Cell Biology

Berkeley Lights and Aanika Biosciences Announce Partnership – GlobeNewswire

EMERYVILLE, Calif., Jan. 10, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Berkeley Lights, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLI), a leader in digital cell biology, and Aanika Biosciences, a growing biotech start-up using edible microbial tags to improve food safety, today announced a strategic partnership that will enable faster identification of outbreak sources, reduce incidents of fresh produce contamination and minimize the impact of food borne illness related recalls.

In this partnership, Aanika will use Berkeley Lights' high-throughput, functional screening service to rapidly identify and optimize functional, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) capable of killing harmful bacteria, including those that cause outbreaks of foodborne illness. In addition, the Beacon Optofluidic Platform will be leveraged to find peptides that are toxic to bacteria to create a new antibacterial tag that will then be applied to their bacterial spore-based barcoding technology to protect the food supply chain.

Berkeley Lights high-throughput, functional screening service, based on our proprietary cell-free expression technology, is accelerating novel discoveries to develop solutions and products in the agricultural space, said Eric Hobbs, Ph.D., chief executive officer of Berkeley Lights. Specifically, applying the Berkeley Lights platform to AMPs allows us to rapidly map and identify the top mutational sites to further optimize AMP performance.

AMPs are gaining popularity as antibacterial agents across a wide range of applications, particularly as microbes are becoming more resistant to antibiotics, and are a growing focus for both companies.

Tracking, tracing and identifying the origin of food borne illnesses is just the beginning of what Aanikas watermark technology can do to help improve and protect our global food system, said Aanika co-founder and CEO Vishaal Bhuyan. The partnership with Berkley Lights will enable us to move faster, and go deeper, into uncovering and unlocking the opportunities to have greater economic, environmental and human health impact.

Berkeley Lights will participate in the downstream economics created by its enabling technology through a royalty arrangement as part of this strategic partnership. Additional terms of the agreement are not disclosed. This is Berkeley Lights second announced high-throughput, functional screening partnership following theBayer Partnership announced in 2021.

About Berkeley Lights

Berkeley Lights is a leading digital cell biology company focused on enabling and accelerating the rapid development and commercialization of biotherapeutics and other cell-based products for our customers. The Berkeley Lights Platform captures deep phenotypic, functional and genotypic information for thousands of single cells in parallel and can also deliver the live biology customers desire in the form of the best cells. Our platform is a fully integrated, end-to-end solution, comprising proprietary consumables, including our OptoSelect chips and reagent kits, advanced automation systems, and application software. We developed the Berkeley Lights Platform to provide the most advanced environment for rapid functional characterization of single cells at scale, the goal of which is to establish an industry standard for our customers throughout their cell-based product value chain.

Berkeley Lights Beacon and Lightning systems and Culture Station instrument are FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.

About Aanika Biosciences

Aanika Biosciences was co-founded in 2018 by Vishaal Bhuyan after he personally experienced the consequences of ordering fresh seeds and receiving stale, contaminated products instead. He made it is his mission to create a safer food supply by finding a way to track, trace and authenticate products. Aanikas customized microbial-based tags help companies gain valuable insights about their supply chains, help their customers make better consumption choices, and create a more sustainable world.

Forward-Looking Statements

To the extent that statements contained in this press release are not descriptions of historical facts regarding Berkeley Lights or its products, they are forward-looking statements reflecting the current beliefs and expectations of management. Such forward-looking statements involve substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties that relate to future events, and actual results and product performance could differ significantly from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Berkeley Lights undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. For a further description of the risks and uncertainties relating to the Companys growth and continual evolution see the statements in the "Risk Factors" sections, and elsewhere, in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Media ContactsMedia @berkeleylights.comLaura.shulman@foodfuturestrategies.com

Investor ContactIR@berkeleylights.com

Read more:
Berkeley Lights and Aanika Biosciences Announce Partnership - GlobeNewswire

Cell Biology

Magenta Therapeutics Highlights Recent Pipeline Progress and Milestone Expectations for 2022 – BioSpace

-- MGTA-117 Phase 1/2 clinical trial is open for enrollment for patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes; clinical data expected in 2022 -

-- CD45 antibody drug conjugate is Magentas second conditioning program; dose range toxicology results expected in second half of 2022 --

-- MGTA-145 stem cell mobilization program focused on dose and administration optimization and sickle cell disease clinical trial with initial data expected in second half of 2022 -

-- Focused program spending allows for extended cash runway; ended 2021 with approximately $162 million in cash reserves with expectation to fund operating plan into Q4 2023 --

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Magenta Therapeutics (NASDAQ: MGTA), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing novel medicines designed to bring the curative power of stem cell transplant to more patients, today highlighted progress across its portfolio of targeted conditioning and stem cell mobilization programs and set out its milestone expectations for both clinical and preclinical data in 2022. These updates will also be discussed during a webcast presentation at the 40th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference on Thursday, January 13 at 9:45 a.m. EST.

2022 will be an important year for the Magenta portfolio said Jason Gardner, D. Phil., President and Chief Executive Officer, Magenta Therapeutics. We believe we will clinically demonstrate that MGTA-117 targets and binds selectively to CD117-expressing cells, potently depletes those cells and the product profile will be well-tolerated in our Phase 1/2 clinical study. We have developed biomarker assays that we believe will provide early insights into the biologic activity of MGTA-117. We are also thrilled to introduce our second targeted conditioning program in the development pipeline, an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD45 which has the potential to deplete both stem cells and immune cells without chemotherapy. Finally, with our MGTA-145 program, we are focused on optimizing the collection yield of mobilized stem cells. We believe MGTA-145 can offer a faster and more reliable mobilization regimen for stem cell transplantation as well as ex vivo and in vivo gene therapies.

Targeted Conditioning

MGTA-117 Program:

2022 Clinical Data from Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial: Evaluating Target Selectivity, Potency and Tolerability. The MGTA-117 Phase 1/2 clinical trial is open for enrollment. This dose escalation clinical trial will evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MGTA-117 as a single dose in patients with relapsed/refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Myelodysplasia-Excess Blasts (MDS-EB).

Specifically, dosing cohorts expected to enroll in 2022 will allow for evaluation of MGTA-117s ability to:

Magentas preclinical evidence supports the MGTA-117 target selectivity, potency and tolerability profile. In GLP toxicology studies, MGTA-117 potently depleted stem cells at a dose level where there were no drug-related findings in hepatic, reproductive, neurologic, cardiovascular, or respiratory organs.

Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial Design for MGTA-117. MGTA-117 will be assessed in patients with relapsed/refractory AML and MDS-EB in a multi-center, open-label, single-ascending-dose trial. Patients in the first cohort will receive 0.02 mg/kg administered intravenously (IV), and subsequent cohort doses will be determined in accordance with a modified Fibonacci sequence.

Magenta will assess data from each cohort and, after collection of adequate safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, Magenta intends to engage with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to transition to the primary target population of patients eligible for stem cell transplantation. In addition, Magenta plans to explore MGTA-117 as a targeted conditioning agent for stem cell gene therapies.

CD45-Antibody Drug Conjugate Program:

Magenta has initiated investigational new drug application-enabling studies on its second targeted conditioning program, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD45. Due to the expression of CD45 on stem cells and immune cells, Magentas CD45-ADC is designed to selectively target and deplete stem cells and lymphocytes, which could allow patients with blood cancers and autoimmune diseases to avoid use of chemotherapy prior to stem cell transplant. Magenta expects to have preclinical data from a dose ranging toxicology study in the second half of 2022.

Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection

MGTA-145 Dosing and Administration Optimization Clinical Trial. As previously disclosed, Magenta intends to initiate a dosing and administration optimization clinical trial with MGTA-145 in combination with plerixafor. Clinical data from a Phase 2 investigator-initiated clinical trial with 25 multiple myeloma patients showed that MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, mobilized a sufficient number of stem cells for transplantation in 88% of patients (22/25). In addition, all patients transplanted with cells mobilized by MGTA-145 plus plerixafor as of the data cut-off date had successful engraftment (18/18 patients) with prolonged durability through the 100-day follow-up period (13/13 patients). The regimen was generally well-tolerated. Magenta believes there are specific opportunities to further improve cell collection yield by adjustments to the regimen dosing, and administration timing. Magenta expects to generate data from this healthy subjects clinical trial in the second half of 2022.

Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) Stem Cell Mobilization Phase 2 Clinical Trial. Magenta is advancing trial initiation activities. The trial is designed to evaluate mobilization and collection of stem cells in adults and adolescents with SCD. Magenta and its clinical collaboration partner, bluebird bio, will each characterize the collected cells. Magenta plans to gene-modify the cells and transplant them into established preclinical models to evaluate graft quality and engraftment. Data from this clinical trial could provide proof-of-concept for MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, as a first-line mobilization regimen for patients with SCD and, more broadly, across other gene therapy applications. Magenta expects to generate data from this clinical trial in the second half of 2022.

Cash Guidance

With focused allocation of capital and resources on both clinical stage programs and CD45-ADC, Magenta now expects its cash reserves to fund its operating plan into the fourth quarter of 2023. Magenta ended 2021 with approximately $162 million of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities (unaudited).

About Magenta Therapeutics

Magenta Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing medicines designed to bring the curative power of stem cell transplant to more patients with blood cancer, genetic diseases and autoimmune diseases. Magenta is combining leadership in stem cell biology and biotherapeutics development with clinical and regulatory expertise to revolutionize immune and blood reset to allow more patients to take advantage of the curative potential of stem cell transplant as well as potentially improve eligibility for future gene therapies.

Magenta is based in Cambridge, Mass. For more information, please visit http://www.magentatx.com.

Follow Magenta on Twitter: @magentatx.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws, including express or implied statements regarding Magentas future expectations, plans and prospects, including, without limitation, statements regarding expectations, plans and timing for preclinical activities, clinical trials and related results, the development of product candidates and advancement of preclinical and clinical programs, the potential benefits and expected performance of product candidates, projections regarding long-term growth, cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, as well as other statements containing words such as anticipate, believe, continue, could, designed, endeavor, estimate, expect, intend, may, might, plan, potential, predict, project, seek, should, target, will or would and similar expressions that constitute forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The express or implied forward-looking statements included in this press release are only predictions and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, without limitation: uncertainties inherent in preclinical and clinical studies and in the availability and timing of data from ongoing and planned clinical and preclinical studies; the ability to initiate, enroll, conduct or complete ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical studies; whether results from preclinical or earlier clinical studies will be predictive of the results of future studies; discussions with governmental agencies such as the FDA; the expected timing of submissions for regulatory approval to conduct or continue trials or to market products; whether Magenta's cash resources will be sufficient to fund Magenta's foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements; risks, uncertainties and assumptions regarding the impact of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic on Magentas business, operations, strategy, goals and anticipated timelines, and other risks concerning Magenta's programs and operations are described in additional detail in its Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2021, as updated by Magentas most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and its other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. Although Magenta's forward-looking statements reflect the good faith judgment of its management, these statements are based only on facts and factors currently known by Magenta. As a result, you are cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement made in this press release speaks only as of the date on which it is made. Magenta undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220110005370/en/

Link:
Magenta Therapeutics Highlights Recent Pipeline Progress and Milestone Expectations for 2022 - BioSpace

Cell Biology

Crew Starts Week with Space Agriculture, Human Cells and Spacesuits – NASA

Pictured from left, are the Soyuz MS-19 crew ship and the Nauka multipurpose laboratory module with the Prichal docking module attached.

The Expedition 66 crew kicked off Monday promoting space agriculture and observing how the human cell adapts to weightlessness. Two cosmonauts are also gearing up for the first spacewalk of 2022 set to begin next week at the International Space Station.

Growing plants in space is critical to keeping crews healthy as NASA and its international partners plan human missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. Just like humans living in space, microgravity affects plants and scientists want to learn how to successfully grow crops in space to sustain crews with less support from Earth.

Today, NASA Flight Engineer Mark Vande Hei harvested the shoots and roots of Arabidopsis plants grown on petri plates inside the Veggie facility. Fellow NASA Flight Engineer Raja Chari collected the harvested samples and stowed them in a science freezer for later analysis. The APEX-07, or Advanced Plant Experiment-07, study is looking at how microgravity affects genetic expression in plants.

ESA (European Space Agency) astronaut Matthias Maurer worked throughout Monday on the Cytoskeleton space biology study. That study takes place in the Kibo laboratory module and uses the Life Science Glovebox to explore how the internal machinery of the human cell is impacted by long-term space missions.

NASA Flight Engineer Kayla Barron also worked in Kibo and set up the new Mochii electron-scanning microscope to identify trace particles aboard the station. NASA astronaut Thomas Marshburn fed mice and cleaned their habitats throughout Monday before inspecting and cleaning hatch seals in the stations U.S. segment.

Commander Anton Shkaplerov and Flight Engineer Pyotr Dubrov partnered together during the morning on a pair of Russian studies looking at how space affects heart activity and arm muscles. The duo later spent the rest of the day setting up Russian Orlan spacesuits for a spacewalk set to begin on Jan. 19. The two cosmonauts will spend about seven hours in the vacuum of space outfitting the stations newest modules, Nauka and Prichal.

Learn more about station activities by following thespace station blog,@space_stationand@ISS_Researchon Twitter, as well as theISS FacebookandISS Instagramaccounts.

Get weekly video highlights at:http://jscfeatures.jsc.nasa.gov/videoupdate/

Get the latest from NASA delivered every week. Subscribe here:www.nasa.gov/subscribe

Continue reading here:
Crew Starts Week with Space Agriculture, Human Cells and Spacesuits - NASA

Cell Biology

Study uncovers how cancers resist targeted treatment – The Institute of Cancer Research, London – The Institute of Cancer Research

Scientists have revealed how cancer can resist PARP inhibitors, a precision medicine used to treat thousands of patients worldwide.

Their study found that some cancer cells could dodge the effects of PARP inhibitors, by removing the PARP proteins that get trapped onto their DNA.

The researchers believe that existing drugs including a medicine used to treat alcohol addiction could potentially be used to make PARP inhibitors more effective by preventing the cancer cells from removing PARP.

In the future, the findings could also help predict what patients are more likely to respond to PARP inhibitors.

The study, led by scientists at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, is published in Nature Cell Biology andwas funded by Cancer Research UK, with additional support from Breast Cancer Now.

PARP inhibitors, which include olaparib and rucaparib, are used to treat some patients with ovarian, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancers usually patients who have inherited a faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.

So far, more than 30,000 patients have been treated with olaparib worldwide.

PARP inhibitors target PARP1, one of the DNA repair tools rendering it inactive and locking it in place, trapped on the DNA. Not only does this stop DNA repair, but the trapping of PARP1 onto DNA will eventually cause cancer cells to die. But PARP inhibitors dont work for everyone, and its estimated that over 40 per cent of patients with a faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene dont respond to them.

To understand this better, Professor Chris Lord and his team at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) used cell lines and protein analysis techniques find out how cancer cells become resistant.

They looked for proteins that attached to PARP1 only when it was trapped, and that might play a role in detaching it from DNA. The team found that a small molecule called p97 could play a crucial role in prizing PARP1 from the DNA, saving cancer cells from destruction.

The researchers wanted to see what happened if this last stage was blocked. They used a human organoid, a mini tumour built with tissue from patients with triple negative breast cancer and a BRCA1 mutation; someone who might have qualified for PARP inhibitor treatment.

Blocking p97 made the cancer cells much more vulnerable to the PARP inhibitor talazoparib, suggesting a potential route to tackle treatment resistance. For instance, a 1nM dose of talazoparib killed about 30 per cent of the cancerous organoid, but that went up to 90 per cent when coupled with a p97 inhibitor called disulfiram. This finding suggests that disulfiram, a drug commonly used to treat people with alcohol addiction, could be combined with PARP inhibitors to improve the chances of successful treatment.

For Professor Lord and his team, the next challenge is to translate their new understanding of PARP inhibitor resistance into a way to predict which patients should be treated with PARP inhibitors, and who would be better off getting a different cancer treatment.

Professor Chris Lord, Professor of Cancer Genomicsat The Institute of Cancer Research, London, said:

PARP inhibitors are one of the most exciting classes of precision medicine in cancer treatment today, but we are only now gaining a fuller understanding of why they work in some patients but not in others.

Now that we have uncovered p97s role in controlling PARP inhibitor resistance, we could, in future offer treatments that could save many more lives.

We believe our findings will help us predict which patients should get a PARP inhibitor, which patients might need to combine a PARP inhibitor with other drugs to stand the best chance of successful treatment, or which patients might be better off on a different treatment altogether.

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said:

Our scientists helped to discover the BRCA gene over 25 years ago. Now we have drugs that target this mutation, which have saved many lives.

But we know that cancer can quickly outwit even the best treatments. Its important to understand the mechanisms behind resistance so that we can make the drugs we already have work better and for more people.

Using new combinations of drugs that are already available is a smart way to get one step ahead of cancer, and we will need more research to know how effective this approach might be for PARP inhibitors. But the findings from this study are a promising new way to stack the odds in the patients favour, by offering treatment which works best for them.

Dr Simon Vincent, Director of Research, Support and Influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said:

People who have inherited an altered gene will have a higher risk of developing breast cancer and every year thousands of people in the UK with an altered BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene are diagnosed with the disease.

PARP inhibitor drugs work well against cancer cells with an altered BRCA gene, however, they dont work for everyone and some cancers become resistant to this targeted treatment, making it important we continue to fund research into understanding drug resistance. Excitingly, this research suggests that a medicine currently used to treat alcohol addiction could be used in combination with PARP inhibitors to make treatment for breast cancer, caused by an altered BRCA gene, more effective. We hope this research will lead to new treatment options and better ways to tailor therapy to each individual patient, so that everyone can receive treatment that works best for them.

This breakthrough is testament to the tireless efforts of world-class researchers - including many Breast Cancer Now funded UK researchers who, over the last 20 years, have helped develop PARP inhibitor drugs and laid the foundations for this promising discovery.

The rest is here:
Study uncovers how cancers resist targeted treatment - The Institute of Cancer Research, London - The Institute of Cancer Research

Cell Biology

BTIG Initiates Coverage of Ginkgo Bioworks With Buy Rating – GenomeWeb

NEW YORK Investment bank BTIG on Friday initiated coverage of synthetic biology company Ginkgo Bioworks with a Buy rating and a price target of $12 on its shares.

BTIG believes that Ginkgo's cell programming platform will enable less expensive and more sustainable nucleic acid vaccines, antibiotics, and cell and gene therapies. Beyond pharma, BTIG expects Ginkgo to be able to increase global food availability and crop yields, help grow fermented cannabis, and produce materials and chemicals more sustainably.

Ginkgo's revenues come from usage fees for its Foundry lab and from royalties paid on sales of its customers' products, milestones, or equity stakes used to capture downstream value.

Foundry is a biology lab with custom software, robotic automation, data science, and analytics. In addition to Foundry, Ginkgo maintains a proprietary genetic database called Codebase, which contains 440 million proprietary gene sequences and over 3.4 billion unique gene sequences pulled from public databases.

BTIG estimates that by spreading its services across diverse industries, Ginkgo will have access to a total addressable market for bioengineered products that global consultancy McKinsey expects to grow to $2 trillion-$4 trillion annually by 2040.

Ginkgo currently runs over 70 major cell programs, including a novel antibiotic discovery cell program with Roche, a cell-based nitrogen fertilizers production program with Bayer Crop Science, a cannabinoid production partnership with Cronos Group, and an animal-free protein food products cell program with Motif FoodWorks.

Ginkgo was founded by five MIT scientists including Tom Knight in 2009, following Knight's earlier work on BioBricks, a standardized way to combine interchangeable segments of DNA.

Read the original post:
BTIG Initiates Coverage of Ginkgo Bioworks With Buy Rating - GenomeWeb

Biochemistry

Biochemistry – Definition, Careers and Major | Biology Dictionary

Biochemistry Definition

Biochemistry is the study of the chemical reactions that take place inside organisms. It combines elements from both biology and chemistry. Biochemistry became a separate discipline in the early 20th Century. Biochemists study relatively large molecules like proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates, which are important in metabolism and other cellular activities; they also study molecules like enzymes and DNA.

Biochemistry research has been done for around the past 400 years, although the term biochemistry itself was only coined in 1903 by the German chemist Carl Neuberg. The study of biochemistry essentially began with the invention of the microscope in 1665 by Robert Hooke. He was the first person to observe cells under a microscope, but they were dead cells; later on in 1674, Anton van Leeuwenhoek saw live plant cells under a microscope. Now that scientists had seen cells for the first time, they were eager to study them and discover more about the processes that occurred inside them. In the 18th Century, the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier proposed a reaction mechanism for photosynthesis, which is the process by which plants make their own food out of carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight, releasing oxygen in the process. He also was the first person to investigate the process of cell respiration, the process of making the energy molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in the mitochondria of the cell.

In the 19th Century, a prevailing belief was that protoplasm, the jelly-like inside of the cell, carried out all of the processes involved with breaking down food molecules. It was believed that the chemistry of living organisms was inherently different from that of non-living ones. In 1897, Eduard Buchner performed an experiment that would change this view. He prepared an extract from yeast that he called zymase. Although zymase did not contain any living yeast cells, it could still ferment glucose to produce carbon dioxide and ethanol. Following Buchners convention, enzymes began to be named for the reaction they carried out; for example, DNA polymerase polymerizes DNA. (Zymase was later found to be multiple enzymes.)

In the 20th Century, further advancements were made. Hans Krebs discovered the citric acid cycle (which would also become known as the Krebs cycle), a series of chemical reactions during cellular respiration where glucose and oxygen are converted to ATP, carbon dioxide, and water. Also, DNA became known as the genetic material of the cell and its structure was identified by James Watson and Francis Crick from previous research done by Rosalind Franklin. Presently, newer technology such as recombinant DNA, gene splicing, radioisotopic labelling, and electron microscopy are advancing scientific knowledge further than ever before.

Topics in biochemistry research include enzyme mechanisms and kinetics, the making of proteins from DNA, RNA, and amino acids through the processes of transcription and translation, and the metabolic processes of cells. Biochemistry is closely related to molecular biology, which is the study of biological molecules such as DNA, proteins, and other macromolecules. Molecular biology techniques are often used to study biochemistry, along with techniques from other fields like immunology and physics. Since all life can be broken down into small molecules and chemical reactions, biochemistry is a broad science that is used in studying all types of biology, from botany to molecular genetics to pharmacology. Chemical reactions in cells are emphasized, but specific research topics can vary widely. For example, biochemists may be interested in researching the chemical reactions that occur in the brain (thereby connecting biochemistry with neurochemistry), how cells divide and differentiate, cell communication, the chemical basis of genetic inheritance, or how diseases such as cancer spread.

This is an image of a biochemist working in a laboratory.

Biochemistry is a laboratory science. To work in the field of biochemistry, an individual must be interested in conducting research, and should obtain at least a bachelors degree. Many biochemists teach and are principal investigators of research laboratories at universities; these positions require PhDs. While most biochemists with PhDs conduct research, some are academic lecturers and solely teach at universities. However, these biochemists also had to do research throughout graduate school in order to complete their PhD thesis. Other biochemists are lab managers, which requires a masters degree. With a bachelors degree, one may become a scientific research technician. The more education an individual has, generally the more independence they will have in a lab. Technicians carry out bench work and help perform experiments that a principal investigator designs. A lab manager has more responsibilities than a technician and may do independent research projects under the guidance of a principal investigator. Aside from academia, biochemists also work in industry positions. They may work in government laboratories or for a variety of companies including agricultural, pharmaceutical, public health, or biotechnology companies. Others provide specific services such as toxicology or forensics.

In order to be a competent biochemist, one must be interested in biology or chemistry research and learn proper laboratory skills and safety procedures. It is also important to have an aptitude for mathematics and statistics, and be able to analyze the data generated from experiments. The ability to think outside the box and brainstorm new ideas is important for designing experiments. Biochemists must also keep up with the scientific literature by reading recent publications in scientific journals and attending conferences. Although it takes a lot of hard work, training, and study, biochemists are able to uncover new information about the chemistry of living things and contribute to advancing scientific knowledge.

Students interested in becoming biochemists need to take many science courses during their time as an undergraduate. General knowledge of both biology and chemistry is essential. Many schools offer biochemistry as a specific major. It is also possible to become a biochemist after obtaining a biology or chemistry bachelors degree, but one needs to make sure that they have a good background in the subject they are not majoring in; i.e., an undergraduate majoring in biology needs to take chemistry courses (this is usually a requirement of all undergraduate biology majors), and an undergraduate majoring in chemistry should also take biology courses. Of course, there are also specifically biochemistry courses that students should take. Additionally, it is important to be well versed in mathematics and physics.

As students advance in their undergraduate career, they will take more specific science courses based on their specific interests. For example, they could take classes in botany, molecular biology, biophysics, biomedical sciences, or structural biology (how molecules are organized into cells and tissues), depending on where their research interests lie.

Read the original post:
Biochemistry - Definition, Careers and Major | Biology Dictionary

Biochemistry

Biochemistry | UC San Diego Extension

Saborio, Jose

Jose has conducted research in Academic Institutions in the USA, Mexico, and Sweden, focused on viral gene expression in cells infected with Poliovirus, Adenovirus, and of cytoskeletal and contractile proteins in cultures cells and in skeletal and smooth muscle tissues. While at the University of California, Irvine, Jose discovered and characterized two paraflagellar proteins, and the corresponding genes, of Trypanosoma cruzi , the causative agent of Chagas Disease, a parasitosis endemic in several South American countries. In the Biotechnology industry, for ten years, Jose worked as a scientist and as quality assurance manager for the Molecular Biology product line.

Here is the original post:
Biochemistry | UC San Diego Extension

Biochemistry

Researchers discover antibodies that neutralize omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants – News-Medical.Net

An international team of scientists have identified antibodies that neutralize omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants. These antibodies target areas of the virus spike protein that remain essentially unchanged as the viruses mutate.

By identifying the targets of these "broadly neutralizing" antibodies on the spike protein, it might be possible to design vaccines and antibody treatments that will be effective against not only the omicron variant but other variants that may emerge in the future, said David Veesler, investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and associate professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. "This finding tells us that by focusing on antibodies that target these highly conserved sites on the spike protein, there is a way to overcome the virus' continual evolution," Veesler said.

Veesler led the research project with Davide Corti of Humabs Biomed SA, Vir Biotechnology, in Switzerland. The study's findings were published Dec. 23 in the journal Nature. The lead authors of the study were Elisabetta Cameroni and Christian Saliba (Humabs), John E. Bowen (UW Biochesmistry) and Laura Rosen (Vir).

The omicron variant has 37 mutations in the spike protein, which it uses to latch onto and invade cells. This is an unusually high number of mutations. It is thought that these changes explain in part why the variant has been able to spread so rapidly, to infect people who have been vaccinated and to reinfect those who have previously been infected.

The main questions we were trying to answer were: how has this constellation of mutations in the spike protein of the omicron variant affected its ability to bind to cells and to evade the immune system's antibody responses."

David Veesler, Study Investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Associate Professor of Biochemistry, School of Medicine in Seattle, University of Washington

[Veesler and his colleagues speculate that omicron's large number of mutations might have accumulated during a prolonged infection in someone with a weakened immune system or by the virus jumping from humans to an animal species and back again.]

To assess the effect of these mutations, the researchers engineered a disabled, nonreplicating virus, called a pseudovirus, to produce spike proteins on its surface, as coronaviruses do. They then created pseudoviruses that had spike proteins with the omicron mutations and those found on the earliest variants identified in the pandemic.

The researchers first looked to see how well the different versions of the spike protein were able to bind to protein on the surface of cells, that the virus uses to latch onto and enter the cell. This protein is called the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptor.

They found the omicron variant spike protein was able to bind 2.4 times better than spike protein found in the virus isolated at the very beginning of the pandemic. "That's not a huge increase," Veesler noted, "but in the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, mutations in the spike protein that increased affinity were associated with higher transmissibility and infectivity." They also found that the omicron version was able to bind to mouse ACE2 receptors efficiently, suggesting omicron might be able to "ping-pong" between humans and other mammals.

The researchers then looked at how well antibodies against earlier isolates of the virus protected against the omicron variant. They did this by using antibodies from patients who had previously been infected with earlier versions of the virus, vaccinated against earlier strains of the virus, or had been infected and then vaccinated.

They found that antibodies from people who had been infected by earlier strains and from those who had received one of the six most-used vaccines currently available all had reduced ability to block infection.

Antibodies from people who had previously been infected and those who had received the Sputnik V or Sinopharm vaccines as well as a single dose of Johnson & Johnson had little or no ability to block or "neutralize" the omicron variant's entry into cells. Antibodies from people who had received two doses of the Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and AstraZeneca vaccines retained some neutralizing activity, albeit reduced by 20- to 40-fold, much more than any other variants.

Antibodies from people who had been infected, recovered, and then had two doses of vaccine also had reduced activity, but the reduction was less, about fivefold, clearly demonstrating that vaccination after infection is useful.

Antibodies from people, in this case a group of renal dialysis patients, who had received a booster with a third dose of the mRNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech showed only a 4-fold reduction in neutralizing activity. "This shows that a third dose is really, really helpful against omicron," Veesler said.

All but one antibody treatments currently authorized or approved to be used with patients exposed to the virus, had no or had markedly reduced activity against omicron in the laboratory. The exception was an antibody called sotrovimab, which had a two- to three-fold reduction of neutralizing activity, the study finds.

But when they tested a larger panel of antibodies that have been generated against earlier versions of the virus, the researchers identified four classes of antibodies that retained their ability to neutralize omicron. Members of each of these classes target one of four specific areas of the spike protein present in not only SARS-CoV-2 variants but also a group of related coronaviruses, called sarbecoviruses. These sites on the protein may persist because they play an essential function that the protein would lose if they mutated. Such areas are called "conserved."

The finding that antibodies are able to neutralize via recognition of conserved areas in so many different variants of the virus suggests that designing vaccines and antibody treatments that target these regions could be effective against a broad spectrum of variants that emerge through mutation, Veesler said.

Source:

Journal reference:

Cameroni, E., et al. (2021) Broadly neutralizing antibodies overcome SARS-CoV-2 Omicron antigenic shift. Nature. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03825-4.

See the article here:
Researchers discover antibodies that neutralize omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants - News-Medical.Net

Biochemistry

NASA hired 24 theologians to study reaction to aliens: book – New York Post

Between heaven and Earth, where do aliens fit in?

Thats the question that NASA hopes theologians at the Center for Theological Inquiry (CTI) in Princeton, New Jersey, can answer, in a recent effort to understand how humans will react to news that intelligent life exists on other planets.

University of Cambridge religious scholar Rev. Dr. Andrew Davison, who also holds a doctorate in biochemistry from Oxford, is one of the 24 theologians enlisted to help with the project, the Times UK reported last week.

In a recent statement on the University of Cambridges Faculty of Divinity blog, Davison says his research so far has already seen just how frequently theology-and-astrobiology has been topic in popular writing during the previous 150 years.

Davisons upcoming book, Astrobiology and Christian Doctrine, due out in 2022, according to the Times, will cover part of CTI and NASAs joint spiritual exploration, in which his most significant question is how theologians would respond to the notion of there having been many incarnations [of Christ] in the universe, he added in the blog post.

This is the latest dispatch to come in a partnership between the US space agency and the religious institute. In 2014, NASA awarded CTI a $1.1 million grant to study worshippers interest in and openness to scientific inquiry called the Societal Implications of Astrobiology study.

Studies have shown links between religiosity and belief in extraterrestrial intelligence. Research published in 2017 found that people with a strong desire to find meaning, but a low adherence to a particular religion, are more likely to believe aliens exist indicating that faith in either theory may come from the same human impulse.

With NASAs support, CTIs director Will Storrar said theyd hoped to see serious scholarship being published in books and journals to come out on the subject, answering to the profound wonder and mystery and implication of finding microbial life on another planet.

According to the Times, Davisons book notes that a large number of people would turn to their religions traditions for guidance if extraterrestrials were found, and what that means for the standing and dignity of human life.

Detection [of alien life] might come in a decade or only in future centuries or perhaps never at all, but if or where it does, it will be useful to have thought through the implications in advance, Davison writes.

See original here:
NASA hired 24 theologians to study reaction to aliens: book - New York Post

Biochemistry

Peter Setlow, at 50 Years and Counting: ‘I Really Like Doing Research’ – UConn Today – UConn Today

Hes UConn Healths longest-serving employee. It was the summer of 1971 when Peter Setlow started working in a trailer as an assistant professor in what was then known as the Department of Biochemistry. Over the next five decades he would become assistant professor, then full professor, serve a seven-year stint as the chair of the Department of Biochemistry, and since 2005 hes held the title of Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor in the Department of Molecular Biology and Biophysics.

Setlow estimates that over his 50 years at UConn Health, the number of lab technicians, lab assistants, graduate assistants, students, and postdoctoral fellows whove worked in his lab is in the hundreds, and he conservatively estimates the amount of grant money hes brought in exceeds $20 million.

Earlier this year UConn Health recognized Setlow for his 50th-year-of-service milestone. UConn Today asked him to reflect on his time and share some of his observations.

What was it like when you got here in 1971?

This place was very different then. This building [the L building] wasnt open yet. When I came in, everything was down the hill where Jackson Labs is now. I was in a trailer. I was in there for a year, in a trailer that had been outfitted as a lab, very minimally, and I was separate from the rest of the department; they were in Butler buildings that were all sort of cobbled together. So if I wanted to go to the department where most of the equipment was, I had to go outside fine during the summer, but it was a pain in the winter. And the pipes froze in the winter because they werent insulated down below. But we survived.

You could walk outside and look up the hill and see this new building. The shell was all there. There was something up there; it was hope for the future.

And my department then it was biochemistry was the first one to move up here [L building] in the summer of 1972, and that was interesting because there were some things that hadnt been fixed, but it was a hell of a lot better than the Butler buildings, especially in the winter, because those Butler buildings were cold and very crowded. And so, it was really nice to get up here.

What brought you to UConn Health?

I wanted to run a lab. I had some things that I picked out to start working on. Thats changed a lot of course, over 50 years, but I wanted to work in a lab and climb those golden stairs and do all kinds of great things in science. I came from Stanford University, the biochemistry department, in the California Bay area, drove across the country with my wife, who was then pregnant, in a VW beetle, it was a good time.

I came here because I wanted to come back to the East Coast. My wife, who was from the Midwest, didnt want to go back to the Midwest for love nor money, and I didnt want to be in a big city. I wanted no part of a big-city school. I didnt even go look. I wanted to come back to the East Coast.

I was born in New Haven and I grew up in New Haven. I went to high school there, my father was at Yale on the faculty. And then we moved to Oak Ridge, Tennessee a little different than New Haven, but theres a big national lab there. My dad was offered a big position and my mother was also in science and she was going to have her lab there too. So it was a big deal for them.

I wanted to come here because I liked the place, I liked where I would be, where I could live, five minutes from the lab. We ended up buying a house in Farmington that is five minutes from the lab. We moved in in 1972, and were still there.

I like doing research, looking at data is still fun. Trying to puzzle out what the data mean and what to do next is fun. I enjoy it. Peter Setlow

How did those early years go for you?

I had five publications, not huge big papers, but they had my name numero uno on them, that were published from work that I did in that trailer, almost all by myself. The last few months I had a graduate student who had started in my lab and she helped. So I really felt good about it.

One of the things that I did caused quite a stir in the field. It shouldnt have, but it did. For a long time, it was one of the most cited things Id ever done, essentially saying that there is none of a particular compound (cyclic AMP), that was really a big thing in the bacterial world at that time, and me just saying, Nope, its not in this organism at all. And that went against the dogma. I was right as it turns out. So I professionally, I did quite well.

Before I left Stanford I had started a grant that was recommended for NIH funding. I had that to start essentially once I got up the hill, so I could hire a technician and on and on and on. So when I got up the hill, I had a graduate student and I had a technician and my career really took off.

If someone told you in 1971 youd still be here in 2021, how would you have reacted?

Oh, I would have laughed at that. When I came here, the only option we had in terms of retirement was the state retirement. It was something like, if you leave before 10 years, the states not going to give you their contributions. And I said, Im not going to be here in 10 years. Id been in college for four, graduate school for four, postdoctoral for three, three different places. Im not going to be here. So we didnt even sign up for it.

Then one day you look up and youve been here 50 years. Ive had opportunities to leave. I looked, there were some things here I was unhappy with. So when I looked, I looked at four different places, and always decided that the grass was not greener. I had offers from three and I turned them down.

How have you spent your time away from the office and lab?

I got very heavily involved in coaching soccer. I played soccer in college. Then I watched my daughters team get destroyed. I started coaching my son a little bit, but he wasnt really interested in playing. Then I started coaching my daughter and I coached her for 10 years, which was great. I got to know my daughter better than most fathers ever do. It was phenomenal. I enjoyed coaching her and being with her. We took a team to Scotland for an exchange program. We were there for two weeks and my daughter had a blast. And a number of the kids that I coached came and worked in the lab in the summer, which was really great. One became a graduate student here and is now teaching in the Farmington school system.

A big deal was just made because they named a field after me. Theres a group of outdoor fields called Tunxis Mead. A new turf field was put in and they named the field after me. There was a big dedication ceremony right in front of the field, and there were about 75 to 100 people there some people from here, a lot of former players and some people I coached with. It was really very touching to me. And my daughter actually flew up from Florida, where shes on the faculty at the University of Florida. My wife even came, and she has no interest in soccer. I did it for 44 years, recreational league initially, then travel, mostly girls, the last six or seven years with boys, but I wasnt a head coach anymore, I was an assistant for those teams. But Ive coached travel and won the state championship six times, a lot of tournaments. The great majority were wonderful kids. I had a wonderful time. And I still hear from a lot of them. It was a lot of fun. It was great to be here working here for eight, nine hours and then go down and coach and yell at a bunch of kids, great for stress relief.

What are you most proud of from your 50 years at UConn Health?

That Ive always done really good research, utilizing all kinds of new new to me technology. There are a lot of people that do the same thing over and over and over. And Ive done some of that. Everybody does the low-hanging fruit, but Ive consistently utilized new and upcoming technology for my research. I may not do it in my lab, but I find people to collaborate with to do it. And thats been a lot of fun because you suddenly can look at problems in ways that you never imagined. And doing science for 50 years, you see revolutions in science. When I started, there was no molecular biology, it was just coming, so I got to learn it myself, how to do it, how to apply it. And that was difficult because you have to learn new stuff on your own, which is fine, and apply it. Its phenomenal, and made the problems I was working on, now you can do them in a whole new way. So Im really proud of that.

Im also proud of so many of the graduate students Ive had who have gone on and done really well. And Im still in touch with so many of them, which is really gratifying, to see I had something to do with their success, and postdocs as well. Im really proud of them. I mean, not every graduate student Ive had is having that kind of success, but an awful lot of them have done well, found careers that were right for them.

What keeps you motivated?

I really like doing research. There are other things that we do here as part of this. I mean, I have to serve on some committees and one of them is very time consuming, but its a very important committee, which is the promotions committee. We make recommendations to the Dean.

I review papers. I review 40 to 50 every year and Im an editor for four or five journals or on the editorial board, either or both, because thats part of you giving back to the community of science and its also providing quality control over what makes it into the literature in my field. Theres a lot of trash. I enjoy reviewing papers, even if Im going to reject them. And I like doing research, looking at data is still fun. Trying to puzzle out what the data mean and what to do next is fun. I enjoy it.

And I dont know what Id do if I wasnt doing this.

Setlow, 77, lives in Farmington with his wife of 56 years, Barbara Setlow, who is retired from the UConn School of Medicine faculty. They have two children (one in science) and four grandchildren.

Continue reading here:
Peter Setlow, at 50 Years and Counting: 'I Really Like Doing Research' - UConn Today - UConn Today