The next great technological revolution - Biotech

[jimmy olsen]

The incipient Biotechnology revolution gathers a pace!

▶ Reversing Heart Aging: http://is.gd/iL0bQM

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Scientists Discover Protein That Reverses Heart Disease In Older Mice

Scientists at Harvard University think they have found a way to possibly reverse the aging process in human organs.

Dr. Richard Lee, director of regenerative medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Amy Wagers, of the Department of Regenerative Biology at Harvard, made the discovery when they were working with younger and older mice.

They took an older mouse with the most common form of human heart failure and merged the mouse's blood stream with that of a healthy young mouse using a Siamese twin technique known as parabiosis. They found that the older mouse's diseased heart was able to reverse to a younger healthier condition.

They later identified a protein in the blood of young mice called GDF-11, which diminishes with age. They injected this protein directly into the older mice and had the same positive results. They are using this protein to restore other aging/diseased tissues and organs. Their results are published online today in the science journal Cell.

▶ Injectable Oxygen: http://is.gd/YT3P73

Injectable Oxygen Could Help People Breath Underwater; Keep Patients Alive After Lung Failure]

Chemical engineers, particle scientists, and doctors created injectable oxygen particles that carry three to four times the oxygen in our blood cells.
By Ansa Varughese | May 07, 2013 05:43 PM EDT


Researchers from Boston Children's Hospital have created injectable oxygen microparticles for patients with breathing impairments.

The emergency, IV oxygen-delivering syringe contains microparticles of oxygen gas and liquid. Details of the microparticles were published in a June 2012 issue of Science Translational Medicine.

Led by Dr. John Kheir of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Boston, chemical engineers, particle scientists, and medical doctors teamed up to create the tiny particles for patients having difficulty breathing.

One of Dr. Kheir's patients was a 9-month-old girl who had pneumonia and trouble breathing. Five minutes after checking up on her, Dr. Kheir and his team were alarmed by the bell and returned to her room, where they found her face covered in blood. Her lungs began filling up with blood and doctors spent almost 30 minutes pumping it out.

It was too late, the girl went into cardiac arrest and her brain was deprived of oxygen. She died three days later.

Dr. Kheir was a fellow at the time of the incident and recalled wanting to create oxygen that would effectively support patients intravenously.

Thus arose the injectable particle. It could sustain patients between 15 and 30 minutes after experiencing respiratory failure.

"This is a short-term oxygen substitute — a way to safely inject oxygen gas to support patients during a critical few minutes," Dr. Kheir talked about the technology in a press release. "Eventually, this could be stored in syringes on every code cart in a hospital, ambulance, or transport helicopter to help stabilize patients who are having difficulty breathing."

The particle has three to four times the oxygen of the red blood cells circulating in our body, and is encased in a cell membrane that consists of fat that's flexible and easily flows through the capillaries.

But the particle didn't just develop overnight. Researchers took years to whittle it down to the right oxygen concentration and size required to make it safe to inject. They used a sonicator that uses sound waves to blend the oxygen and fats together.

"Some of the most convincing experiments were the early ones," Dr. Kheir said. "We drew each other's blood, mixed it in a test tube with the microparticles, and watched blue blood turn immediately red, right before our eyes."

Experts are saying the potential uses for this new particle could extend to military, covert teams, even oil rig crews who would be able to breathe underwater for 30 minutes at a time without coming above for air.

▶ Bone Substitutes: http://is.gd/23efGs

Skin Cells Used To Create Personalized Bone Substitutes
By Tamarra Kemsley
May 06, 2013 03:51 PM EDT

A team of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF) Research Institute announced Monday the generation of patient-specific bone substitutes from skin cells capable of repairing large bone defects.

A team of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF) Research Institute announced Monday the generation of patient-specific bone substitutes from skin cells capable of repairing large bone defects.

The process was done using skin cells the scientists reverted from adult cells into an embryonic-like state, which then induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells carrying the same genetic information as the patient and capable of becoming any of the body's cell types.

The researchers then guided the iPS cells into becoming bone-forming progenitors they then seeded onto a scaffold for three-dimensional bone formation.

Next, the researchers placed the constructs into a device called a bioreactor, which provided nutrients, removed waste and stimulated maturation.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represents a major advance in personalized reconstructive treatments, according to a press release issued by the institute.

"Bone is more than a hard mineral composite, it is an active organ that constantly remodels," Darja Marolt, one of the study's lead authors, said. "Blood vessels shuttle important nutrients to healthy cells and remove waste; nerves provide connection to the brain; and bone marrow cells form new blood and immune cells."

The advance is seen as a significant step toward the development of customizable, three-dimensional bone grafts built to match the exact needs and immune profile of each patient.

While previous studies have demonstrated the potential of other cell sources to form bones, bone marrow stem cells, for example, can form the one and cartilaginous tissue but not the underlying vasculature and nerve compartments. Furthermore, bones derived from embryonic stem cells have the possibility of immune rejection.

For this reason, the group chose to work with iPS cells, comparing iPS sources with embryonic stem cells as well as bone marrow-derived cells.

"No other research group has published work on creating fully-viable, functional, three-dimensional bone substitutes from human iPS cells," said team member Giuseppe Maria de Peppo. "These results bring us closer to achieving our ultimate goal, to develop the most promising treatments for patients."

Furture steps, according to the scientists, include protocol optimization and the successful growth of blood vessels within the bone

As Susan L. Solomon, CEO of NYSCF said, "This is not a good approach, it is the best approach to repair devastating damage or defects."

▶ Brain Implant: http://is.gd/tEa3Lq

Brain implants: Restoring memory with a microchip
   
By Madeleine Acey, for CNN
May 8, 2013 -- Updated 2226 GMT (0626 HKT) |

(CNN) -- William Gibson's popular science fiction tale "Johnny Mnemonic" foresaw sensitive information being carried by microchips in the brain by 2021. A team of American neuroscientists could be making this fantasy world a reality.

Their motivation is different but the outcome would be somewhat similar. Hailed as one of 2013's top ten technological breakthroughs by MIT, the work by the University of Southern California, North Carolina's Wake Forest University and other partners has actually spanned a decade.

But the U.S.-wide team now thinks that it will see a memory device being implanted in a small number of human volunteers within two years and available to patients in five to 10 years. They can't quite contain their excitement.

"I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime," said Ted Berger, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "I might not benefit from it myself but my kids will."

Rob Hampson, associate professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University, agrees. "We keep pushing forward, every time I put an estimate on it, it gets shorter and shorter."

The scientists -- who bring varied skills to the table, including mathematical modeling and psychiatry -- believe they have cracked how long-term memories are made, stored and retrieved and how to replicate this process in brains that are damaged, particularly by stroke or localized injury.

Berger said they record a memory being made, in an undamaged area of the brain, then use that data to predict what a damaged area "downstream" should be doing. Electrodes are then used to stimulate the damaged area to replicate the action of the undamaged cells.

They concentrate on the hippocampus -- part of the cerebral cortex which sits deep in the brain -- where short-term memories become long-term ones. Berger has looked at how electrical signals travel through neurons there to form those long-term memories and has used his expertise in mathematical modeling to mimic these movements using electronics.

Hampson, whose university has done much of the animal studies, adds: "We support and reinforce the signal in the hippocampus but we are moving forward with the idea that if you can study enough of the inputs and outputs to replace the function of the hippocampus, you can bypass the hippocampus."

The team's experiments on rats and monkeys have shown that certain brain functions can be replaced with signals via electrodes. You would think that the work of then creating an implant for people and getting such a thing approved would be a Herculean task, but think again.

For 15 years, people have been having brain implants to provide deep brain stimulation to treat epilepsy and Parkinson's disease -- a reported 80,000 people have now had such devices placed in their brains. So many of the hurdles have already been overcome -- particularly the "yuck factor" and the fear factor.

"It's now commonly accepted that humans will have electrodes put in them -- it's done for epilepsy, deep brain stimulation, (that has made it) easier for investigative research, it's much more acceptable now than five to 10 years ago," Hampson says.

Much of the work that remains now is in shrinking down the electronics.

"Right now it's not a device, it's a fair amount of equipment,"Hampson says. "We're probably looking at devices in the five to 10 year range for human patients."

The ultimate goal in memory research would be to treat Alzheimer's Disease but unlike in stroke or localized brain injury, Alzheimer's tends to affect many parts of the brain, especially in its later stages, making these implants a less likely option any time soon.

Berger foresees a future, however, where drugs and implants could be used together to treat early dementia. Drugs could be used to enhance the action of cells that surround the most damaged areas, and the team's memory implant could be used to replace a lot of the lost cells in the center of the damaged area. "I think the best strategy is going to involve both drugs and devices," he says.

Unfortunately, the team found that its method can't help patients with advanced dementia.

"When looking at a patient with mild memory loss, there's probably enough residual signal to work with, but not when there's significant memory loss," Hampson said.

Constantine Lyketsos, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at John Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore which is trialing a deep brain stimulator implant for Alzheimer's patients was a little skeptical of the other team's claims.

"The brain has a lot of redundancy, it can function pretty well if loses one or two parts. But memory involves circuits diffusely dispersed throughout the brain so it's hard to envision." However, he added that it was more likely to be successful in helping victims of stroke or localized brain injury as indeed its makers are aiming to do.

The UK's Alzheimer's Society is cautiously optimistic.

"Finding ways to combat symptoms caused by changes in the brain is an ongoing battle for researchers. An implant like this one is an interesting avenue to explore," said Doug Brown, director of research and development.

Hampson says the team's breakthrough is "like the difference between a cane, to help you walk, and a prosthetic limb -- it's two different approaches."

It will still take time for many people to accept their findings and their claims, he says, but they don't expect to have a shortage of volunteers stepping forward to try their implant -- the project is partly funded by the U.S. military which is looking for help with battlefield injuries.

There are U.S. soldiers coming back from operations with brain trauma and a neurologist at DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is asking "what can you do for my boys?" Hampson says.

"That's what it's all about."

[Phillip V]

Good. Now how do I make quick money off of it?

[The Brain]

Disregarding Timmayistic splooging biotech does indeed offer very interesting possibilities. I would guess that it is possible to accomplish quite a lot in the bio field, and in many cases bio is what we'll have to tinker with to solve problems that physics and chemistry alone won't handle. Like long-distance space travel.

[Neil]

Big deal.  Canada has been able to replace peoples' bones with adamantium for decades now.

[CountDeMoney]

Biotech as the next great technological revolution?  That's quite a reach there, Timmay.

[Neil]

Biotech as the next great technological revolution?  That's quite a reach there, Timmay.

It is a little bit like I'm reading headlines from 2008, isn't it?

[CountDeMoney]

I hear the Internet is the Next Big Thing, too.

[Ed Anger]

I just logged in to AOL!

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, biotech is the next big thing. A whacky old relative of mine who first started using a mainframe in the 70s speculated widely that IBM would someday have a computer in every home. He pumped a ton of money into IBM and invested in them each month out of his paycheck. When he retired in the 90s it was up to a decent amount of money, but IBM was already basically established and blue chip by the mid-70s when he started investing.

He was basically spot on about the in-home computers, but he picked the wrong horse to get really insane rich. Actually from the mid-70s to the mid-90s (his holding period) IBM was actually outperformed by old-hat companies in the 70s (Coca-Cola had 13,400% total return from 75-95, AT&T 2,667%, IBM around 3,989%.) Now that's all great, but most good companies will multiply around that many times over such a long period, but if he had correctly identified say, Microsoft in the 80s as the company that was most likely to have benefited from his successfully predicted home PC explosion instead of cashing out with a few hundred thousand (about what I think he made out with), he could have turned money from thousands into millions.

I think everyone knows eventually biotech is going to take off, but we've known that since the 90s and a lot of people have lost a lot of money assuming "its time is now." Even if its time is now, your chances of picking the Microsoft or Google out of the bunch is very low.

[Phillip V]

Yeah, biotech is the next big thing. A whacky old relative of mine who first started using a mainframe in the 70s speculated widely that IBM would someday have a computer in every home. He pumped a ton of money into IBM and invested in them each month out of his paycheck. When he retired in the 90s it was up to a decent amount of money, but IBM was already basically established and blue chip by the mid-70s when he started investing.

He was basically spot on about the in-home computers, but he picked the wrong horse to get really insane rich. Actually from the mid-70s to the mid-90s (his holding period) IBM was actually outperformed by old-hat companies in the 70s (Coca-Cola had 13,400% total return from 75-95, AT&T 2,667%, IBM around 3,989%.) Now that's all great, but most good companies will multiply around that many times over such a long period, but if he had correctly identified say, Microsoft in the 80s as the company that was most likely to have benefited from his successfully predicted home PC explosion instead of cashing out with a few hundred thousand (about what I think he made out with), he could have turned money from thousands into millions.

I think everyone knows eventually biotech is going to take off, but we've known that since the 90s and a lot of people have lost a lot of money assuming "its time is now." Even if its time is now, your chances of picking the Microsoft or Google out of the bunch is very low.

Who inherited the whacky old relative's assets?

[garbon]

I think everyone knows eventually biotech is going to take off, but we've known that since the 90s and a lot of people have lost a lot of money assuming "its time is now." Even if its time is now, your chances of picking the Microsoft or Google out of the bunch is very low.

Biotechs make lots of money and have already changed lots of things.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think everyone knows eventually biotech is going to take off, but we've known that since the 90s and a lot of people have lost a lot of money assuming "its time is now." Even if its time is now, your chances of picking the Microsoft or Google out of the bunch is very low.

Biotechs make lots of money and have already changed lots of things.

That was true of computers in the 70s too--but the explosive return to investors (the only thing I'm concerned with) didn't come until the 90s really.

[garbon]

Again, I think you are wrong. People have made mad money off of biotechs...and there are biotech companies like (Amgen) which are worth tens of billions.  That said, it is true that they haven't overtaken pharmas, though in many cases that's because biotech startups develop products and then sell them off to pharmas (or pharma just buys them out right like Millenium-Takeda or Roche-Genentech).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Again, I think you are wrong. People have made mad money off of biotechs...and there are biotech companies like (Amgen) which are worth tens of billions.  That said, it is true that they haven't overtaken pharmas, though in many cases that's because biotech startups develop products and then sell them off to pharmas (or pharma just buys them out right like Millenium-Takeda or Roche-Genentech).

You are wrong. End of discussion. Do not post again.

[garbon]

You're talking out of your ass while drunk, that's okay.