Embryology

Egg donors in the UK: What it’s actually like donating your eggs – Cosmopolitan UK

Over the past few months something strange has happened to my social media feeds. Rather than the relentless flow of ads for Shein, the all-mighty algorithm has decided that what I really need to see is endless posts telling me that I can be compensated 750 for donating my eggs.

Most of the adverts feature a happy couple (sometimes straight, sometimes gay) cooing over a baby. The captions are along the lines of Do an amazing thing and help others to start their family by donating your eggs! You will receive 750. Another ad features a grid of photos of a diverse range of women asking: Could this be you? as if theyre trying to recruit me to their gang of giving girls.

Typically, I scarcely pay attention to whats being pushed at me as I scroll, but this sudden overload of ads calling upon me to become an egg donor did have an impact. I stopped and questioned whether, actually, this indeed could be me.

And it turns out, thousands of women have wondered the same and decided that yes, it was the right choice for them. The UKs fertility regulator The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), is still collecting data for the past two years but in 2019, 4,433 IVF cycles were completed using donor eggs, with the figure doubling since 2009. The demand for eggs is high and social media posts are a quick and cheap way to reach potential donors, particularly from under-represented communities.

In one respect, the ads are spot on. Donating your eggs is an amazing thing to do and evidently helps thousands of people start a family. But, as with all ads, I was sure that the reality of donating was a little more complicated than a beautiful baby for a deserving couple, plus a 750 cheque for me. I wondered about the medical practicalities of donation, the long-term consequences, and costs. Most of all I wondered: have any donors came to regret this huge and irreversible decision? Is the 750 - which is by no means a huge sum - anywhere near worth it, or was it never about the money in the first place?

Three years ago, Izzie, 29 who works in admin, was also stopped in her tracks when she heard a friend of a friend discuss her experience of donating. Shed had a really positive experience and were very similar so I thought, maybe I could do this?

After reading blogs written by donors online, she quickly discovered that, as a mixed-race woman, her eggs would be in particular demand, due to a shortage of non-white donors. It was rare to see anyone who looked like me in the promotional material and I liked the idea of being able to help a family have a baby that looks like them, she explains to me over the phone.

Izzie says she had such a positive experience at her clinic (the Bristol Centre for Reproductive Medicine) that she donated again two years later. She especially appreciated the clear communication on offer and having to undergo what she called a fertility MOT.

This MOT is thorough and time consuming. After completing an online application form to see if they meet the eligibility criteria, donors forgo rigorous health checks testing their blood, urine, and ovarian reserve and an examination of their family medical history.

Donors also have a counselling appointment discussing the emotional and legal implications of donating. A range of topics are discussed, from the donors feelings around motherhood to whats motivating them to donate. She was shown leaflets written for children who were conceived through donation about how they came into the world.

It was very 'Mummy and Daddy wanted to have a baby but needed a bit of help', Izzie explained, laughing a little.

Florence OgramGetty Images

But according to Izzie the core point of the session was to explain that since 2005, donors have signed away their right to anonymity - meaning that once a child conceived through donation turns eighteen, they will be given access to their biological mothers name and contact details.

In her hour and a half counselling session Izzie was asked to consider challenging hypothetical questions: How would she feel if the child reached out in eighteen years time? What would she say if they wanted to be treated as a part of her family? How might she feel about this if she were to have her own children?

The crux of it was checking that Id actually thought about the implications of doing this and making sure I understood what I was signing up for and the possibility of being contacted down the line, she says.

Izzie found it interesting that the counsellor told her that at this stage, many women opt out after considering the real-life consequences of donating. That only goes to show how important this stage it, she adds.

At this point, Izzie also had the opportunity to write a message of goodwill to any potential child and a short profile of herself.

At first, I was quite stuck, but I put myself in the shoes of a child who might be curious about where they came from and that really helped. I told them how a looked, but also that I was a massive nerd at school and loved sci-fi and anime. I also made it clear that Id be very happy for them to approach me once they turn eighteen.

"I put myself in the shoes of a child who might be curious about where they came from"

The next stage of the treatment varies between clinics. Some artificially suppress the donors hormonal cycle, usually through a daily injection over a two-week period. Once the natural cycle is suppressed into an artificial menopause, donors are injected with hormones to boost the number of eggs produced, which lasts around 10 days. Then, a few days before collection, the donor will be given an injection of hCG which matures their eggs.

Other clinics work more within the donors natural cycle, skipping the two weeks of suppression injections. Then, instead of the hCG injection to mature their eggs, they use whats called a buserelin spike. This reduces the chance of ovarian hyperstimulation, a serious and potentially fatal reaction to fertility drugs, with symptoms including stomach pains, vomiting, and fainting. This method takes less time and has fewer medical risks so if you are considering donating, it is worth investigating which treatments are available

Finally, while under sedation (so, no eating that day!), the eggs are removed. The procedure takes about thirty minutes and donors feel discomfort or some pain for a few days afterwards, meaning things like sex can be difficult for a few weeks. The eggs will either be frozen, or if theyre used fresh (which increases the chance of conception) they will be mixed with a sperm sample that day usually from the intended father.

While the HFEA flags ovarian hyperstimulation as a potential risk, there is little research into the long-term health effects of donation. Although direct evidence is scant, some women have reported developing cancer or becoming infertile after donation, believing the treatment to have played a role.

A year on from her second donation, Izzie is still pleased with her decision; she knows a girl and a boy have so far been born using her eggs and although she is thrilled to have helped a family, Izzie doesnt feel any real connection to the children.

If you get very easily attached, I can see that might regret donating, she shares. You have to be not exactly cold, but detached and realistic about what it actually entails.

But what about those who didn't have as positive an experience as Izzie, or who aren't able to as easily separate themselves from the physical process?

Donating is a time consuming, invasive, and potentially dangerous process with relatively little compensation since it is illegal to sell your body parts in the UK. Here, donors are compensated up to 750 for their 'time', but the eggs themselves are given out of 'charity'. Meanwhile, in the US women can receive $50,000 per cycle. Naturally, this changes some of the factors motivating women to donate.

Liz, an American aged 43, went through three donation cycles in the mid noughties when her mother was facing eviction. I first thought of it after seeing an ad in a college magazine. I didnt respond to the flowery imagery telling me that donating my eggs would make me an 'angel'. I was purely motivated by the money as I was desperate, she tells me during a candid conversation.

Twenty years later Liz has come to regret her decision, not least since she believes it contributed to her developing an under-active thyroid. But crucially, another key difference between the UK and the States is that, according to Liz, donors are pressured to donate anonymously. Lizs donations may have resulted in birth of anything between zero and nine children, but she has no idea how many.

Ive struggled with this aspect of donating as I didnt know my father when I was growing up and Ive potentially put a group of children through the same thing, she adds.

Its an experience that Alicia, a 22-year-old opticians employee knows well. Born to an older, single mother, Alicia knew that she was donated through a sperm donation. But with her mother passing away when Alicia was seven, she was never told that she was also conceived using an egg donor. Then, last year she took a 23andme test and was connected to her biological mothers sister. After such a difficult childhood, Alicia has complicated feelings around her parentage.

I think when a lot of people donate, they consider the parents perspective, but they forget that theres going to be another human at the end of this who is going to have their own thoughts and feelings about it, she explains, adding that she now has a close relationship with both of her biological parents and even went to visit her biological father in the US.

Its bittersweet. We have a wonderful relationship but its hard that we were kept apart for so long. My biological mother and I are so similar, from the clothes we wear to the foods we hate. DNA goes so deep, and donors need to understand that, Alicia adds, remarking that on the other hand, she finds she has little in common with her aunt and uncle who raised her after her mothers death.

All UK donors are now mandatorily registered and donate in the knowledge that they may be contact by the donor conceived child in eighteen years time. However, Clare Ettinghausen of the HFEA (The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) emphasises that in the days of 23andme, anonymity is far from a given and donors may be contacted sooner than they think.

Its an amazing thing to do and a truly selfless act, she told me, But you must seriously consider the lifelong implications of being a donor. And, as with all medical procedures, there is a risk and donors must do their research.

"I felt like a chicken being harvested for its eggs"

Some donors, however, have found that that their experience was not what they thought they were signing up to, even in spite of pouring time into researching the process.

Niamh was a twenty-year old veterinary student when she decided to donate her eggs at a clinic in Nottingham in 2018. However, she was disappointed with how she was treated by the clinic. During one ultrasound scan, the technician was struggling to find one of her ovaries.

They were pushing on me incredibly hard to the point that I was almost in tears. They didnt stop when I asked either. I felt like a chicken being used for its eggs, she recalls.

Despite this, after undergoing the final procedure, Niamh was overwhelmed with the desire to donate again, but this time with another clinic. She had a better experience with a London-based one but still felt that the needs of the intended parents were always put before hers.

Everything was done according to their schedule. They cancelled on me at the last minute several times and asked me to travel at short notice, so I lost money on train tickets, she shares. I also didnt realise that any travel costs would be taken out of the 750 compensation, which meant I received very little despite giving up a lot of my time.

Despite donating twice, Niamh now wouldnt recommend the experience to other women. Care really varies between clinics, and I think its up to the intended parents to demand better care for the donors we are doing for them out of charity, after all.

She and Liz have joined the online community We Are Egg Donors to spread awareness of the medical, practical, and emotional complications of egg donation.

Doctor Alexandra Price of the Bristol Centre for Reproductive Medicine clinic was saddened when I referred to some of these incidents. We really take the time to investigate if donating the right decision for them, she told me. We put our donors on a pedestal since we know its such a gift theyre giving we even give them flowers afterwards to thank them.

The joy brought by starting a family can be compared to little else and to be the person to enable that is an incredible thing. With women starting families increasingly late in life, the demand for egg donors will surely only increase over time too. However, donating your eggs is a complex and irreversible procedure. And as one donor told me: Once a baby has been born, it cant be unborn.

Ironically, my research into donation has only fed the beast and increased the influx of fertility clinic adverts into my timeline. But now, rather than picturing what I might do with 750, I see a child who looks like me. Who maybe even behaves like me but who was a total stranger. I feel unnerved and, although I admire the selflessness of all donors, I knew with absolute certainty that it's not for me.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Continued here:
Egg donors in the UK: What it's actually like donating your eggs - Cosmopolitan UK

Embryology

Elon Musks Babies Were Conceived Via IVF And Surrogacy – Is It The Future Of Reproduction? – Forbes

Vitro Fertilization. IVF and Human fetus with DNA strand. 3d illustration

Advances in science and technology, coupled with modern medicine, has impacted the way in which we look at life. Reproduction is not an exception. It is no secret that the most prolific innovator on the planet, Elon Musk, took an engineering approach to reproduction, and his first five boys came into this world via IVF, and the last girl was delivered using a surrogate mother. The Tesla mogul and his former wife, author Justine Wilson, welcomed son Nevada Alexander Musk in 2002. Nevada died of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, at only 10 weeks. After losing their firstborn, Musk and Wilson turned to IVF to grow their family. She gave birth to twin sons Griffin and Xavier Musk in April 2004. The couple also used IVF to welcome triplet sons Kai, Saxon and Damian in January 2006. Later on, Musk began dating singer Grimes, who gave birth to their son X AE A-XII. Earlier in March, Grimes revealed that she and the SpaceX founder had welcomed their first daughter, Exa Dark Siderl Musk, via surrogate in December 2021. And there are claims that Elon and Amber Heard had a legal battle around the cryopreserved embryos. In recent weeks rumors surfaced that he had two more kids with the board member of OpenAI and executive at Neuralink. Sex of the babies was not disclosed. Considering how busy Elon is, business ethics of such a relationship, and the fact that there are two babies, there is a chance that he just served as a donor.

While this approach raises many ethical questions including: Were his first babies selected to be male at the preimplantation stage?. While there are regular attempts to build moral and ethical framework for allowing sexing for non-medical reasons, sex selection is illegal in many countries. We recently observed one of the IVF boys taking matters into his own hands changing both name and gender and distancing herself from her father. A very brave move deserving recognition and support.

Elon Musk is not the only one opting for IVF instead of the traditional approach. Several people in my network recently told me that they chose IVF and surrogacy. Some decided to do this to improve the chances of having a healthy baby. One of my friends decided to reproduce via a surrogate to have undisputed legal rights and ensure that his plans to invest substantial resources into the upbringing and education of their offspring do not go down in flames due to the unexpected divorce. And some chose surrogacy for health reasons.

Also, there is a myriad of startups working on reproductive health and longevity including the two I recently covered, Dr. Dina Radenkovics Gameto, and Oviva, and several research groups and startups are working on artificial wombs.

Can this method of reproduction become mainstream? Are we going to see this trend accelerate as the artificial uterus technology matures and the natural reproduction declines? Lets take a closer look at this emerging and rapidly expanding field.

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 2003: A sperm fertilizes an egg under a microscope using ICSI (Intra ... [+] Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) as part of IVF treatment at the private Lister Hospital. One needle holds the egg in position while the other needle injects a single sperm into the egg to fertilize it. The technique is used for male infertility. (Photo by Tina Stallard/Getty Images)

Louise Brown in 1978 became the worlds first baby to be born by in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Her birth revolutionized the field of reproductive medicine. Given that approximately one in eight heterosexual couple has difficulty in conceiving, and that homosexual couples and single parents need clinical help to make a baby, the demand for IVF has been growing. In fact, IVF is so common that over 5 million babies have been born through this technology. On a side note, critics of cryopreservation should note that these babies were cryopreserved before they were implanted...

COVID has also changed the way we view reproduction and IVF. Pew Research estimated there were close to 300,000 fewer births in the U.S. in 2021 as a result of the pandemic and low levels of sexual activity. Many women of reproductive age were perhaps worried about the vaccine, or were concerned about the vaccines effect on future fertility, current pregnancy, and breastfeeding, among other concerns. During the pandemic, there was a decline in the number of concluded assisted reproductive technology cycles as compared to the previous years. This decline can be attributed to many factors: the local restrictions and the fear about SARS-Cov-2 infection, being among the primary. However, a study published the same year by the National Center for Biotechnology Information reported that couples are actually prioritizing IVF treatment in the post-COVID era. No information exists in the literature regarding the effect of coronavirus on the IVF cycle attempt. In fact, a study titled Does COVID-19 infection influence patients' performance during IVF-ET cycle?: an observational study concluded that COVID did not affect patients' performance or ovarian reserve in their immediate subsequent IVF cycle. There needs to be more data available on IVF, both pre and post COVID.

In order to understand IVF, we first need to look at the natural process of reproduction. Believe it or not, it all starts in the brain. Roughly 15 days before fertilization can happen, the anterior pituitary gland secretes follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), which ripens a hand full of follicles of the ovary that then release estrogen. Each follicle contains one egg, and on average only one follicle becomes fully mature. As it grows and releases estrogen, this hormone not only helps coordinate growth and preparation of the uterus, it also communicates to the brain how well the follicle is developing. When the estrogen level is high enough, the anterior pituitary releases a surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which trigger ovulation and causes the follicle to rupture and release the egg. Once the egg leaves the ovary, it is directed into the fallopian tube by the fimbriae. If the egg is not fertilized by the sperm within 24 hours, the unfertilized egg will die and the entire system will reset itself, preparing to create a new egg and uterine lining the following month.

The egg is protected by a thick extra cellular shell of sugar and protein called the zona pellucida. The zona thwarts the entry and fusion of more than one sperm. Each ejaculation during sexual intercourse releases more than a 100 million sperm. But only a 100 or so will make it to the proximity of the egg, and only one will successfully penetrate through the armor of the zona pellucida. Upon successful fertilization, the zygote immediately begins developing into an embryo and takes about three days to reach the uterus. There it requires a couple of days to implant firmly into the endometrium, the inner lining of the uterus. Once implanted, the cells that are to become the placenta, secrete a hormone that signals to the ovulated follicle that there is a pregnancy in the uterus. This helps rescue that follicle, now called the corpus luteum, from degenerating, as it normally would do in that stage of the menstrual cycle. The corpus luteum is responsible for producing the progesterone required to maintain the pregnancy until six to seven weeks of gestation when the placenta develops and takes over until the baby is born approximately 40 weeks later.

In patients undergoing IVF, FSH is administered in levels that are higher than naturally occurring, to cause a controlled over-stimulation of the ovaries so that they ultimately produce multiple eggs. The eggs are then retrieved before ovulation would occur, while the woman is under anesthesia, through an aspirating needle guided by ultra-sound. Most sperm samples are produced by masturbation. In a laboratory, the identified eggs are stripped of surrounding cells, and prepared for fertilization in a petri dish.

Fertilization can occur by one of two techniques. In the first, the eggs are incubated by thousands of sperm and fertilization occurs naturally over a few hours. The second technique maximizes certainty of fertilization by using a needle to place a single sperm inside the egg. This is particularly useful when there is a problem with the quality of the sperm. After fertilization, embryos can be further screened for genetic suitability, delivered into the womans uterus via catheter, or frozen for later attempt at pregnancies. This last process is also called embryo cryopreservation. It involves freezing of the embryos. You may choose to freeze extra embryos and use them later if you: postpone or cancel implantation into your uterus after an egg is already fertilized; want to delay IVF to a later date; want an option in case early attempts at fertility treatment fail; or choose to donate unused embryos to other people trying to get pregnant or to researchers rather than destroy them; or for other reasons.

If the womans eggs are of poor quality due to age or toxic exposures or have been removed due to cancer, donor eggs may be used. In the case that the intended woman has a problematic uterus or lacks one, another woman, called the gestational carrier, or surrogate, can use her uterus to carry the pregnancy. To increase the odds of success, which are as high as 40% for women younger than 35, doctors sometimes transfer multiple embryos at once. Which is why IVF results in twins and triplets more often than natural pregnancies. However, many clinics seek to minimize the chances of multiple pregnancies, as they are riskier for mothers and babies.

Millions of babies like Louise Brown have been born from IVF and have had normal, healthy lives. The long-term health consequences of ovarian stimulation with IVF medicines are less clear. In fact, it is possible to avoid the many genetic abnormalities with preimplantation diagnosis. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of the U.K. published a blog in which they declared that IVF is generally safe, adding that most people who have it experience no problems with their health or pregnancy. They do mention some risks that people should be aware of, including: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, having a multiple pregnancy or birth, and having an ectopic pregnancy. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine also notes that although serious complications from IVF medicines and procedures are rare, there are still some risks from injectable fertility medications. Though so far, IVF seems safe for women. Because of better genetic testing, delayed child-bearing, increased accessibility, and diminishing costs, it is not inconceivable that artificial baby-making via IVF and related techniques could outpace natural reproduction in years to come.

Clearly, IVF is gaining popularity every year. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (published in 2017), one million babies born in the U.S. between 1987 and 2015 were born through the use of IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies. There are many agencies and centers worldwide that provide these services. Some examples of these agencies are: Circle Surrogacy & Egg Donation, Brilliant Beginnings, The Center For Surrogacy & Egg Donation, ConceiveAbilities, Hatch Egg Donation & Surrogacy, and Growing Families. Others include Ambroise Par Group, AMP Center St Roch, AVA Clinic Scanfert, Bangkok IVF center, Betamedics, Bloom Fertility and Healthcare, Bourn Hall Fertility Center, and Biofertility Center and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

Like IVF, surrogacy too is becoming a very popular way to have children, particularly for wealthy couples in the West. According to a 2019 WebMD blog post, about 750 babies are born each year using gestational surrogacy. Similarly, PBS reported that in 2018 over 100 children were born in Boise, Idaho, through surrogacy. In Canada, surrogate births have increased by 400% in the last decade. Even celebrities are doing it! News anchor Anderson Cooper used a surrogate for the birth of his son, as did Sir Elton John, who used a surrogate for the birth of his two sons. Other celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Robert De Niro, George Lucas, and Neil Patrick Harris used surrogates too.

Three generations of women and a robot jumping for joy

There are several reasons why IVF and surrogacy are fast becoming a new way of family planning. Infertility is one of the main reasons why prospective parents opt for surrogacy. Another reason why would-be parents opt for surrogacy is the age factor because age plays a big role in a persons ability to conceive and carry a baby. Likewise, same-sex couples and single individuals who are unable to conceive a child naturally may choose to turn to a surrogate. Some people may also have medical or physical problems that dissuade them from pregnancy or make birth impossible. At the end of the day, it is a personal and private decision.

Interestingly, many in the generation X and Y are reproducing via IVF after going through a divorce. Recently I spoke with one of my friends in the venture capital world who is looking at IVF via a surrogate as a way to avoid the possible legal problems in the case of a future divorce. "I am planning to go to buy a few egg cells from a very accomplished young scientist and use a service in Georgia (country) to get a surrogate. I want to have a very smart kid that I will invest a lot of resources, time and energy in and I won't need to share custody over the kid in the case I break up with my girlfriend," said an accomplished man in his mid-forties who refused to be named in the article. "I went through a very painful breakup once and how I have to share custody of a child and don't have full control over the upbringing. But children are our legacy and I want to ensure that I can raise the child to be a great person, give great education, and provide amazing care without being pulled into a difficult relationship with the mother. I am sure that my girlfriend will invest a lot of energy into this child or I will find another girlfriend."

This statement shocked and puzzled me.

Recently, I covered a startup called Gameto, run by Dr. Dina Radenkovic, a wonderful physician turned VC turned CEO. "The reproductive industry is up for disruption. We are going to help millions of women get the freedom to have babies without the time pressure. And postpone menopause. But I am also investing in a company developing artificial uterus technology. In the future, painful childbirth may be optional and without the need of a surrogate, she told me.

And females also get a lot of freedom to choose the genetic background of their children. Many are choosing to reproduce using the sperm from the validated, healthy, intelligent, and accomplished individuals.

Same week I met a wonderful scientist, a recent PhD from Harvard who also works in the field of reproductive health. "You know, I am an open ID sperm donor. It helped pay my bills during the school years and now I have over 35 confirmed kids worldwide, he said.

A sperm bank is a facility or enterprise that collects and stores human sperm from sperm donors for ... [+] use by women who need donor-provided sperm to achieve pregnancy. (Photo by Evan Hurd/Corbis via Getty Images)

There are few reliable figures on the sperm banking industry and the percentage of donations that are made anonymously. Researchers find it difficult to track how many men have donated sperm, and how many children have resulted from each individuals donation. Approximately, there are about two dozen sperm banks in the United States; each operates independently and with minimal government oversight. Some of the famous ones include Cryos International and California Cryobank. There are others also.

Some of these operations are pretty cryptic and shady. Many clinics have revised their policies not to eliminate anonymous donations, but to make clear that the term only means they will not share donor information. Others are moving toward open ID donor systems, in which donors are told that offspring could connect with them when they turn 18 or sooner if both parties agree to it.

As debates about womens bodies and their right to choose continue to rage throughout the world, surrogacy laws remain in infancy. The laws also change as reproductive technology and the very meaning of a parent changes. In the U.S., there isn't a federal law on surrogacy and state laws vary. Some states have written legislation, while others have common law regimes to deal with surrogacy issues. Surrogacy friendly states facilitate surrogacy and surrogacy contracts while others simply refuse to enforce them. Some states only facilitate married heterosexual couples. States that are considered to be surrogacy friendly include California, Illinois, Arkansas, Maryland, Oregon and New Hampshire.

Surrogacy has become so popular that it has given birth to a new form of tourism called reproductive tourism or cross-border reproductive care. This multibillion-dollar global industry is perfect for price-sensitive, middle-income would-be parents. The surrogates in this case are usually those who are thought to be of low socioeconomic status in countries like India and Nepal. In India, surrogacy may be worth about $400 million each year, driven by the countrys nearly 3,000 specialty clinics. Thailand, Ukraine and Russia are other popular sources of surrogates for international clientele. Thus, surrogacy is the route to escape poverty for many women in these developing states.

Research on the development of IVF and reproductive technology is still in infancy. However, as it becomes more advanced, we are likely to see more non-traditional families and the reality is probably closer than we think. And with the changing trends in family planning, there is no doubt that science and technology will continue to progress and change the way we live and think. Before we know it, this new trend and demand for babies is likely to further advance science and the procedures. Perhaps in the future, women will not need to go through the painful process of childbirth.

Go ahead and continuously improvement concept, silhouette man jump on a cliff from past to future ... [+] with cloud sky background.

Follow this link:
Elon Musks Babies Were Conceived Via IVF And Surrogacy - Is It The Future Of Reproduction? - Forbes

Genetics

Could Genetics Be the Key to Never Getting the Coronavirus? – The Atlantic

Last Christmas, as the Omicron variant was ricocheting around the United States, Mary Carrington unknowingly found herself at a superspreader eventan indoor party, packed with more than 20 people, at least one of whom ended up transmitting the virus to most of the gatherings guests.

After two years of avoiding the coronavirus, Carrington felt sure that her time had come: Shed been holding her great-niece, who tested positive soon after, and she was giving me kisses, Carrington told me. But she never caught the bug. And I just thought, Wow, I might really be resistant here. She wasnt thinking about immunity, which she had thanks to multiple doses of a COVID vaccine. Rather, perhaps via some inborn genetic quirk, her cells had found a way to naturally repel the pathogens assaults instead.

Carrington, of all people, understood what that would mean. An expert in immunogenetics at the National Cancer Institute, she was one of several scientists who, beginning in the 1990s, helped uncover a mutation that makes it impossible for most strains of HIV to enter human cells, rendering certain people essentially impervious to the pathogens effects. Maybe something analogous could be safeguarding some rare individuals from SARS-CoV-2 as well.

Read: America is running out of COVID virgins

The idea of coronaviral resistance is beguiling enough that scientists around the world are now scouring peoples genomes for any hint that it exists. If it does, they could use that knowledge to understand whom the virus most affects, or leverage it to develop better COVID-taming drugs. For individuals who have yet to catch the contagiona fast-dwindling proportion of the populationresistance dangles like a superpower that people cant help but think they must have, says Paula Cannon, a geneticist and virologist at the University of Southern California.

As with any superpower, though, bona fide resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection would likely be very rare, says Helen Su, an immunologist at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Carringtons original hunch, for one, eventually proved wrong: She recently returned from a trip to Switzerland and found herself entwined with the virus at last. Like most people who remained unscathed until recently, Carrington had done so for two and a half years through a probable combination of vaccination, cautious behavior, socioeconomic privilege, and luck. Its entirely possible that inborn coronavirus resistance may not even existor that it may come with such enormous costs that its not worth the protection it theoretically affords.

Of the 1,400 or so viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi known to cause disease in humans, Jean-Laurent Casanova, a geneticist and an immunologist at Rockefeller University, is certain of only three that can be shut out by bodies with one-off genetic tweaks: HIV, norovirus, and a malaria parasite.

The HIV-blocking mutation is maybe the most famous. About three decades ago, researchers, Carrington among them, began looking into a small number of people who we felt almost certainly had been exposed to the virus multiple times, and almost certainly should have been infected, and yet had not, she told me. Their superpower was simple: They lacked functional copies of a gene called CCR5, which builds a cell-surface protein that HIV needs in order to hack its way into T cells, the viruss preferred human prey. Just 1 percent of people of European descent harbor this mutation, called CCR5-32, in two copies; in other populations, the trait is rarer still. Even so, researchers have leveraged its discovery to cook up a powerful class of antiretroviral drugs, and purged the virus from two people with the help of 32-based bone-marrow transplantsthe closest that medicine has come to developing a functional HIV cure.

The stories with those two other pathogens are similar. Genetic errors in a gene called FUT2, which pastes sugars onto the outsides of gut cells, can render people resistant to norovirus; a genomic tweak erases a protein called Duffy from the walls of red blood cells, stopping Plasmodium vivax, one of several parasites that causes malaria, from wresting its way inside. The Duffy mutation, which affects a gene called DARC/ACKR1, is so common in parts of sub-Saharan Africa that those regions have driven rates of P. vivax infection way down.

In recent years, as genetic technologies have advanced, researchers have begun to investigate a handful of other infection-resistance mutations against other pathogens, among them hepatitis B virus and rotavirus. But the links are tough to definitively nail down, thanks to the number of people these sorts of studies must enroll, and to the thorniness of defining and detecting infection at all; the case with SARS-CoV-2 will likely be the same. For months, Casanova and a global team of collaborators have been in contact with thousands of people from around the world who believe they harbor resistance to the coronavirus in their genes. The best candidates have had intense exposures to the virussay, via a symptomatic person in their homeand continuously tested negative for both the pathogen and immune responses to it. But respiratory transmission is often muddied by pure chance; the coronavirus can infiltrate people silently, and doesnt always leave antibodies behind. (The team will be testing for less fickle T-cell responses as well.) People without clear-cut symptoms may not test at all, or may not test properly. And all on its own, the immune system can guard people against infection, especially in the period shortly after vaccination or illness. With HIV, a virus that causes chronic infections, lacks a vaccine, and spreads through clear-cut routes in concentrated social networks, it was easier to identify those individuals whom the virus had visited but not put down permanent roots within, says Ravindra Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge. SARS-CoV-2 wont afford science the same ease of study.

Read: Is BA.5 the reinfection wave?

A full analogue to the HIV, malaria, and norovirus stories may not be possible. Genuine resistance can manifest in only so many ways, and tends to be born out of mutations that block a pathogens ability to force its way into a cell, or xerox itself once its inside. CCR5, Duffy, and the sugars dropped by FUT2, for instance, all act as microbial landing pads; mutations rob the bugs of those perches. If an equivalent mutation exists to counteract SARS-CoV-2, it might logically be found in, say, ACE2, the receptor that the coronavirus needs in order to break into cells, or TMPRSS2, a scissors-like protein that, for at least some variants, speeds the invasive process along. Already, researchers have found that certain genetic variations can dial down ACE2s presence on cells, or pump out junkier versions of TMPRSS2hints that there could be tweaks that further strip away the molecules. But ACE2 is very important to blood-pressure regulation and the maintenance of lung-tissue health, said Su, of NIAID, whos one of many scientists collaborating with Casanova to find SARS-CoV-2 resistance genes. A mutation that keeps the coronavirus out might very well muck around with other aspects of a persons physiology. That could make the genetic tweak vanishingly rare, debilitating, or even, as Gupta put it, not compatible with life. People with the CCR5-32 mutation, which halts HIV, are basically completely normal, Cannon told me, which means HIV kind of messed up in choosing CCR5. The coronavirus, by contrast, has figured out how to exploit something vital to its hostan ingenious invasive move.

The superpowers of genetic resistance can have other forms of kryptonite. A few strains of HIV have figured out a way to skirt around CCR5, and glom on to another molecule, called CXCR4; against this version of the virus, even people with the 32 mutation are not safe. A similar situation has arisen with Plasmodium vivax, which we do see in some Duffy-negative individuals, suggesting that the parasite has found a back door, says Dyann Wirth, a malaria researcher at Harvards School of Public Health. Evolution is a powerful strategyand with SARS-CoV-2 spewing out variants at such a blistering clip, I wouldnt necessarily expect resistance to be a checkmate move, Cannon told me. BA.1, for instance, conjured mutations that made it less dependent on TMPRSS2 than Delta was.

Read: The BA.5 wave is what COVID normal looks like

Still, protection doesnt have to be all or nothing to be a perk. Partial genetic resistance, too, can reshape someones course of disease. With HIV, researchers have pinpointed changes in groups of so-called HLA genes that, through their impact on assassin-like T cells, can ratchet down peoples risk of progressing to AIDS. And a whole menagerie of mutations that affect red-blood-cell function can mostly keep malaria-causing parasites at baythough many of these changes come with a huge human cost, Wirth told me, saddling people with serious clotting disorders that can sometimes turn lethal themselves.

With COVID-19, too, researchers have started to home in on some trends. Casanova, at Rockefeller, is one of several scientists who has led efforts unveiling the importance of an alarm-like immune molecule called interferon in early control of infection. People who rapidly pump out gobs of the protein in the hours after infection often fare just fine against the virus. But those whose interferon responses are weak or laggy are more prone to getting seriously sick; the same goes for people whose bodies manufacture maladaptive antibodies that attack interferon as it passes messages between cells. Other factors could toggle the risk of severe disease up or down as well: cells ability to sense the virus early on; the amount of coordination between different branches of defense; the brakes the immune system puts on itself, so it does not put the hosts own tissues at risk. Casanova and his colleagues are also on the hunt for mutations that might alter peoples risk of developing long COVID and other coronaviral consequences. None of these searches will be easy. But they should be at least simpler than the one for resistance to infection, Casanova told me, because the outcomes theyre measuringserious and chronic forms of diseaseare that much more straightforward to detect.

If resistance doesnt pan out, that doesnt have to be a letdown. People dont need total blockades to triumph over microbesjust a defense thats good enough. And the protection were born with isnt all the leverage weve got. Unlike genetics, immunity can be easily built, modified, and strengthened over time, particularly with the aid of vaccines. Those DIY defenses are probably what kept Carringtons case of COVID down to a mild course, she told me. Immune protection is also a far surer bet than putting a wager on what we may or may not inherit at birth. Better to count on the protections we know we can cook up ourselves, now that the coronavirus is clearly with us for good.

Read more from the original source:
Could Genetics Be the Key to Never Getting the Coronavirus? - The Atlantic

Genetics

Life and ethics in an ‘era of genetics’ – DW (English)

When we talk about genetics, we often see visions of superhumans people whose DNA has been altered to enhance their abilities, allowing them to outperform others and survive multiple diseases while also having conventionalgood looks, like "best versions" of humanity.

But those visions can be true of dystopian literature or in the plots of clich science fiction movies, and less true for reality.

George Church, a world-leading geneticist, says the idea of creating superhumans is far from what he sees as the future of genetics.

"There's a misunderstanding that you could have a perfect human or even a superhuman. It's often a trade-off," Church told DW. "When you gain something, you lose something. The features that you like about a bicycle are not true for a race car or a jet."

Church has worked in genetics for decades. He was one of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, a method that deciphers the genetic material found in an organism. He also pioneered the development of genome-engineering.

Genome-engineering goes by a few names. Some call it genetic engineering, others call it genome or gene editing.

Some call it a technology, and others refer to it as though it were a pair of scissors you hold in your hands. And in a sense that image works: We can use gene editing techniques to cut out genes that, for example, carry hereditary diseases.

In fact, the technology allows us to add, remove or alter genetic material found in any organism's DNA that complex molecule that contains the unique building blocks of every living thing.

Gregor Mendel first discovered the fundamentals of inheritance in 1865, through experiments on crossbreeding plants. Those experiments led to what we now call genetics. And oh how the field has progressed.

Speaking from his Harvard University lab, Church said we were living in an "era of genetics."

Mendel's early discoveries have allowed scientists to sequence genomes including that of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and identify the genes that are responsible for more than 5,000 rare diseases.

They have given us a better understanding of how genes function, and that has raised the promise of improving diagnoses and therapies for illnesses. Church has focused on using genetics to reverse the process of aging.

Genetics are also used in the science of "de-extinction" a famous example being the attempt to bring the mammoth back to life.

Church and other geneticists hope to reverse the effects of age-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cognitive degradation and heart diseases. They hope to prevent diseases that cause poverty.

"A lot of people are kept in poverty because they have to spend much of their time on bad nutrition and fighting infectious diseases. [With genetic research], we could get a virtuous cycle rather than a vicious cycle. And that's very exciting to me," said Church.

Gene editing rewrites DNA to treat genetic or acquired diseases

"[We might also need] to get off the planet for reasons that are not human, like asteroids, solar flares, super volcanoes, things like that. That may require some powerful medicine, including genetic medicine, to make us resistant to radiation and low gravity and so on," he said.

These future visions come with an array of ethical and philosophical questions, which some experts say we have yet to address.

Take, for instance, the question of what makes us human and who is allowed to decide which genes we change.

"The issue with gene editing and gene therapy has always been [the future] generations," said Jan Witkowski, a professor at the Graduate School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, in the US. "If the gene therapy alters an egg, then that change is inherited through the generations."

And those future generations have no say on whether they want that change to be made.

The field of genetics has allowed scientists to develop personalized medicine, where treatments can be tailored to an individual's specific condition. We have also built huge repositories of genetic data.

But some scientists argue that these repositories are unrepresentative of the global population. With nearly 90% of the genome data currently available coming from people with European ancestry, the data lacks diversity.

This disparity could result in underrepresented populations missing out on the benefits of genetic research.

Genetics is also still very expensive. Church said the technology may get more affordable, like the Internet, and to some extent water and education, but none of those "are truly equitable," he said.

"The only technology I've identified that's truly equally distributed, meaning that nobody on the planet has to pay a penny for it, is smallpox," Church said. "That's because it's extinct: We no longer have to develop and deploy vaccines and drugs [against smallpox]. And that could be done for a whole variety of infectious diseases [with genetics]."

Edited by: Zulfikar Abbany

Go here to see the original:
Life and ethics in an 'era of genetics' - DW (English)

Genetics

Are Allergies Hereditary? The Genetics of Allergies, Explained. – Fatherly

Introducing your kid to new foods should be a fun experience, but theres a hidden danger that can make taste-testing a disaster: anaphylaxis, or a severe allergic reaction. Many allergies are mild and only result in occasional sniffles, but others can be fatal. With allergies becoming more common over the past 50 years and today affecting upwards of 40% of the population worldwide, parents may wonder where allergies come from and if theyre responsible for passing down allergies to their children, or if theres a way to prevent their kids from developing allergies. In other words, are allergies hereditary?

Children can inherit the tendency to be allergic a characteristic known as atopy from their parents, according to Richard Wasserman, M.D., Ph.D., medical director of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology at the Medical City Children's Hospital in Dallas, Texas. Just as each childs hair color is uniquely positioned on a spectrum from flaxen blond to coal black and determined by the complex interactions of more than 120 genes, so too do allergies develop when a host of different gene patterns combine in children.

Children with allergic parents have between a 50% to 80% chance of developing allergies. And maternal allergies are more likely than paternal allergies to lead to the child inheriting allergies. However, its not like a mothers allergies to penicillin will be directly inherited by her child, Wasserman says. Although we know significantly more about the genetics of allergy today than we did even 10 years ago, it is enormously complex and we still only have a limited understanding, he says.

There are often many genes at play that can be triggered by various allergens in the childs environment, he explains. For example, people may inherit the tendency to be allergic from their parents, but then develop pollen allergies specifically to the regional pollen in their environment.

People inherit the ability to be allergic, but they dont inherit what theyre allergic to, Wasserman says. In the same family, there can be people who are allergic to cats and other people who are allergic to peanuts and other people who have hives, and some people who have more than one of those problems.

The effects of the environment on developing allergies is often mediated by epigenetic modifications, which are changes to DNA, but not to genes themselves. Epigenetic modifications do, however, change how how the body reads those genes. Epigenetic changes are known to play a role in hay fever, food allergies, asthma, eczema, and other allergy disorders.

Sparse studies have linked individual genes with specific allergens. For example, gene variants in the human lupicize antigen (HLA) complex the same region that can help determine genetic compatibility of transplants have been linked to peanut allergies. A recent study linked mutations on the filaggrin gene related to the skins barrier and moisturization to milk and egg allergies. And scientists have long thought asthma is associated with several different genes related to the immune system.

Allergens are also connected to one another through a process called the allergic march, in which many children first develop eczema, followed by food allergy, and then asthma and nasal allergies. All of this occurs within the first six years of life.

The allergic march is thought to occur as a result of certain gene mutations and environmental factors, but its unclear why some children will outgrow certain allergies and others continue along the march. Luckily, it is possible for parents to disrupt the allergic march by treating problems like eczema as they come up, Wasserman says.

There are no foolproof ways to prevent a child from developing allergies, but there are ways to lower the odds. Exposing children to certain allergens in specific ways has been shown to reduce their risk of developing an allergy to that substance later on.

For example, some studies show pet dogs decrease the risk of asthma when introduced in the first year of life, and that children who grow up in rural farmlands with lots of animals have a lower risk of developing allergies than children who grow up in urban cities. But owning a cat has been shown to increase the risk of cat allergy in countries without many of these animals and decrease it in countries like the U.S. that have a lot of cats, so introducing the allergen early may not always be helpful. Its not a straightforward relationship.

Similarly, when it comes to food allergies, the American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends introducing so-called problem foods such as milk, eggs, and peanut butter around four months, once a child is accustomed to eating solid foods, to reduce the risk of developing an allergy to them.

However, kids who are exposed topically, or through the skin, to foods like peanuts have been shown to have a higher risk of developing allergies. Food sensitization is especially likely to develop when children are exposed through skin damaged by eczema, Wasserman says. Thats why treating eczema and maintaining good skin care is so important, he adds.

A childs pediatrician may recommend oral immunotherapy, a process in which doctors feed allergic children portions of food allergens to build up a tolerance. Once children are a bit older, doctors may also recommend using allergy shots to treat them, Wasserman says.

One theory regarding why allergies are becoming more prevalent these days, called the hygiene hypothesis, stems from the idea that exposure to microbes and germs decreases the risk of allergies. The idea is that while sanitizing can be helpful in preventing the spread of harmful germs that spread infections like COVID-19, over-hygienic environments also remove non-harmful germs that build up the immune system.

If there is exposure to germs that are not disease-causing, thats how the immune system develops, Wasserman says. Being in an environment devoid of germs increases a lot of problems, but it probably also increases allergy.

Not subscribed to Fatherlys newsletter yet? Were not mad, just disappointed.

Follow this link:
Are Allergies Hereditary? The Genetics of Allergies, Explained. - Fatherly

Genetics

My Insights to Cancer Genetics After More Than 20 Years of Brain Tumor Survival – Curetoday.com

I never knew cancer would enter my life. Nobody in my family had cancer, and I did not think about the disease. I was in my early 20s and excited for my future.

Diagnosed with a brain tumor on March 18, 1998, parts of me went into a dark frozen place. I quickly had to find some ways to perform research to find the best course of action. Since then, I have had three awake brain surgeries in 1998, 2011 and 2013, radiation and chemotherapy in 2014, and an immunotherapy clinical trial with a dendritic cell-based vaccine the same year. I continued to have MRIs and other tests regularly that I still do.

Early in my cancer journey, I learned about complementary and alternative therapies. I wanted to prevent the brain tumor and support my wellness. Over several years, I focused on integrative cancer care for the whole person to improve quality of life and survival.

Research says that many cancers link to lifestyle factors and the environment. As a result, I studied and used new strategies that I felt would be optimal to live better and feel longer: a healthy organic diet, exercise, stress reduction, meditation, massage, acupuncture, a cleaner environment, the mind-body connection and other approaches have shown benefits to cancer patients. Ive done much more than that, yet an unexpected problem emerged.

In 2018, I felt tremendously grateful to become a 20-year brain tumor survivor. But my body wasnt perfect, including some funks in my gut. I saw two gastrointestinal doctors who ultimately said to get a colonoscopy and endoscopy. At that point, the U.S. government recommended a colonoscopy starting at 50 years, but being 45 years old, I did it anyway. The results showed almost 30 large polyps and 100 smaller polyps.

Moreover, I had to meet with a genetic counselor. The simple blood test showed I had mutations in the MUTYH gene from family history. This hereditary condition is characterized by developing multiple colorectal adenomatous and increased colorectal cancer risk. Due to my mutation, it is vital to get colonoscopies and endoscopies regularly. The report also noted different cancer types as possibilities.

The National Cancer Institute says that 5 to 10% of cancer diagnoses are related to genetics. Some research has shown that it is slightly higher. Regardless, eachindividual needs to address and track their uniquesituation.

Practitioners may not talk about genetics unless two family members have had cancer. In 1998 when diagnosed, nobody in my family had cancer. It only surfaced when my grandma was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and died two weeks later in 2010, and my brother was diagnosed with an acoustic neuroma in 2018. They were diagnosed 12 and 20 years, respectively, after my brain tumor diagnosis.

I know genetic cancers are rare, but both patients and practitioners must explore and track the situation.

Through an ultrasound ordered by my OBGYN a few years ago, I learned that I needed to get endometrial surgery to remove polyps. That happened in 2020 and 2022. The pathology report from the endometrial surgery this year showed I had a precancerous lesion. Details said I needed to get a hysterectomy, which occurred in June of 2022. I am feeling vibrantlywell while still taking care of my body post-surgery.

I know challenges can become opportunities, and adversity can be turned into actions. In my path, Ive learned that understanding the past, addressing the present and engaging wellness for the future is essential for thriving. Indeed, even though the unexpected can emerge, its helpful to have a plan, team and self-care strategies blended with gratitude and resilience. I wish you optimal health and healing.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, dont forget tosubscribe to CUREs newsletters here.

Read more here:
My Insights to Cancer Genetics After More Than 20 Years of Brain Tumor Survival - Curetoday.com

Genetics

Genetic Testing for Women: What You Need to Know | Health Hive – Health Hive

Over the last quarter century, the advancement of DNA technology allowed physicians and scientists to make considerable advances with medical testing.

Using this new knowledge as a method of screening allows providers to get a better sense of who might have an increased risk of developing certain health conditions. This testing does not determine if a patient has developed or will develop a particular condition, but can determine who might be at substantially increased risk and influence medical management.

Kim Provenzano, NP, is an Advanced Practice Nurse in Genetics at Lipson Cancer Institute with Rochester Regional Health and has 25 years of experience with genetic testing for breast and gynecologic cancers, as well as cardiac conditions.

At Lipson Cancer Institute, genetic testing is offered for a variety of inherited syndromes. This includes but is not limited to:

Identifying at-risk women through the use of genetic testing allows us to create individualized medical interventions that can lead to early detection, prevention, and better quality of life for both our patients and their families, Provenzano said.

Most patients arriving at Lipson Cancer Institute are referred by their providers, whether primary care, cardiology, oncology, radiation, urology, or OBGYN.

Once a patient arrives at their appointment, they will begin genetic counseling with a provider. Genetic counseling focuses on a patients family history of disease and includes a risk assessment. The assessment will include:

Once all of this information is documented, providers will perform a risk calculation to determine if genetic testing would be helpful to the patient.

Based on the results of the assessment and initial appointment, providers will go through the process of informed consent a conversation in which the patient is counseled regarding the benefits, limitations and potential alternatives of genetic testing and is given the opportunity to make an informed decision as well as ask questions.

Genetic testing is conducted by collecting a blood or saliva sample from a patient, depending on the type of test being performed. The sample is then sent to an outside laboratory to be tested. The time between sample collection and results varies based on the type of test being performed.

Providers with Lipson Cancer Institute utilize multi-gene panel testing, which can encompass as many 90 genes in a single test. This technique allows providers to assess a patients risk for many different types of cancer all at once.

If genetic testing identifies a patient as being at increased risk for a particular type of condition, providers are able to connect them to the specialists who are best equipped to help. This may include:

We find patients who have genetic testing done are less anxious, and feel more reassured and empowered to make better health care decisions, Provenzano said. The knowledge they receive allows them to inform other family members about potential risk and seek appropriate medical management. Its a positive thing in most cases.

The Lipson Cancer Institute provides a myriad of professional and medical services that help patients and their families address the implications of increased risk for certain health conditions. Cancer risk assessment and genetic testing services are offered at all of Lipson Cancer Institutes locations. Visit the link below or call (585) 922-6DNA (362).

Follow this link:
Genetic Testing for Women: What You Need to Know | Health Hive - Health Hive

Genetics

OpGen Subsidiary Ares Genetics GmbH Enters into Collaboration Agreement with the Belgian National Reference Centre for Invasive S. pneumoniae at UZ…

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 26, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- OpGen, Inc.(Nasdaq: OPGN, OpGen) announced today that its subsidiary Ares Genetics GmbH(Ares Genetics), which strives to become a leader in bacterial genomics and the Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered prediction of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and the Belgian National Reference Centre for invasive S. pneumoniae at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (UZ Leuven) have entered into a collaboration agreement to jointly evaluate computational tools developed by Ares Genetics for the identification and characterization of Streptococcus pneumoniae for diagnostic purposes.

AMR is a serious threat to public health. Over five years, the estimated number of annual deaths that might have been prevented by effective antimicrobial therapy has grown by 81% to approximately 1.27 million deaths.1,2 Among other AMR pathogens, the U.S. Center of Disease Control has classified drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae as a serious antibiotic resistant threat on its website.3

Ares Genetics and UZ Leuven aim to employ machine learning tools for antibiotic susceptibility testing of Streptococcus pneumoniae directly from whole genome sequencing data. The AI-based wgsAST technology developed by Ares Genetics4 relies on predictive models which are trained on ARESdb, a proprietary AMR knowledgebase and collection of pathogen genome data and associated data on phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility and resistance.

We are excited to jointly demonstrate and advance the utility of antibiotic susceptibility prediction directly from genome data. AMR in respiratory pathogens, including in Pneumococci, is a serious healthcare threat, said Dr. Arne Materna, CEO of Ares Genetics. We welcome the collaboration with the experts at UZ Leuven tasked with the national surveillance of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Partnerships with national reference and public health laboratories allow us to aggregate current data on AMR in key pathogens, to further enrich our ARESdb, and in turn to deploy an up-to-date AI for wgsAST where it matters.

The collaboration with UZ Leuven follows after another collaboration agreement between Ares Genetics and an unnamed international commercial reference laboratory had been announced in 2021.

Ares Genetics plans to expand ARESdb with data collected at the national reference center, to develop and deploy wgsAST models for Streptococcus pneumoniae, and to jointly evaluate their performance compared to conventional methods. In return for access to genome and AMR phenotype data, Ares Genetics will deploy AREScloud at the National Reference Centre for invasive S. pneumoniae at UZ Leuven. AREScloud is a commercially available, user-friendly bioinformatics web application for pathogen detection, typing, AMR characterization and outbreak analysis. Unlike other commercial solutions, AREScloud draws on ARESdb to provide rich information on AMR and to offer unique wgsAST capabilities to its users.

About OpGen, Inc.

OpGen, Inc. (Rockville, MD, USA) is a precision medicine company harnessing the power of molecular diagnostics and bioinformatics to help combat infectious disease. Along with our subsidiaries, Curetis GmbH and Ares Genetics GmbH, we are developing and commercializing molecular microbiology solutions helping to guide clinicians with more rapid and actionable information about life threatening infections to improve patient outcomes, and decrease the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms, or MDROs. OpGens product portfolio includes Unyvero, Acuitas AMR Gene Panel and the ARES Technology Platform including ARESdb, using NGS technology and AI-powered bioinformatics solutions for antibiotic response prediction.

For more information, please visit http://www.opgen.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes statements regarding OpGens subsidiary Ares Genetics GmbHs collaboration agreement with the Belgian National Reference Center at UZ Leuven. These statements and other statements regarding OpGens future plans and goals constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that are often difficult to predict, are beyond our control, and which may cause results to differ materially from expectations. Factors that could cause our results to differ materially from those described include, but are not limited to, the success of our commercialization efforts, our ability to successfully, timely and cost-effectively develop, seek and obtain regulatory clearance for and commercialize our product and services offerings, the rate of adoption of our products and services by hospitals and other healthcare providers, the fact that we may not effectively use proceeds from recent financings, the continued realization of expected benefits of our business combination transaction with Curetis GmbH, the continued impact of COVID-19 on the Companys operations, financial results, and commercialization efforts as well as on capital markets and general economic conditions, our ability to satisfy debt obligations under our loan with the European Investment Bank, the effect of the military action in Russia and Ukraine on our distributors, collaborators and service providers, our liquidity and working capital requirements, the effect on our business of existing and new regulatory requirements, and other economic and competitive factors. For a discussion of the most significant risks and uncertainties associated with OpGen's business, please review our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are based on our expectations as of the date of this press release and speak only as of the date of this press release. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

OpGen:Oliver SchachtPresident and CEOInvestorRelations@opgen.com

OpGen Press Contact:Matthew BretziusFischTank Marketing and PR matt@fischtankpr.com

OpGen Investor Contact:Alyssa FactorEdison Groupafactor@edisongroup.com

1 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02724-0/fulltext2 https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/AMR%20Review%20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20wealth%20of%20nations_1.pdf3 https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html#pne4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315026/

See original here:
OpGen Subsidiary Ares Genetics GmbH Enters into Collaboration Agreement with the Belgian National Reference Centre for Invasive S. pneumoniae at UZ...

Genetics

Humans wear cotton every day now, the plant needs genetics’ help to survive – Inverse

Products derived from the cotton plant show up in many items that people use daily, including blue jeans, bedsheets, paper, candles, and peanut butter. In the United States, cotton is a $7 billion annual crop grown in 17 states from Virginia to Southern California. Today, however, its at risk.

Cotton plants from fields in India, China, and the U.S. the worlds top three producers grow, flower, and produce cotton fiber very similarly. Thats because they are genetically very similar.

This can be a good thing since breeders select the best-performing plants and cross-breed them to produce better cotton every generation. If one variety produces the best-quality fiber that sells for the best price, growers will plant that type exclusively. But after many years of this cycle, cultivated cotton all starts to look the same: high-yielding and easy for farmers to harvest using machines, but wildly underprepared to fight disease, drought, or insect-borne pathogens.

Breeding alone may not be enough to combat the low genetic diversity of the cultivated cotton genome, since breeding works with what exists, and what exists all looks the same. And genetic modification may not be a realistic option for creating cotton that is useful for farmers, because getting engineered crops approved is expensive and heavily regulated. My research focuses on possible solutions at the intersection of these tools.

In a perfect world, scientists could change just a few key components of the cotton genome to make plants more resilient to stresses such as pests, bacteria, fungi, and water limitations. And the plants would still produce high-quality cotton fiber.

Heres the background This strategy isnt new. Some 88 percent of the cotton grown in the U.S. has been genetically modified to resist caterpillar pests, which are expensive and hard to manage with traditional insecticides. But as new problems emerge, new solutions will be required that will demand more complex changes to the genome.

Recent advances in plant tissue culture and regeneration make it possible to develop a whole new plant from a few cells. Scientists can use good genes from other organisms to replace the defective ones in cotton, yielding cotton plants with all the resistance genes and all the agriculturally valuable genes.

The problem is that getting regulatory approval for a genetically modified crop to go to market is a long process, often 8 to 10 years. And its usually expensive.

Genetic modification isnt the only option. Researchers today have access to a gigantic amount of data about all living things. Scientists have sequenced the entire genomes of numerous organisms and have annotated many of these genomes to show where the genes and regulatory sequences are within them. Various sequence comparison tools allow scientists to line up one gene or genome against another and quickly determine where all the differences are.

Plants have very large genomes with lots of repetitive sequences, which makes them very challenging to unpack. However, a team of researchers changed the game for cotton genetics in 2020 by releasing five updated and annotated genomes two from cultivated species and three from wild species.

Having the wild genomes assembled makes it possible to start using their valuable genes to improve cultivated varieties of cotton by breeding them together and looking for those genes in the offspring. This approach combines traditional plant breeding with detailed insights into cottons genome.

We now know which genes we need to make cultivated cotton more resistant to disease and drought. And we also know where to avoid making changes to important agricultural genes.

Blue jeans never go out of style.Jena Ardell/Moment/Getty Images

These genomes also make it possible to develop new screening tools to characterize interspecific hybrids the offspring of two cotton plants from different species. Before this information was available, there were two primary forms of hybrid characterization. Both were based on single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs differences between species in a single base pair, the individual building blocks that make up DNA. Even plants with small genomes have millions of base pairs.

SNPs work well if you know exactly where they are located in the genome, if there are no mutations that change the SNPs, and if there are plenty of them. While cotton has SNPs that have been identified and verified in specific regions of the genome, they are few and far between. So characterizing cotton hybrids by focusing exclusively on SNPs would result in incomplete information about those hybrids genetic composition.

These new genomes open the door for developing sequencing-based screening of hybrids, which is something Ive incorporated into my work. In this approach, scientists still use SNPs as a starting point, but they can also sequence the surrounding DNA. This helps to fill in gaps and sometimes discover new, previously undocumented SNPs.

Sequence-based screening helps scientists make more informed and robust maps of the genomes of hybrids. Determining which parts of the genome are from which parent can give breeders a better idea of which plants to cross together to subsequently create better, more productive cotton in every generation.

As the worlds population rises toward a projected 9.8 billion by 2050, demand for all agricultural products will also rise. But making cotton plants more productive is not the only goal of genetic improvement.

Climate change is raising average global temperatures, and some important cotton-producing regions like the U.S. Southwest are becoming drier. Cotton is already a crop accustomed to heat our research plots can thrive in temperatures as high as 102 degrees Fahrenheit (39 C) but one cotton plant requires about 10 gallons (38 liters) of water over the course of a four-month growing season to achieve its maximum yield potential.

Researchers have started to search for cultivated cotton that can tolerate drought at the seedling stage, and also in hybrid lines and genetically modified lines. Scientists are optimistic that they can develop plants that have higher drought resilience. Along with many other cotton breeders around the world, my goal is to create more sustainable and genetically diverse cotton so that this essential crop can thrive in a changing world.

This article was originally published on The Conversation by Serina Taluja at Texas A&M University. Read the original article here.

LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.

Read more from the original source:
Humans wear cotton every day now, the plant needs genetics' help to survive - Inverse