics, not Veritas Genomics.
The rest is here:
Veritas Genetics Scoops Up an AI Company to Sort Out Its DNA - WIRED