The Neuroscience of Fearful Memories and Avoidance Behaviors … – Psychology Today (blog)

The Ji Lab at Baylor College of Medicine investigates how the neural circuits in the brain encode, consolidate, and retrieve memories using lab rats.

Source: Ji Lab/Baylor College of Medicine

Specific neurons in the hippocampus (called hippocampal place cells) remember when and where your brain experiences a broad range of sensory stimulation and emotions, including fear. Hippocampal place cells also drive subsequent fear-based avoidance behaviors, according to a new rodent study from the Ji Laboratory at Baylor College of Medicine.

The February 2017 study, Hippocampal Awake Replay in Fear Memory Retrieval, was published online ahead of print today inNature Neuroscience. This is the first time neuroscientists have identified specific patterns of electrical activity in the hippocampal place cells of lab rats associated with specific memories. In this case, the memory of afearful experience.

Hippocampal place cellsare activated anytime a human or animal moves within and between locations. These place cells keep track of everywhere your body goes and tag each location with a specific neural code that includes sensory perceptions based on stimuli that evokepleasure,pain, reward, etc.

All animals (including humans) seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, it makes sense that when hippocampal place cells tag a specific location as being associated withphysicalor psychologicalpain, parts of the brain becomehardwired to avoid this location. From an evolutionary standpoint, learning to avoid life-threatening environments is key to any species' survival.

At the beginning of this new experiment, the researchers inserted tiny probes to monitor the electrical activity generated by neurons in the hippocampus. Then, they conditioned a fearful memory by exposing lab rats to mild foot shocks in a specific shock zone as the rats explored a troughlike track. Lastly, the researchers observed neural activity in hippocampal place cells as each lab rat was placed back on the track and began to explore.

The researchers found that specific place cells linked to the 'shock zone' were reactivated anytime a rat got close to the place where foot shocks had been administered. The anticipatory thought of getting a shock appeared to triggeravoidance behaviors that caused the rodents to bypass the shock zoneand avoid crossing the fearful path.

According to the abstract of this study, the fear reactivation of place cells occurred in ripple-associated awake replay of the exact location linked to a cell sequence that had been encoded along the path inthe shock zone.

These findingsreveal a specific hippocampal place-cell pattern underlying inhibitory avoidance behavior. Thisstudy also provides strong evidence for the involvement of awake replay in fear memory retrieval.

In recent years, a few different neuroscientific studies have reported that hippocampal place cells play a central role in storing location data and forming episodic memories. However, exactly how 'place cells' retrieve memories associated with a particular placeand subsequently drive avoidance behaviorshas remained a mystery until now.

In a statement, Daoyun Ji, associate professor of molecular and cellular biology at Baylor College of Medicine,described the recent findingsfrom his lab:

"Our laboratory rats cannot tell us what memory they are recalling at any particular time. To overcome that, we designed an experiment that would allow us to know what was going on in the animal's brain right before a certain event.

Interestingly, from the brain activity we can tell that the animal was 'mentally traveling' from its current location to the shock place. These patterns corresponding to the shock place re-emerged right at the moment when a specific memory is remembered.

We are also interested in determining how the spiking patterns of place neurons in the hippocampus can be used by other parts of the brain, such as those involved in making decisions."

This study from Daoyun Ji's Lab breaks new ground by discovering that milliseconds before a lab rat decides to avoid going back to a place where it previously had a fearful experience, the brain is recalling specific memories associated with the exact physical location where the fearful experience occurred.

Like most people, I have an innate fear of rats. Staring at the enlarged image of the rat below evokes a slight fear-based responseand is probably encoding my hippocampal place cells to the place I'm sitting now as I stare at this image while typing this blog post. Your hippocampal place cells are probably being activated, too. If this image makes you uneasy or sticks in your mind, itwill most likely be linked to when and where you are reading this by yourhippocampal place cells.

Source: Ji Lab/Baylor College of Medicine

Zooming in on this potentially menacing image of a rat from Ji'sLab barreling down a track towards the viewer triggers flashbacks in my mind's eye to the torture chamber "Room 101" from George Orwell's1984.

While being brainwashed by the Thought Police inRoom 101, WinstonSmith (the protagonist in1984),must confront his biggest fear: A wire cage that fits snuggly on a person's head with a trap door that houses two very large (and ravenous) rats eager todevour the cage wearer's face.

Hypothetically, if Winston Smith's hippocampal place cells could be measured in Ji's neuroscience laboratory, Room 101would evoke fearful memories and avoidance behaviors much like the lab rats who steered clear of the 'shock zone' in their habitrail.

The next goal of Ji and his colleagues is to investigate whether the hippocampal spiking patterns they identified are absolutely required to guide (or misguide) humanand animal behavior.

The researchersalso plan to explore what role spiking patterns in the hippocampus might play in diseases that involve memory loss, such as Alzheimer's disease. Stay tuned for more cutting-edge research on hippocampal place cells in the months and years ahead.

Follow this link:
The Neuroscience of Fearful Memories and Avoidance Behaviors ... - Psychology Today (blog)

EssayThe Neuroscience of Self-directed Learning – Chief Learning Officer

Breaking down what makes top performers so great, and setting up practice and reflection to stimulate certain neural responses, can help you clone your best talent.

February 21, 2017

by William Seidman

The best talent is almost always deeply engaged and incredibly productive. Wouldnt it be great if learning leaders could clone those people? Well, they can.

There are two parts to being able to clone your people: the ability to reverse engineer the top performers to really understand what makes them extraordinary, and the ability to quickly and efficiently develop others to think and act like those top performers.

Self-discovery allows an organization to quickly and effectively reverse engineer top performers. Self-directed learning, based on advances in neuroscience, enables an organization to quickly develop everyone to be like the best.

We began with a question that can be quite difficult to answer: How do top performers actually become top performers? As with trying to reverse engineer top performers, there was neither good information nor robust methodologies on how to develop lesser performers into top performers.

The closest answer is that experts spend 10,000 hours working to become an expert, with no definition of what that work meant. Ten thousand hours of unfocused learning was hardly going to meet our requirements. Fortunately, starting about 2005, the emerging neuroscience of learning suggested a way to solve this problem.

Neuroscience showed the basic building block of all learning is the rewiring of neurons into new patterns. What causes neurons to rewire? The scientific saying is neurons that fire together wire together. Firing together means a sufficient number and depth of meaningful experiences around a defined set of attitudes and behaviors cause the brain to rewire or learn the new patterns. Once rewired, these patterns are the new unconscious competence.

But what experiences cause the brain to rewire and, most critically, how do you get non-top performers to want to become top performers enough to do the practice required to rewire their neurons? Lets answer the second question first. Here again the breakthrough came from neuroscience. The science shows that certain types of images and actions cause neural changes that drive our attitudes and behaviors. When someone feels they are making a contribution to a greater social good for family, teammates, the organization and/or society, their brain releases endorphins and dopamine called a dopamine squirt which make them feel great and more receptive to new ideas.

Similarly, if a person writes down their greater purpose, the act of writing suppresses portions of the brain associated with fear and resistance to change and stimulates portions of the brain associated with a sense of greater control, also making them more open to new ideas. Finally, if all of this is done with others in some sort of social group, other neurochemicals serotonin and oxytocin are released that cause people to want to promote collaboration and group success.

It is possible to create an effective methodology to rapidly develop non-top performers to become top performers. It would need to include:

Most of these ideas should sound familiar from the protocol for reverse engineering top performers. Top performers are driven by a compelling purpose to achieve a greater social good and work hard to achieve mastery by continuously practicing their skills. The key is to present images from the reverse engineering of the top performers to non-top performers in ways that stimulate the desired neural responses.

The process begins with the top performers description of their purpose. By presenting the top performers purpose to groups of non-top performers and asking them to identify, discuss and write ways they too can contribute to the great purpose, all of the above neural changes occur. The non-top performers want to become top performers because they too can be part of a greater purpose and it feels great. Further, because our brains are very efficient at processing images associated with a greater purpose, an initial powerful motivation can be stimulated in a few minutes and firmly entrenched in about an hour.

Moving to the need to practice, by asking the top performers how they learned to become top performers, learning leaders can identify their most valuable learning experiences. By modifying these high yield experiences so non-top performers can try them in their own environment, repeating this practical application multiple times in rapid succession and then sharing the learning with a social group, the time needed to become a top performer can be reduced to 40 hours or less.

These methodologies are so simple, fast and robust they can be provided using a protocol similar to that used for reverse engineering top performance. We call this protocol, neuroscience-based self-directed learning, and its prompts guide a non-top performer to:

As a result, anyone, anytime, residing anywhere in the world can quickly learn to think and act like the top performers. Essentially, you can clone your best people.

William Seidman is the CEO of Cerebyte Inc., a company focused on creating high-performing organizational cultures, and co-author of The Star Factor. Comment below or email editor@CLOmedia.com.

Tags: neuroscience, self-directed learning, top performers

See the original post:
EssayThe Neuroscience of Self-directed Learning - Chief Learning Officer

The Neuroscience Of Music, Behavior, And Staying Sane In The Age … – Fast Company

When it comes to music and the human brain, Daniel Levitin's expertise is hard to top. The musician, professor, and neuroscientist quite literally wrote the book on the topic when he penned the 2006 bestseller This is Your Brain On Music. His most recent book The Organized Mind furthers his exploration into our brains with a focus on how information overload is affecting cognition and what we can do it about it.

Over the last two years, he's been working with smart speaker maker Sonos on new research into how music affects people's minds and behavior at home. As part of its new marketing campaign centered around what the company regrettably diagnoses as "the silent home"the relative dearth of music being played out loud as families stare into their phones or tune into NetflixSonos enlisted Levitin to help design a new survey of people's listening habits at home. We sat down with Levitin at Sonos's Boston offices last week for a conversation about science, music, the brain, and how to stay sane in the age of Trump and Twitter.

Youve been working on some new research into music and people's lives at home. What are some of the most interesting or unexpected things you've learned about how musicor the lack thereof that affects our lives at home?

Levitin: I think one of the most interesting things is the number of people who really don't have music playing in their homes. Its quite striking across the nine countries we surveyed. Something as simple as entertaining friends and family: 84% of people in Sweden, 83% of people in the U.K., 79% of people in the U.S. don't play music when they have friends over. That just seemed surprising and weird to me. I'm of the Boomer generation, so music was just something that you did and it's the way that you related to other people, and even the generation behind me. These are people from all age brackets. It's not just the digital natives who aren't playing music. Nobody is.

Other activities like cooking dinner, doing the dishes, relaxing in the evening and weekend. In Denmark, 69% of people and in France 82% of people did not listen to music to relax for the evening or the weekend. That was one thing that was surprising. The other is the yearning that people have for more contact, juxtaposed with the amount of time they spend in their own isolated, digital words. 86% want to spend more time doing activities in person with others. It's as though two wheels are in a rut and they can't figure out how to get back on the road that they used to be on. We've got to encourage people to take screen-time breaks and to establish shared spaces in the home where they can enjoy communal activities.

These days, its pretty common to go out to a restaurant and see an entire family staring into their phones. What are some of the effects of this isolation and, based on the research you've done and seen, what might the impact be of changing these habits?

Levitin: The research on this is still in its infancy, of course. It's a somewhat new phenomenon, and so any data that we can get is helpful. I think that related to this, we've learned recently that kids who don't interact regularly with their parents but are instead put in front of educational or instructional television don't learn language properly. Language learning has to be interactive. It can't be just passive, receptive. I think we're also seeing that increasingly digital natives are reporting that they've got shorter attention spans than non-digital natives. Colleagues of mine at other universities who teach these large classes or even seminars say that in the last few years, a whole new breed of students come up to them during their office hours in the first week of class, say, "Professor, I have to read 20 pages tonight? I don't know how I'm going to do that. That's too much." They are accustomed to being constantly distracted and we know from neurochemical studies, people get addicted to that distraction.

Your book, The Organized Mind, deals with this quite a bit: the information overload and how our digital lives might be affecting our brains. What is your advice for people in the workplace? How do you deal with this deluge of information when youre trying to be productive?

Levitin: One piece of advice I have is based on our modern understanding of the different attentional modes of the brain. There's the mind wandering mode, the idea that the brain has this whole separate mode of existing where you're not in control of your thoughts and they're loosely connected from one to the next. Often, I think that when we're at our desks at work or if we're out in the field doing work, after a certain amount of time, we feel our attention flagging. The modern reaction when that happens is to double down. Maybe have another cup of coffee and keep pushing through.

In reality, your brain is telling you that it needs a break. Taking a break and getting yourself into this mind wandering mode by giving into it for 15 minutes at a time every couple of hours or so, you effectively hit the reset button in the brain, restoring some neurochemicals that had been depleted through focused activity. There are a lot of different ways to get into this mind wandering mode. One of them is listening to music. Another is going for a walk in nature. Listening to nature sounds. Looking at art, reading literature. Not reading Facebook posts. Literature has this special quality that it invites you to let your mind wander. I think that's part of the answer. Going off and searching the Web for your 15-minute break is not a break.

Weve grappled with information overload for years now, but in our new political climate, there's a certain intensity and anxiety thats now tied to a lot of the stuff that people are seeing online everyday. How do you think this might be affecting people's mental health? And what should we do about it?

Levitin: My reading of the research is that we really are, as a society working harder than before, but we're not working as efficiently. We feel overloaded by the onslaught of information, and so I think that creates the conditions in which things like fake news and alternative truth can exist because we just throw up our hands and say, "I can't deal. It's somebody else's job to deal with this, not mine." I don't mean to get on a soapbox, but I think that's when we begin to see democracy falter, when people don't want to get involved.

I think that we need to recover some sense of community and engagement with one another and with our towns and our neighbors that only comes from face-to-face interaction, not from retreating into our own digital devices. As President Obama said in his exit speech, democracy is not easy and is not free. You have to work for it. I think that work is putting our minds in a state where we can evaluate claims and information and stories as they come by. Evaluate them for ourselves or in discussion with other people. Start talking to people who disagree with us, which has become unfashionable. I don't mean yelling at people who disagree with you. Just talking.

I've had a couple of interesting conversations just in the last few months with people who I disagreed with strongly about a number of political issues, and the conversations were productive because we saw from each other's point of view how we came to hold those beliefs and discovered that we had really a lot more in common than we had differences. We were able to agree on the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously quipped, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. We agreed on the facts, but our opinions about how to address the problems, we had different views about what would be effective, but we wanted to end up in the same place where people were happy and prosperous and safe. I think that creating shared spaces in the home and shared moments in the home, if music can be part of that or talk radio or just art, some kind of discussion, I think that that's the antidote to all of this.

It seems like its partially a matter of people reconfiguring that balance between their digital lives and the time they're actually spending face to face. I assume those conversations you refer to werent on Twitter or Facebook.

Levitin: One of them was in person. One of them was on the phone. It was 45 minutes long and we talked about a lot of things. This is somebody who is polar opposite of me politically and is quite in the public eye and his opinions are very well known, but I was astonished that we agreed on far more than we disagreed on. I ended up admiring him for his stance for coming to the conclusions he came to, even though I still don't agree, but I can see how he got there.

This is the conversation that Republicans and Democrats aren't having anymore. I never thought I'd look back nostalgically at the Johnson presidency, but in the Johnson days, the two parties worked things out. They did that pretty much through more or less through the next couple of administrations. The polarization is a problem, and I think that the digital age has only put a hyper focus on polarization because of the echo chamber that you've covered already in your magazine.

You wrote This Is Your Brain On Music in 2006, so it was pre-iPhone, pre-Spotify. It seems like music is more pervasive in peoples lives than ever. How has musicboth as an industry and in terms of our relationship with itchanged in the last decade or so?

Levitin: I think we're living in a golden age of music, as we're living in a golden age of TV. There's a lot of creative people engaged in it. The barriers to entry are much lower than they used to be. Anybody with a laptop and a $200 mic can make something that sounds as good as most of the Rolling Stones records that were made in professional studios. That's great. The problem, of course, is that we haven't figured out how to monetize it. As Keith Richards said, for a period of time you could make recordings for a living and you could make a good living at it, but those days are gone until we figure something out. We're living in a world now where a lot of artists have to have day jobs. I would like to live in a world where "artist" is a job and a person can earn a living doing that. I don't want Bono to be writing songs in his spare time after a day of heavy labor making sandwiches. I want him to be able to devote himself to it.

I would say there's been a Balkanization of music sources in the way there's been a Balkanization of the media. When I was a kid, and maybe when you were a kid, you ran into the proverbial man in the street, woman, somebody you didn't know at a bus stop and you started talking about the news, you probably got your news from one of the same small handful of sources. You agreed what the news was, and you probably listened to music on one of the same two or three radio stations. Now there are thousands of places to get your news, thousands of places to get music, and so the common ground that we share is much less. Sure, there's still hit songs, but it's different. I see that changing. There's good and there's bad in that. The so-called long tail means that people can really fine tune their musical taste or their taste in books and independent films, find exactly what they love, but at the expense of the shared experience.

I don't think that there's any evidence that music is more pervasive. In fact, we found that 60% of people we surveyed said they listen to less music now than when they were younger. I don't know why that is, because there's more music available and it's free, but people don't make the time for it. It's not a priority the way it once was. I think that's a shame. I'm not thinking people should do nothing but listen to music, but as part of a balanced life that involves exercise and a good diet and nature and movies and ballet and literature and all the finer things.

Tell us a little bit about your own music consumption and how its evolved. How do you listen music now?

Levitin: I always fantasized in my twenties about buying a physical jukebox from a bar and restoring it. I had a nice collection of 45s. Now I have something even better: I have 20,000 songs on my hard disk and I just stick it in random. I got them in my car now and I have them in my backpack and I have them on my computer and at home, and that's most of my listening. I have 20,000 of my favorite songs. It's my own radio station. Anything that comes up, I'm going to like. I may not like it at that particular moment, depending on what I'm doing.

The second source is that friends who are making music send me advances of their stuff. Rodney Crowell, Paul Simon, people that I know who are actively working as songwriters and musicians will send me stuff. A friend of mine who manages Bob Dylan is just sending me the 36 CD boxset. It's supposed to be there when I get home tonight. I burn the CDs to my hard disk and then put them in the mix.

Then the third source is I stream. Once I got Sonos in the home, I found it easier to deal with things like Spotify and streaming radio and Apple Music. For one thing, they weren't playing out of these crappy little speakers in the computer. Typically, my wife and I will put one of the jazz stations when we're in the kitchen cooking and washing dishes and while we're eating. We hear a lot of good music that way.

How do you find the mental space to focus and be productive?

Levitin: I get more work done on airplanes than anywhere else. I wrote my last two books primarily on airplanes touring for the previous book. You've got the white noise of the engine. Somebody bringing you food.

Yeah, it's great. When I really need to focus, I tend to need to get away from the internet too. I turn off Wi-Fi. Sometimes I leave my phone at home to avoid the distractions.

Levitin: I do that once in a while and it's very refreshing. My wife and I hike a lot, because we're in California. So we'll go and we just won't bring the phones. We'll bring them in the car in case we have a breakdown or something, but when we're hiking, no phone and it's lovely.

Speaking of California, I just called an Uber because I have to get myself to the airport.

Read more:
The Neuroscience Of Music, Behavior, And Staying Sane In The Age ... - Fast Company

Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology Report 2017 – Large Therapy Area Pipeline with a High Degree of … – Yahoo Finance

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology - Large Therapy Area Pipeline with a High Degree of Repositioning Potential" drug pipelines to their offering.

Immunology is a large therapy area characterized by disorders of the immune system - specifically an aberrant immune response against healthy tissues present 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 loss of mobility, and have a negative impact on quality of life.

This disease area has a total of 2,145 products in active development, trailing only oncology, infectious diseases and central nervous system disorders in terms of pipeline size. There are a total of 529 immunology pipeline products that act on first-in-class molecular targets, representing approximately 40% of the total immunology pipeline for which the molecular target was disclosed.

Due to a degree of crossover between immunology indications in terms of their underlying pathophysiology, it is not uncommon for products being developed for this therapy area to have developmental programs testing them across multiple indications.

Approximately one-fifth of first-in-class pipeline products are in development for two or more indications within the therapy area. This presents an opportunity for companies to develop innovative products across multiple immune disorders, and therefore reach a larger pool of patients than products developed for single indications.

Scope

- What are the key points of overlap in the pathophysiology of immune disorders?

- What is the current standard of treatment across these markets, and what lessons can be learned by companies seeking to innovate and build on these products?

- Which molecule types and molecular targets are most prominent within the pipeline?

- Which first-in-class targets are most promising?

- Do immunology products attract high deal values, and which specific product types are able to attract the highest values?

- Which molecule types and molecular targets dominate the deals landscape?

Key Topics Covered:

1 Table of Contents

2 Executive Summary

3 The Case for Innovation in the Immunology Market

4 Introduction

5 Pipeline Landscape Assessment

6 Immunology Signaling Network, Disease Causation and Innovation Alignment

7 First-in-Class Target and Pipeline Program Evaluation

8 Strategic Consolidations

9 Appendix

For more information about this drug pipelines report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/z8fppq/frontier_pharma

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170221005737/en/

Go here to see the original:
Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology Report 2017 - Large Therapy Area Pipeline with a High Degree of ... - Yahoo Finance

Remicade: Driving Down Merck’s Immunology Franchise – Market Realist

Merck and Companys Valuation after Its 4Q16 Earnings Release PART 6 OF 10

One of Merck and Co.s (MRK) blockbuster drugs, Remicade is one of the top-selling drugs for the treatment of inflammatory disorders. However, after the loss of exclusivity in the European markets in February 2015, Merck has reported a consistent decline in Remicade revenues. Apart from Merck, Johnson &Johnson (JNJ) also has marketing rights for Remicade in several countries outside Europe.

Remicades revenues fell~32% to $269 million in 4Q16, compared to $396 million in 4Q15. This was mainly due to the entry of generic competitors and biosimilars following the loss of exclusivity in European markets.

Merck expects Remicades revenues to keep declining as a growing number of new patients prefer biosimilars over Remicade.

Apart from Remicade, Simponi is a drug from the Inflammatory franchise. Simponis revenues remained flat at ~$186 million in 4Q16, compared to its 4Q15 revenues of $185 million.

Zetia and Vytorin are the blockbuster drugs from Mercks Cardiovascular franchise. Both drugs are used to lower LDL cholesterol levels in the blood.

The combined revenues for these drugs fell to $874 million in 4Q16. For the US markets, the sales for Zetia declined in 4Q16 while the sales for Vytorin grew. Worldwide sales were affected due to loss of exclusivity of Vytorin in the US, while Zetia sales were nearly constant for 4Q16 compared to 4Q15.

The competitors for Zetia include Niaspan from AbbVie (ABBV) and Lipitor from Pfizer (PFE). Investors can consider the VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF (PPH), which holds ~5.2% of its total assets in Merck.

View post:
Remicade: Driving Down Merck's Immunology Franchise - Market Realist

Majoring in defense: UAB’s new Undergraduate Immunology Program – The Mix

It doesnt matter whether you live in Beverly Hills or a Brazilian favela every human being is only a few inches away from disaster. From birth to death, on our arms, legs and everywhere else, each of us carries microbes that would love to get under our skin and reproduce, with potentially fatal results. A paper cut, an insect bite, an untimely rubbing of the eyes it takes very little for bacteria, viruses and other invaders to get inside and start wreaking havoc.

When that happens, the invaders are quickly surrounded by some of the billions of immune cells on constant patrol in our bodies. This finely coordinated attack is more complex than any human military organization. The immune system can be divided into two main categories innate and adaptive but there are LOTS of subdivisions: macrophages, natural killer cells, granulocytes, neutrophils, T and B cells, plasma cells, memory cells, regulatory T cells and so on. The list is long, and growing longer all the time with new discoveries. In recent years, researchers have learned how to target specific immune cells in new treatments for everything from cancer to rheumatoid arthritis. But there is much more to do.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of people die from infection by HIV, tuberculosis and the malaria-causing parasite Plasmodium. Although new checkpoint inhibitors have extended the lives of Jimmy Carter and many others, much more research is needed to help the 7+ million people worldwide who die each year from cancer. And heart disease, the leading cause of death on the planet, has a strong immune component as well.

Essentially all human diseases have an immune component, says Frances Lund, Ph.D., chair of the UAB School of Medicine Department of Microbiology. The future cures or treatments for many of the diseases that are of national and global concern will be dependent on our ability to successfully modulate the immune system.

With UABs new Undergraduate Immunology Program, which launches in fall 2017, students get a front-row seat to the life-and-death struggle going on inside us all and an ideal springboard for careers in medicine, academic research, industry and more. This is a cutting-edge major, says Louis Justement, Ph.D., director of the program, and a professor in the microbiology department. Students will get comprehensive experience in the scientific process, critical thinking, problem solving, scientific methodology and in communicating science. Our goal is to prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of the future and build up a pipeline of young immunologists to tackle the pressing problems of the 21st century.

Louis Justement, Ph.D. (School of Medicine) and Vithal Ghanta, Ph.D. (College of Arts and Sciences) are veteran researchers and educators of young scientists. "This is a cutting-edge major," Justement says. "Our goal is to prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of the future."

The Undergraduate Immunology Program is the only one of its kind in the Southeast, and one of a handful in the country, notes Vithal Ghanta, Ph.D., the programs co-director and a professor in the UAB College of Arts and SciencesDepartment of Biology. It is modeled on UABs Undergraduate Neuroscience Program, which has attracted elite students from across the country over the past eight years. Both programs are interdepartmental majors between the College of Arts and Sciences and School of Medicine.

This represents a true collaboration between the departments of Biology and Microbiology, says Lund. We believe that this unique educational opportunity will not only attract students who are passionate about science and medicine, but will perfectly prepare those students to take on the scientific and clinical challenges of the 21st century here in Alabama and across the world.

There are more than 100 faculty at UAB focusing on basic or clinical immunology, in 15 departments and four schools. Immunology and infectious diseases research at UAB is supported by $182 million in federal funding. Immunology has always been one of the strongest areas of research here, Justement says. Students will be able to choose among research opportunities in dozens of UAB labs, contributing to work that is targeting everything from cancer vaccines to next-generation asthma treatments. Students coming through our program have the ability to be integral members of labs across campus, Ghanta says. They can start as early as the freshman year, depending on their experience and ability to handle other coursework. By their junior year, all students in the major will be required to begin working in a UAB lab.

The interaction between the College of Arts and Sciences and School of Medicine faculty is critical, Justement says. Vithal and her colleagues know exactly how to work with undergraduates and help them learn. Meanwhile, Justement has years of experience preparing leaders in the lab as associate director of UABs Medical Scientist Training Program. People like me on the graduate side, since we are constantly working with graduate students and medical students, know what it takes to succeed in those arenas, and have insight on how curricula can prepare undergraduates to achieve, he says.

Our goal is to give undergraduate students a very solid foundation, adds Ghanta. They will be exposed to the various sub-fields of immunology in graduate school or medical school; we want to make sure they have a solid foundation to build on. Ghanta has taught a popular undergraduate immunology course in the Department of Biology for years. She says she regularly gets emails from former students who are now in medical school, letting me know that having this undergraduate immunology really helps them."

More than 100 faculty at UAB focus on basic or clinical immunology, in 15 departments and four schools, with $182 million in federal research support.

The first two years of the program are largely focused on overall university requirements and foundational science courses. But in order to let students jump right in, Justement and Ghanta have designed Current Topics in Immunology, a teaser course that shines new light on hot topics in the media. Justement says hell tell the story of a doctor who was cured of Ebola but then almost lost his vision later, because the virus was able to survive within his eyes. The reason is these are immune-privileged sites that need to be protected from the immune response, and it turns out the pathogen is able to take advantage of this, he says.

In their second year, students will take part in a seminar where investigators from across the university will share details on research in their labs. The students will get an idea of whose work sounds neat, who they would want to work with and why its important, Justement says.

In their junior and senior years, students in the program will take in-depth courses that delve into the fundamental cellular and molecular processes that control the immune response. This will provide them with a solid appreciation of how the immune system works as a whole, Ghanta says. Then, she adds, students will build on this knowledge by further exploring the interactions between the immune system and pathogens that try to subvert, or escape, the normal surveillance mechanisms used to detect and destroy them. Finally, students will learn about the dark side of the immune response, Justement says. When things go wrong it leads to numerous life-threatening diseases, including autoimmunity, asthma and chronic inflammation that in turn can cause heart disease, diabetes or cancer.

Essentially all human diseases have an immune component. The future cures or treatments for many of the diseases that are of national and global concern will be dependent on our ability to successfully modulate the immune system. Frances Lund, Ph.D., chair of the UAB Department of Microbiology.

Justement and Ghanta have formed a committee with the directors of the Undergraduate Neuroscience Program and leaders of the recently launched Undergraduate Program in Genetic and Genomic Sciences, and a new major in informatics that is now being developed. Soon, UAB will be able to offer students a suite of biomedical undergraduate programs, Justement says, all well suited to preparing them for professional and graduate school."

There are many opportunities to cross-fertilize among the specialties, Justement adds. There is neuro-immunology, tumor immunology and bioinformatics, just to name a few, he says. Students will be able to tailor their studies to the areas where they have the most interest. Well be able to make an amazing, unique educational experience even better.

The Undergraduate Immunology Program will help retain top students from the Birmingham area, and throughout Alabama, Justement says. But were also looking to expand our national footprint. UAB is creating a unique position in the world of undergraduate education."

Here is the original post:
Majoring in defense: UAB's new Undergraduate Immunology Program - The Mix

Immunology Space Attracting High Levels of Investment – Drug Discovery & Development

With a total of 2,145 products currently in development, the immunology market is experiencing a high level of investment compared to many other therapy areas, and companies working within it are seeking to build on the clinical and commercial success of marketed products such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-) inhibitors, according to business intelligence provider GBI Research.

The companyslatest reportstates that, within immunology, the largest pipeline segments are general treatment of inflammation, with 510 products currently in development, and rheumatoid arthritis, with 488. Additionally, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, transplantation, ulcerative colitis, lupus, and allergies are all substantial indications with over 100 pipeline products in development.

The immunology pipeline is highly diverse in terms of molecule type. Unlike the market, which is mostly limited to small molecules, the pipeline contains a wide range of other molecule types including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), gene therapies, vaccines, and cell therapies.

Due to a degree of crossover between immunology indications in terms of their underlying pathophysiology, it is not uncommon for pipeline products to undergo developmental programs testing them across multiple indications. The majority of first-in-class pipeline products are being developed for a single indication, but approximately a fifth are in development for two or more indications within the therapy area.

While small molecules account for 91% of marketed products, they comprise only 43% of the pipeline. Both mAbs and proteins account for a much higher proportion of the pipeline than the market, and a number of other molecules that do not yet have a presence in the market, such as gene therapies, vaccines, and cell-based therapies, have a well-established presence in the pipeline, that is not limited to the early stages of development.

In terms of the market landscape, a total of 497 licensing deals and 433 co-development deals in the immunology therapy area were identified as having been completed between 2006 and 2016, with a combined aggregate value of $46 billion.

This high level of deal-making activity is indicative of a strong willingness on the part of pharmaceutical companies to engage in strategic consolidations in order to mitigate some of the risks associated with drug development in the immunology therapy area. Considering the very strong commercial performance of products in the immunology market, companies have a meaningful incentive to invest in such products.

Follow this link:
Immunology Space Attracting High Levels of Investment - Drug Discovery & Development

Human Behavior and Evolution Society

HBES is a society for all those studying the evolution of human behavior. Scientific perspectives range from evolutionary psychology to evolutionary anthropology and cultural evolution; and the membership includes researchers from a range of disciplines in the social and biological sciences. Our membership is worldwide.

The two main activities of HBES are holding an annual conference and running a journal called Evolution and Human Behavior (EHB). The conference provides a forum to present and learn about current research in the field, and includes invited plenary talks from leading scientists in the field. The 2017 meeting will take place May 31st to June 3rd in Boise, Idaho and features talks from anthropologists Valerie Curtis, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Peter Gray, and Rebecca Sear; zoologistRufus Johnstone; psychologists Martie Haselton and Cristine Legare; and primatologist Michael Tomasello.

Members of HBES receive a free subscription to EHB, a discount on the journal Human Nature, reduced registration at the annual HBES conference, and a biannual newsletter. Members are also eligible to apply for funds to host meetings on topics relevant to the goals and mission of HBES. Learn more about becoming a member of HBES.

Read more:
Human Behavior and Evolution Society

Owner of new private equity fund says impact investing is ‘the way of the future’ – Greenwich Time

Photo: Matthew Brown / Hearst Connecticut Media

Owner of new private equity fund says impact investing is the way of the future

A longtime Greenwich resident has started a private equity fund committed solely to investing in renewable energy projects.

Impact investing is the way of the future in finance, according to Thomas Yee, who recently started GCT Anchor Fund. The venture, which has its offices in Stamford, began building up capital last fall, but Yee already has big expectations for its success.

Yees team plans to invest in new renewable energy projects overseas, foster their growth and ultimately sell them off. We take the raw project and grow it, Yee said. It requires technical expertise in these particular areas.

Yee expects the results will net a big profit, he said.

The market for investing in renewable energy projects in America is saturated, he said, so the fund will focus on working with ones abroad, such as in Portugal and Argentina.

Overseas theres more risk but opportunity for higher returns, Yee said, whose background includes working as a trader at Moore Capital Management and in the renewable energy sector.

His expertise in renewable energy, particularly in solar energy, together with a carefully-curated team equips GCT Anchor Fund with the tools to turn a profit for its investors while making a positive impact on the environment with its projects, Yee said.

We view social and environmental sustainability as a strategic imperative and as a select investment opportunity with a disciplined focus for acquiring investments from a pipeline of clean tech projects that offer high and steady returns with minimal market risk, the fund says on its website.

Opportunities are limited for investors to make money since the birth of large regulatory measures, such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, combined with highly volatile markets, Yee outlines in an industry paper titled How to Obtain Alpha in Todays Volatile and Unpredictable Markets.

His new funds emphasis on impact investing derives from Yees belief in its ability to make clients money, but it also has a lot of positive socio-economic ramifications, Yee said. It provides a social ethic, creates jobs and the economy increases. Theres a need for society to develop the most efficient energy.

In addition to his new fund, Yee is working on another project he hopes will do even more to revolutionize the world of finance. As outlined in his paper, market volatility plays a big role in frustrating investors portfolios.

Right now, theres no existing model that can quantify a sudden change in the market, Yee said. Computers dont provide for the financial effect of human emotions.

Its no small undertaking, but Yee hopes to one day produce a model that can react to any market swing, including the black swans. It would take into account the human effect on market volatility and anticipate a trade beneficial to investors. The answer to creating such a model comes from Yees academic studies in ontology, which he describes as a comprehensive set of meanings which describe human behavior.

Creating an algorithm which can translate expected human behavior into trades with a high rate of return is my real interest, Yee said.

MBennett@greenwichtime.com, 203-625-4411; Twitter @Macaela_

See the original post here:
Owner of new private equity fund says impact investing is 'the way of the future' - Greenwich Time

Soon, Medication Will be Custom Tailored to Your Specific Genetics – Futurism

Personalized medicine, which involves tailoring health care to each persons unique genetic makeup, has the potential to transform how we diagnose, prevent and treat disease. After all, no two people are alike. Mapping a persons unique susceptibility to disease and targeting the right treatment has deservedly been welcomed as a new power to heal.

The human genome, a complete set of human DNA, was identified and mapped a decade ago. But genomic science remains in its infancy. According to Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, It is fair to say that the Human Genome Project has not yet directly affected the health care of most individuals.

Its not that there havent been tremendous breakthroughs. Its just that the gap between science and its ability to benefit most patients remains wide. This is mainly because we dont yet fully understand the complex pathways involved in common chronic diseases.

I am part of a research team that has taken on the ambitious goal of narrowing this gap. New technologies are allowing us to probe DNA, RNA, proteins and gut bacteria in a way that will change our understanding of health and disease. Our hope is to discover novel biological markers that can be used to diagnose and treat common chronic conditions, including Alzheimers disease, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

But when it comes to preventing the leading causes of death which include chronic diseases, genomics and precision medicine may not do as much as we hope.

Chronic diseases are only partially heritable. This means that the genes you inherit from your parents arent entirely responsible for your risk of getting most chronic diseases.

The estimated heritability of heart disease is about 50 percent. Its 64 percent for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 58 percent for Alzheimers disease. Our environment and lifestyle choice are also major factors; they can change or influence how the information coded in our genes is translated.

Chronic diseases are also complex. Rather than being controlled by a few genes that are easy to find, they are weakly influenced by hundreds if not thousands of genes, the majority of which still elude scientists. Unlocking the infinite combinations in which these genes interact with each other and with the environment is a daunting task that will take decades, if ever, to achieve.

While unraveling the genomic complexity of chronic disease is important, it shouldnt detract from existing simple solutions. Many of our deadliest chronic diseases are preventable. For instance, among U.S. adults, more than 90 percent of Type 2 diabetes, 80 percent of coronary arterial disease, 70 percent of stroke and 70 percent of colon cancer are potentially avoidable.

Smoking, weight gain, lack of exercise, poor diet and alcohol consumption are all risk factors for these conditions. Based on their profound impact on gene expression, or how instructions within a gene are manifested, addressing these factors will likely remain fundamental in preventing these illnesses.

A major premise behind personalized medicine is that empowering patients and doctors with more knowledge will lead to better decision-making. With some major advances, this has indeed been the case. For instance, variants in genes that control an enzyme that metabolizes drugs can identify individuals who metabolize some drugs too rapidly (not giving them a chance to work), or too slowly (leading to toxicity). This can lead to changes in medication dosing.

When applied to prevention, however, identifying our susceptibility at an earlier stage has not aided in avoiding chronic diseases. Research challenges the assumption that we will use genetic markers to change our behavior. More knowledge may nudge intent, but that doesnt translate to motivating changes to our lifestyle.

A recent review found that even when people knew their personal genetic risk of disease, they were no more likely to quit smoking, change their diet or exercise. Expectations that communicating DNA-based risk estimates changes behavior is not supported by existing evidence, the authors conclude.

Increased knowledge may even have the unintended consequence of shifting the focus to personal responsibility while detracting from our joint responsibility for improving public health. Reducing the prevalence of chronic diseases will require changing the political, social and economic environment within which we make choices as well as individual effort.

Perhaps the most awaited hope of the genomic era is that we will be able to develop targeted treatments based on detailed molecular profiling. The implication is that we will be able to subdivide disease into new classifications. Rather than viewing Type 2 diabetes as one disease, for example, we may discover many unique subtypes of diabetes.

This already is happening with some cancers. Patients with melanoma, leukemia or metastatic lung, breast or brain cancers can, in some cases, be offered a molecular diagnosis to tailor their treatment and improve their chance of survival.

We have been able to make progress in cancer therapy and drug safety and efficacy because specific gene mutations control a persons response to these treatments. But for complex, chronic diseases, relatively few personalized targeted treatments exist.

Customizing treatments based on our uniqueness will be a breakthrough, but it also poses a challenge: Without the ability to test targeted treatments on large populations, it will make it infinitely harder to discover and predict their response.

The very reason we group people with the same signs and symptoms into diagnoses is to help predict the average response to treatment. There may be a time when we have one-person trials that custom tailor treatment. However, the anticipation is that the timeline to getting to such trials will be long, the failure rate high and the cost exorbitant.

Research that takes genetic risk of diabetes into account has found greater benefit in targeting prevention efforts to all people with obesity rather than targeting efforts based on genetic risk.

We also have to consider decades of research on chronic diseases that suggest there are inherent limitations to preventing the global prevalence of these diseases with genomic solutions. For most of us, personalized medicine will likely complement rather than replace one-size-fits-all medicine.

Where does that leave us? Despite the inherent limitations to the ability of genomic medicine to transform health care, medicine in the future should unquestionably aspire to be personal. Genomics and molecular biosciences will need to be used holistically in the context of a persons health, beliefs and attitudes to fulfill their power to greatly enhance medicine.

Original post:
Soon, Medication Will be Custom Tailored to Your Specific Genetics - Futurism