Author Archives: admin


Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats No Option Patients with its JadiCell Stem Cell Therapy While Advancing Preparations for Phase…

Get inside Wall Street with StreetInsider Premium. Claim your 1-week free trial here.

Company Accelerating Clinical Progress in Response to Omicron Outbreak by Pre-Trial Implementation in Real Life Clinical Situations Leveraging Right to Try Exemption

OCEANSIDE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Therapeutic Solutions International (TSOI) announced today successful treatment of 15 recent patients under the Right to Try Law with the Companys universal donor JadiCell adult stem cell product. All patients displayed no adverse events and demonstrated subjective and objective levels of improvement.

There were 12 COVID-19 patients who underwent a profound recovery despite advanced stage of disease, while the retired Navy SEAL that was previously publicly disclosed1 along with two other retired SEALS, had a significant decrease in biomarkers associated with Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), as well as psychological improvement at the two month follow up.

We are making progress in preparing for the upcoming Phase III clinical trial of JadiCells for treatment of COVID-19. This includes negotiation with the contract research organization, site recruitment and selection, as well as organization of trial logistics, said James Veltmeyer, Chief Medical Officer of the Company. Despite this, COVID-19 and variants of concern such as omicron, have the potential to wreak severe chaos on our healthcare system. We have literally saved lives with JadiCells and believe in making the treatment available as soon as possible under appropriate conditions.

Under the Right to Try Law, companies are allowed to provide experimental therapies that have passed Phase I clinical trials to patients who in the opinion of the physician have no therapeutic options available to them.

We plan to continue clinical implementation and data collection in a real time setting using JadiCells for patients whose physicians deem they qualify under Right to Try, said Timothy Dixon, President and CEO of Therapeutic Solutions International. Nothing makes me feel better as CEO of this Company than seeing firsthand our product saving lives. Now the mission is to make it available on a large scale, which we will.

About Therapeutic Solutions International, Inc.

Therapeutic Solutions International is focused on immune modulation for the treatment of several specific diseases. The Company's corporate website is http://www.therapeuticsolutionsint.com, and our public forum is https://board.therapeuticsolutionsint.com/.

1 Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats Veteran Navy SEAL Suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy with JadiCell Adult Stem Cells Under Right to Try Law

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211230005155/en/

Timothy G. Dixon ir@tsoimail.com

Source: Therapeutic Solutions International

Go here to read the rest:
Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats No Option Patients with its JadiCell Stem Cell Therapy While Advancing Preparations for Phase...

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia: therapeutic potential and challenges – DocWire News

This article was originally published here

Intensive Care Med Exp. 2021 Dec 31;9(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s40635-021-00424-5.

ABSTRACT

Severe viral pneumonia is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality globally, whether due to outbreaks of endemic viruses, periodic viral epidemics, or the rarer but devastating global viral pandemics. While limited anti-viral therapies exist, there is a paucity of direct therapies to directly attenuate viral pneumonia-induced lung injury, and management therefore remains largely supportive. Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) are receiving considerable attention as a cytotherapeutic for viral pneumonia. Several properties of MSCs position them as a promising therapeutic strategy for viral pneumonia-induced lung injury as demonstrated in pre-clinical studies in relevant models. More recently, early phase clinical studies have demonstrated a reassuring safety profile of these cells. These investigations have taken on an added importance and urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, with multiple trials in progress across the globe. In parallel with clinical translation, strategies are being investigated to enhance the therapeutic potential of these cells in vivo, with different MSC tissue sources, specific cellular products including cell-free options, and strategies to licence or pre-activate these cells, all being explored. This review will assess the therapeutic potential of MSC-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia. It will describe the aetiology and epidemiology of severe viral pneumonia, describe current therapeutic approaches, and examine the data suggesting therapeutic potential of MSCs for severe viral pneumonia in pre-clinical and clinical studies. The challenges and opportunities for MSC-based therapies will then be considered.

PMID:34970706 | DOI:10.1186/s40635-021-00424-5

More here:
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia: therapeutic potential and challenges - DocWire News

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics (BCLI) Receives FDA Authorization for Expanded Dosing Program; Shares Higher – InvestorsObserver

News Home

Monday, December 27, 2021 10:53 AM | Kyle Depontes

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (BCLI)today announced plans for a dosing extension of NurOwn for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) participants who completed the Expanded Access Protocol (EAP).

Under the original EAP, participants who had completed the Phase 3 NurOwn trial and who met specific eligibility criteria had the opportunity to receive 3 doses of NurOwn.

Under the amended EAP, these eligible participants will receive up to 3 additional doses.

The company is also developing novel adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders such as Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease.

Shares of BCLI increased 1.19% to $3.76 as of Monday at 10:24am.

The expansion the Brainstorm's NurOwn trial will be an excellent opportunity for the company to test its technology through an expanded dosing program.

The NurOwn platform is a revolutionary technology that harnesses MSC-NTF cells, which are produced from autologous, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to deliver multiple NTFs and immunomodulatory cytokines directly to the site of damage to stabilize disease progression.

Robert Brown, Department of Neurology Chair at the University of Massachusetts and Principal Investigator, commented,"This dosing extension for the expanded access protocol is an appropriate next step following the new analysis and biomarkers results of the Phase 3 study."

"It is deeply appreciated by our ALS patients. Eligible patients now have the opportunity to receive as many as 9 doses of NurOwn in total, allowing additional data collection to better understand the potential benefits of longer-term treatment."

According to theFDA, EAPs, alternatively known as "compassionate use" programs, provide a pathway for appropriate patients to receive an investigational medicine for treatment of a serious disease outside of a clinical trial when no satisfactory alternative therapy options are available.

BCLI has a Fundamental Rank of 77. Find out what this means to you and get the rest of the rankings on BCLI!

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc is a biotechnology company. The company is developing novel adult stem cell therapies for debilitating neurodegenerative disorders such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PMS), and Parkinson's disease (PD). Brainstorm's NurOwn, its proprietary process for the propagation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC) and differentiation into neurotrophic factor-(NTF) secreting cells (MSC-NTF), and their transplantation at, or near, the site of damage, offers the hope of more effectively treating neurodegenerative diseases.

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:33 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:08 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:00 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:00 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 03:43 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 03:03 PM | MT Newswires

More here:
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics (BCLI) Receives FDA Authorization for Expanded Dosing Program; Shares Higher - InvestorsObserver

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Size 2021 Analysis by Top Companies | Biolife Solutions,Thermo Fisher Scientific,Merck,Ge Healthcare …

New Jersey, United States,-Market Research Intellect has been analyzing technology and markets for Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy since 2018. Since then, through Research Analysis of companies, we have been very close to the latest research and market development.

In addition, Market Research Intellect works closely with many customers to help them better understand the technology and market environment and develop innovation and commercialization strategies.

Market Research Intellect offers a wealth of expertise in Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market analysis. We have been in this business for the past 20 years, and we have closely watched the rise and/or fall, success and/or disappointment of many emerging technologies during this time.

This gives us a uniquely experienced eye when it comes to analyzing emerging electronic materials technologies. This is very important because it helps build a realistic market and technology roadmap that reflects the true potential of technology based on its intrinsic characteristics and the true level of technology and commercial challenges it faces.

Get | Download Sample Copy with TOC, Graphs & List of [emailprotected]https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/download-sample/?rid=219043

In addition, market revenues based on region and country are provided in the report on Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys. The authors of the report also shed light on the common business tactics adopted by actors. The main players in the global bCell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market and their full profiles are included in the report. In addition, investment opportunities, recommendations and current trends in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market are mapped by the report. Thanks to this report, key players in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market will be able to make good decisions and plan their strategies accordingly to stay ahead of the curve.

The competitive landscape is an essential aspect that every key player must know. The report highlights the competitive scenario of the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market to know the competition at the national and global levels. The market experts also presented the broad outlines of each major player in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market, taking into account key aspects such as business areas, production and product portfolio. In addition, the companies in the report are studied according to key factors such as company size, market share, market growth, revenues, production volume and profits.

The major players covered in Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Markets:

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Breakdown by Type:

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market breakdown by application:

The Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market report has been separated according to separate categories, such as product type, application, end-user, and region. Each segment is evaluated on the basis of CAGR, share, and growth potential. In the regional analysis, the report highlights the prospective region, which is expected to generate opportunities in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys market in the coming years. This segmental analysis will surely prove to be a useful tool for readers, stakeholders and market participants in order to get a complete picture of the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys market and its growth potential in the coming years.

Get | Discount On The Purchase Of This Report @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=219043

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Report Scope

Regional market analysis Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy can be represented as follows:

Each regional Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy sectors is carefully studied to understand its current and future growth scenarios. This helps players to strengthen their position. Use market research to get a better perspective and understanding of the market and target audience and ensure you stay ahead of the competition.

The base of geography, the world market of Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy has segmented as follows:

Key questions answered in the report:

For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/global-cell-freezing-media-for-cell-therapy-market-size-and-forcast/

Visualize Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market using Verified Market Intelligence:-

Verified Market Intelligence is our BI-enabled platform to tell the story of this market. VMI provides in-depth predictive trends and accurate insights into more than 20,000 emerging and niche markets to help you make key revenue impact decisions for a brilliant future.VMI provides a comprehensive overview and global competitive landscape of regions, countries, and segments, as well as key players in your market. Showcase your market reports and findings with built-in presentation capabilities, providing more than 70% of time and resources for investors, sales and marketing, R & D, and product development. VMI supports data delivery in Excel and interactive PDF formats and provides more than 15 key market indicators for your market.

Visualize Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market using VMI @ hhttps://www.marketresearchintellect.com/mri-intelligence/

The study explores in depth the profiles of the main market players and their main financial aspects. This comprehensive business analyst report is useful for all existing and new entrants as they design their business strategies. This report covers production, revenue, market share and growth rate of the Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market for each key company, and covers breakdown data (production, consumption, revenue and market share) by regions, type and applications. Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy historical breakdown data from 2016 to 2020 and forecast to 2021-2029.

About Us: Market Research Intellect

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations in addition to the objective of delivering customized and in-depth research studies.We speak to looking logical research solutions, custom consulting, and in-severity data analysis lid a range of industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverages. Etc Our research studies assist our clients to make higher data-driven decisions, admit push forecasts, capitalize coarsely with opportunities and optimize efficiency by bustling as their belt in crime to adopt accurate and indispensable mention without compromise.Having serviced on the pinnacle of 5000+ clients, we have provided expertly-behaved assert research facilities to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony, and Hitachi.

Contact us:Mr. Edwyne Fernandes US: +1 (650)-781-4080 UK: +44 (753)-715-0008 APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400 US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768

Website: https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/

Original post:
Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Size 2021 Analysis by Top Companies | Biolife Solutions,Thermo Fisher Scientific,Merck,Ge Healthcare ...

NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell …

SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hereby publishing final "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research" (Guidelines).

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The Executive Order states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, to the extent permitted by law.

These Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505, as it pertains to extramural NIH-funded stem cell research, establish policy and procedures under which the NIH will fund such research, and helps ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH policies and procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines, will govern the conduct of intramural NIH stem cell research.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These Guidelines are effective on July 7, 2009.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES: On April 23, 2009 the NIH published draft Guidelines for research involving hESCs in the Federal Register for public comment, 74 Fed. Reg. 18578 (April 23, 2009). The comment period ended on May 26, 2009.

The NIH received approximately 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists and scientific societies, academic institutions, medical organizations, religious organizations, and private citizens. The NIH also received comments from members of Congress. This Notice presents the final Guidelines together with the NIH response to public comments that addressed provisions of the Guidelines.

Title of the Guidelines, Terminology, and Background:

Respondents felt the title of the NIH draft guidelines was misleading, in that it is entitled "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research," yet addresses only one type of human stem cell. The NIH notes that although the Guidelines pertain primarily to the donation of embryos for the derivation of hESCs, one Section also applies to certain uses of both hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Also, the Guidelines discuss applicable regulatory standards when research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research. Therefore, the title of the Guidelines was not changed.

Respondents also disagreed with the definition of human embryonic stem cells in the draft Guidelines, and asked that the NIH define them as originating from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst. The NIH modified the definition to say that human embryonic stem cells "are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers."

Financial Gain

Respondents expressed concern that derivers of stem cells might profit from the development of hESCs. Others noted that because the stem cells eligible for use in research using NIH funding under the draft Guidelines are those cells that are subject to existing patents, there will be insufficient competition in the licensing of such rights. These respondents suggested that this could inhibit research, as well as increase the cost of any future clinical benefits. The Guidelines do not address the distribution of stem cell research material. It is, however, the NIH's expectation that stem cell research materials developed with NIH funds, as well as associated intellectual property and data, will be distributed in accordance with the NIHs existing policies and guidance, including "Sharing Biomedical Research Resources, Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Grants and Contracts" and "Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions." http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/policies_and_guidelines.aspx Even where such policies are not directly applicable, the NIH encourages others to refrain from imposing on the transfer of research tools, such as stem cells, any conditions that hinder further biomedical research. In addition, the Guidelines were revised to state that there should be documentation that "no payments, cash or in kind, were offered for the donated embryos."

Respondents were concerned that donor(s) be clearly "apprised up front by any researchers that financial gain may come from the donation and that the donor(s) should know up front if he/she will share in the financial gain." The Guidelines address this concern by asking that donor(s) was/were informed during the consent process that the donation was made without any restriction or direction regarding the individual(s) who may receive medical benefit from the use of the stem cells, such as who may be the recipients of cell transplants. The Guidelines also require that the donor(s) receive(s) information that the research was not intended to provide direct medical benefit to the donor(s); that the results of research using the hESCs may have commercial potential, and that the donor(s) would not receive financial or any other benefits from any such commercial development.

IRB Review under the Common Rule

Respondents suggested that the current regulatory structure of IRB review under the Common Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A) addresses the core ethical principles needed for appropriate oversight of hESC derivation. They noted that IRB review includes a full review of the informed consent process, as well as a determination of whether individuals were coerced to participate in the research and whether any undue inducements were offered to secure their participation. These respondents urged the NIH to replace the specific standards to assure voluntary and informed consent in the draft Guidelines with a requirement that hESC research be reviewed and approved by an IRB, in conformance with 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, as a prerequisite to NIH funding. Respondents also requested that the NIH create a registry of eligible hESC lines to avoid burdensome and repetitive assurances from multiple funding applicants. The NIH agrees that the IRB system of review under the Common Rule provides a comprehensive framework for the review of the donation of identifiable human biological materials for research. However, in the last several years, guidelines on hESC research have been issued by a number of different organizations and governments, and different practices have arisen around the country and worldwide, resulting in a patchwork of standards. The NIH concluded that employing the IRB review system for the donation of embryos would not ameliorate stated concerns about variations in standards for hESC research and would preclude the establishment of an NIH registry of hESCs eligible for NIH funding, because there would be no NIH approval of particular hESCs. To this end and response to comments, these Guidelines articulate policies and procedures that will allow the NIH to create a Registry. These Guidelines also provide scientists who apply for NIH funding with a specific set of standards reflecting currently recognized ethical principles and practices specific to embryo donation that took place on or after the issuance of the Guidelines, while also establishing procedures for the review of donations that took place before the effective date of the Guidelines.

Federal Funding Eligibility of Human Pluripotent Cells from Other Sources

Respondents suggested that the allowable sources of hESCs potentially available for federal funding be expanded to include hESC lines from embryos created expressly for research purposes, and lines created, or pluripotent cells derived, following parthenogenesis or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The Guidelines allow for funding of research using hESCs derived from embryos created using in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and no longer needed for these purposes, assuming the research has scientific merit and the embryos were donated after proper informed consent was obtained from the donor(s). The Guidelines reflect the broad public support for federal funding of research using hESCs created from such embryos based on wide and diverse debate on the topic in Congress and elsewhere. The use of additional sources of human pluripotent stem cells proposed by the respondents involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged. For example, the embryo-like entities created by parthenogenesis and SCNT require women to donate oocytes, a procedure that has health and ethical implications, including the health risk to the donor from the course of hormonal treatments needed to induce oocyte production.

Respondents noted that many embryos undergo Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This may result in the identification of chromosomal abnormalities that would make the embryos medically unsuitable for clinical use. In addition, the IVF process may also produce embryos that are not transferred into the uterus of a woman because they are determined to be not appropriate for clinical use. Respondents suggested that hESCs derived from such embryos may be extremely valuable for scientific study, and should be considered embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose. The NIH agrees with these comments. As in the draft, the final Guidelines allow for the donation of embryos that have undergone PGD.

Donation and Informed Consent

Respondents commented in numerous ways that the draft Guidelines are too procedurally proscriptive in articulating the elements of appropriate informed consent documentation. This over-reliance on the specific details and format of the informed consent document, respondents argued, coupled with the retroactive application of the Guidelines to embryos already donated for research, would result in a framework that fails to appreciate the full range of factors contributing to the complexity of the informed consent process. For example, respondents pointed to several factors that were precluded from consideration by the proposed Guidelines, such as contextual evidence of the consent process, other established governmental frameworks (representing local and community influences), and the changing standards for informed consent in this area of research over time. Respondents argued that the Guidelines should be revised to allow for a fuller array of factors to be considered in determining whether the underlying ethical principle of voluntary informed consent had been met. In addition to these general issues, many respondents made the specific recommendation that all hESCs derived before the final Guidelines were issued be automatically eligible for Federal funding without further review, especially those eligible under prior Presidential policy, i.e., "grandfathered." The final Guidelines seek to implement the Executive Order by issuing clear guidance to assist this field of science to advance and reach its full potential while ensuring adherence to strict ethical standards. To this end, the NIH is establishing a set of conditions that will maximize ethical oversight, while ensuring that the greatest number of ethically derived hESCs are eligible for federal funding. Specifically, for embryos donated in the U.S. on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, the only way to establish eligibility will be to either use hESCs listed on the NIH Registry, or demonstrate compliance with the specific procedural requirements of the Guidelines by submitting an assurance with supporting information for administrative review by the NIH. Thus, for future embryo donations in the United States, the Guidelines articulate one set of procedural requirements. This responds to concerns regarding the patchwork of requirements and guidelines that currently exist.

However, the NIH is also cognizant that in the more than a decade between the discovery of hESCs and today, many lines were derived consistent with ethical standards and/or guidelines developed by various states, countries, and other entities such as the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). These various policies have many common features, rely on a consistent ethical base, and require an informed consent process, but they differ in details of implementation. For example, some require specific wording in a written informed consent document, while others do not. It is important to recognize that the principles of ethical research, e.g., voluntary informed consent to participation, have not varied in this time period, but the requirements for implementation and procedural safeguards employed to demonstrate compliance have evolved. In response to these concerns, the Guidelines state that applicant institutions wishing to use hESCs derived from embryos donated prior to the effective date of the Guidelines may either comply with Section II (A) of the Guidelines or undergo review by a Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD). The ACD, which is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee, will advise NIH on whether the core ethical principles and procedures used in the process for obtaining informed consent for the donation of the embryo were such that the cell line should be eligible for NIH funding. This Working Group will not undertake a de novo evaluation of ethical standards, but will consider the materials submitted in light of the principles and points to consider in the Guidelines, as well as 45 C.F.R. Part 46 Subpart A. Rather than grandfathering, ACD Working Group review will enable pre-existing hESCs derived in a responsible manner to be eligible for use in NIH funded research.

In addition, for embryos donated outside the United States prior to the effective date of these Guidelines, applicants may comply with either Section II (A) or (B). For embryos donated outside of the United States on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, applicants seeking to determine eligibility for NIH research funding may submit an assurance that the hESCs fully comply with Section II (A) or submit an assurance along with supporting information, that the alternative procedural standards of the foreign country where the embryo was donated provide protections at least equivalent to those provided by Section II (A) of these Guidelines. These materials will be reviewed by the NIH ACD Working Group, which will recommend to the ACD whether such equivalence exists. Final decisions will be made by the NIH Director. This special consideration for embryos donated outside the United States is needed because donation of embryos in foreign countries is governed by the laws and policies of the respective governments of those nations. Although such donations may be responsibly conducted, such governments may not or cannot change their national donation requirements to precisely comply with the NIH Guidelines. The NIH believes it is reasonable to provide a means for reviewing such hESCs because ethically derived foreign hESCs constitute an important scientific asset for the U.S.

Respondents expressed concern that it might be difficult in some cases to provide assurance that there was a "clear separation" between the prospective donor(s) decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes and the donor(s) decision to donate the embryos for research purposes. These respondents noted that policies vary at IVF clinics, especially with respect to the degree to which connections with researchers exist. Respondents noted that a particular clinics role may be limited to the provision of contact information for researchers. A clinic that does not have any particular connection with research would not necessarily have in place a written policy articulating the separation contemplated by the Guidelines. Other respondents noted that embryos that are determined not to be suitable for medical purposes, either because of genetic defects or other concerns, may be donated prior to being frozen. In these cases, it is possible that the informed consent process for the donation might be concurrent with the consent process for IVF treatment. Respondents also noted that the initial consent for IVF may contain a general authorization for donating embryos in excess of clinical need, even though a more detailed consent is provided at the actual time of donation. The NIH notes that the Guidelines specifically state that consent should have been obtained at the time of donation, even if the potential donor(s) had given prior indication of a general intent to donate embryos in excess of clinical need for the purposes of research. Accordingly, a general authorization for research donation when consenting for reproductive treatment would comply with the Guidelines, so long as specific consent for the donation is obtained at the time of donation. In response to comments regarding documentation necessary to establish a separation between clinical and research decisions, the NIH has changed the language of the Guidelines to permit applicant institutions to submit consent forms, written policies or other documentation to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Guidelines. This change should provide the flexibility to accommodate a range of practices, while adhering to the ethical principles intended.

Some respondents want to require that the IVF physician and the hESC researcher should be different individuals, to prevent conflict of interest. Others say they should be the same person, because people in both roles need to have detailed knowledge of both areas (IVF treatment and hESC research). There is also a concern that the IVF doctor will create extra embryos if he/she is also the researcher. As a general matter, the NIH believes that the doctor and the researcher seeking donation should be different individuals. However, this is not always possible, nor is it required, in the NIH's view, for ethical donation.

Some respondents want explicit language (in the Guidelines and/or in the consent) stating that the embryo will be destroyed when the inner cell mass is removed. In the process of developing guidelines, the NIH reviewed a variety of consent forms that have been used in responsible derivations. Several had extensive descriptions of the process and the research to be done, going well beyond the minimum expected, yet they did not use these exact words. Given the wide variety and diversity of forms, as well as the various policy, statutory and regulatory obligations individual institutions face, the NIH declines to provide exact wording for consent forms, and instead endorses a robust informed consent process where all necessary details are explained and understood in an ongoing, trusting relationship between the clinic and the donor(s).

Respondents asked for clarification regarding the people who must give informed consent for the donation of embryos for research. Some commenters suggested that NIH should require consent from the gamete donors, in cases where those individuals may be different than the individuals seeking reproductive treatment. The NIH requests consent from the individual(s) who sought reproductive treatment because this/these individual(s) is/are responsible for the creation of the embryo(s) and, therefore, its/their disposition. With regard to gamete donation, the risks are associated with privacy and, as such, are governed by requirements of the Common Rule, where applicable.

Respondents also requested clarification on the statement in the draft Guidelines noting that "although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos." For the purpose of NIH funding, an embryo is defined by Section 509, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 111-8, 3/11/09, otherwise known as the Dickey Amendment, as any organism not protected as a human subject under 45 C.F.R. Part 46 that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Since 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has consistently interpreted this provision as not applicable to research using hESCs, because hESCs are not embryos as defined by Section 509. This long-standing interpretation has been left unchanged by Congress, which has annually reenacted the Dickey Amendment with full knowledge that HHS has been funding hESC research since 2001. These guidelines therefore recognize the distinction, accepted by Congress, between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryos destruction, for which federal funding is prohibited, and research involving hESCs that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryos destruction, for which federal funding is permitted.

Some respondents wanted to ensure that potential donor(s) are either required to put their "extra" embryos up for adoption before donating them for research, or are at least offered this option. The Guidelines require that all the options available in the health care facility where treatment was sought pertaining to the use of embryos no longer needed for reproductive purposes were explained to the potential donor(s). Since not all IVF clinics offer the same services, the healthcare facility is only required to explain the options available to the donor(s) at that particular facility.

Commenters asked that donor(s) be made aware of the point at which their donation decision becomes irrevocable. This is necessary because if the embryo is de-identified, it may be impossible to stop its use beyond a certain point. The NIH agrees with these comments and revised the Guidelines to require that donor(s) should have been informed that they retained the right to withdraw consent for the donation of the embryo until the embryos were actually used to derive embryonic stem cells or until information which could link the identity of the donor(s) with the embryo was no longer retained, if applicable.

Medical Benefits of Donation

Regarding medical benefit, respondents were concerned that the language of the Guidelines should not somehow eliminate a donor's chances of benefitting from results of stem cell research. Respondents noted that although hESCs are not currently being used clinically, it is possible that in the future such cells might be used for the medical benefit of the person donating them. The Guidelines are meant to preclude individuals from donating embryos strictly for use in treating themselves only or from donating but identifying individuals or groups they do or do not want to potentially benefit from medical intervention using their donated cells. While treatment with hESCs is one of the goals of this research, in practice, years of experimental work must still be done before such treatment might become routinely available. The Guidelines are designed to make it clear that immediate medical benefit from a donation is highly unlikely at this time. Importantly, it is critical to note that the Guidelines in no way disqualify a donor from benefitting from the medical outcomes of stem cell research and treatments that may be developed in the future.

Monitoring and Enforcement Actions

Respondents have expressed concern about the monitoring of funded research and the invocation of possible penalties for researchers who do not follow the Guidelines. A grantee's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of award, including confirmed instances of research misconduct, may cause the NIH to take one or more enforcement actions, depending on the severity and duration of the non-compliance. For example, the following actions may be taken by the NIH when there is a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any award: (1) Under 45 CFR 74.14, the NIH can impose special conditions on an award, including but not limited to increased oversight/monitoring/reporting requirements for an institution, project, or investigator; and (2) under 45 CFR 74.62 the NIH may impose enforcement actions, including but not limited to withholding funds pending correction of the problem, disallowing all or part of the costs of the activity that was not in compliance, withholding further awards for the project, or suspending or terminating all or part of the funding for the project. Individuals and institutions may be debarred from eligibility for all Federal financial assistance and contracts under 2 CFR Part 376 and 48 CFR Subpart 9.4, respectively. The NIH will undertake all enforcement actions in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

These Guidelines apply to the expenditure of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds for research using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and certain uses of induced pluripotent stem cells (See Section IV). The Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505.

Long-standing HHS regulations for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A establish safeguards for individuals who are the sources of many human tissues used in research, including non-embryonic human adult stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells. When research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research, Institutional Review Board review may be required and informed consent may need to be obtained per the requirements detailed in 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A. Applicants should consult http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html .

It is also important to note that the HHS regulation, Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, may apply to certain research using hESCs. This regulation applies, among other things, to research involving individually identifiable private information about a living individual, 45 C.F.R. 46.102(f). The HHS Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) considers biological material, such as cells derived from human embryos, to be individually identifiable when they can be linked to specific living individuals by the investigators either directly or indirectly through coding systems. Thus, in certain circumstances, IRB review may be required, in addition to compliance with these Guidelines. Applicant institutions are urged to consult OHRP guidances at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

To ensure that the greatest number of responsibly derived hESCs are eligible for research using NIH funding, these Guidelines are divided into several sections, which apply specifically to embryos donated in the U.S. and foreign countries, both before and on or after the effective date of these Guidelines. Section II (A) and (B) describe the conditions and review processes for determining hESC eligibility for NIH funds. Further information on these review processes may be found at http://www.NIH.gov . Sections IV and V describe research that is not eligible for NIH funding.

These guidelines are based on the following principles:

As directed by Executive Order 13505, the NIH shall review and update these Guidelines periodically, as appropriate.

For the purpose of these Guidelines, "human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)" are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although hESCs are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos. All of the processes and procedures for review of the eligibility of hESCs will be centralized at the NIH as follows:

The materials submitted must demonstrate that the hESCs were derived from human embryos: 1) that were created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose; and 2) that were donated by donor(s) who gave voluntary written consent for the human embryos to be used for research purposes.

The Working Group will review submitted materials, e.g., consent forms, written policies or other documentation, taking into account the principles articulated in Section II (A), 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, and the following additional points to consider. That is, during the informed consent process, including written or oral communications, whether the donor(s) were: (1) informed of other available options pertaining to the use of the embryos; (2) offered any inducements for the donation of the embryos; and (3) informed about what would happen to the embryos after the donation for research.

Prior to the use of NIH funds, funding recipients should provide assurances, when endorsing applications and progress reports submitted to NIH for projects using hESCs, that the hESCs are listed on the NIH registry.

This section governs research using hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells, i.e., human cells that are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although the cells may come from eligible sources, the following uses of these cells are nevertheless ineligible for NIH funding, as follows:

Raynard S Kington, M.D., Ph.D. Acting Director, NIH

Continue reading here:
NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell ...

LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies – Yahoo Finance

LifeBank Chain (LBC) focuses on research and development in the field of genetics and cell science, with the purposes of furthering human longevity and expanding access to genetics and cell treatments through cutting-edge technologies.

Gene and Cell Technology

JERUSALEM, Dec. 31, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GENE & CELL MEDICINE LTD located in Israel and Singapore started a new project : LifeBank Chain (LBC). The project LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform.

Genetic research seeks to understand the process of trait inheritance from parents to offspring. The human genetic research is revealing the nature of human bioinformatics and giving scientists a powerful approach to study various health issues of human life.

Cell research focuses on stem cell and immune cell therapies, which are an extremely promising approach for the treatment of many diseases with an immune component including cancer, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation.

The wide applications of these new biological technologies in the medical field greatly reshaped the traditional pharmaceutical industry, whose focus was not only put on the treatment of disease as before but also on gene diagnosis and prevention, which opened the door to the world of personalized and precise medicine.

Blockchain is an emerging technology that has attracted increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. The functionalities of blockchain technology and smart contracts provide an opportunity over large gene and cell data to support genetic and cell data integrity and security while giving patients control over their own data.

LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform incorporating an extensible cross-chain service system based on individual and institutional nodes. The platform product service layer abstracts all typical kinds of gene and cell blockchain applications and provides the full functions and implementation framework of typical applications.

Story continues

The goal of LifeBank Chain (LBC) is to establish a global-level service platform for sharing and utilizing human genetic and cell data through secured blockchain technologies. The LBC blockchain is designed to provide genetic and cell research industry partners with enterprise-level blockchain infrastructure, industry solutions, and secure, reliable, and flexible blockchain services. LBC will work together with medical practitioners to provide full-solution ancillary reagent services and provide flexible and pioneering tools to simplify therapy workflow at every step of the medical process.

LBC will form a professional and shared social organization -- LBC Life Alliance -- inviting life technology companies, scientific research institutes, medical institutions, etc. to jointly solve medical, health, disease, and public health problems, and jointly build the application standards of gene and stem cell medical technology on the blockchain, and contribute to the cause of human health.

LifeBank Chain enables healthcare professionals to manage the medical data and do research in an auditable, transparent and secure way on LBC's distributed network. LBC continues to closely monitor the evolution of genetics and cell therapy in different medical subspecialties around the world.

LifeBank Chain:

Official Website: https://lifebankchain.io

LBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lifebankchain Email : lbc@lifebankchain.io

Related Images

Image 1: Gene and Cell Technology

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at Newswire.com.

Attachment

Follow this link:
LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies - Yahoo Finance

The Worldwide Culture Media Industry is Expected to Reach $13+ Billion by 2030 – GlobeNewswire

Dublin, Dec. 29, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Culture Media Market by Type, Application, Research Type, and End User: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global culture media market was valued at $5,492.90 million in 2020, and is projected to reach $13,487.84 million by 2030, registering a CAGR of 9.5% from 2021 to 2030.

Culture media plays a role of growth factor in the cultivation of cell lines. They provide ample environment for the regeneration and growth of cells such as stem cells, and other cell lines. In order to fulfill the requirements of various cell types, different culture media are available which can be solid, liquid, semi-solid depending on the requirement of cell lines. Culture media is also capable of producing monoclonal antibodies which are recently in high demand due to the pandemic situation. Culture media provide the environment suitable for the proliferation of cell lines which makes it compatible for its growth.

An increase in funding in the research and development field and need for new drug discovery is contributing to the growth of the culture media market. Moreover, other factors that fuel the market are the surge in the geriatric population which gives rise in cardiovascular and cancer diseases which create demand in research areas of pharmaceuticals, oncology and stem cell research. Ongoing pandemic situation and rise in prevalence of infectious diseases offers potential growth in the culture media market.

The culture media market is segmented based on type, application, research type, end user, and region. On the basis of type, the market is divided into lysogeny broth, chemically defined media, classical media, serum-free media, specialty media, stem cell media, and others. The applications, the market is segmented into cancer research, biopharmaceuticals, regenerative medicine & tissue engineering, stem cell technologies, drug discovery, and others.

By research type, the culture media market is fragmented into cytogenetics, cell therapy, and others. Depending on end user, the market is classified into biotechnology & pharmaceutical industry, academic institute, research laboratory, and others.Region wise, the culture media market is analyzed across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and LAMEA.

The report provides extensive competitive analysis and profiles of the key market players such as Avantor Performance Materials, LLC (VWR International, LLC), Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. (Bio-Rad), Corning Incorporated (Corning), Fujifilm Holdings Corporation (Fujifilm), GE Healthcare, HiMedia Laboratories Pvt., Ltd (HiMedia), Lonza Group Ltd. (Lonza), Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck), Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

Key Benefits

Key Topics Covered:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 3: MARKET OVERVIEW3.1. Market definition and scope 3.2. Key findings 3.2.1. Top Player Positioning 3.2.2. Top investment pockets 3.2.3. Top winning strategies 3.3. Porter's five forces analysis 3.4. Market dynamics 3.4.1. Drivers 3.4.1.1. Rise in R&D investments 3.4.1.2. Increase in advancements associated with cell culture media8 3.4.1.3. High demand for cell culture media 3.4.2. Restraints 3.4.2.1. Dearth of skilled professionals 3.4.2.2. Ethical & scientific concerns associated with culture media 3.4.3. Opportunity 3.4.3.1. Untapped potential of the emerging economies 3.5. Product Analysis 3.5.1. Current trends in embryonic stem cell culture media 3.5.2. Classic media products 3.6. IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON CULTURE MEDIA MARKET

CHAPTER 4: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY TYPE4.1. Overview 4.1.1. Market size and forecast 4.2. Lysogeny broth 4.2.1. Key market trends 4.2.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.2.3. Market analysis, by country 4.3. Chemically defined media 4.3.1. Key market trends 4.3.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.3.3. Market analysis, by country 4.4. Classical media 4.4.1. Key market trends 4.4.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.4.3. Market analysis, by country 4.5. Serum-free Media 4.5.1. Key market trends 4.5.3. Market size and forecast, by region 4.5.4. Market analysis, by country 4.6. Specialty media 4.6.1. Key market trends 4.6.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.6.3. Market analysis, by country 4.7. Stem cell media 4.7.1. Key market trends 4.7.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.7.3. Market analysis, by country 4.8. Custom media formulation 4.8.1. Key market trends 4.8.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.8.3. Market analysis, by country 4.9. Other media 4.9.1. Key market trends 4.9.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.9.3. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 5: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET BY APPLICATION5.1. Overview 5.1.1. Market size and forecast 5.2. Cancer research 5.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.2.2. Market analysis, by country 5.3. Biopharmaceuticals 5.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.3.2. Market analysis, by country 5.4. Regenerative medicine & tissue engineering 5.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.4.2. Market analysis, by country 5.5. Stem cell technology 5.5.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.5.2. Market analysis, by country 5.6. Drug discovery 5.6.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.6.2. Market analysis, by country 5.7. Other Applications 5.7.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.7.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 6: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY RESEARCH TYPE6.1. Overview 6.1.1. Market size and forecast 6.2. Cytogenetics 6.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.2.2. Market analysis, by country 6.3. Cell Therapy 6.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.3.2. Market analysis, by country 6.4. Others 6.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.4.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 7: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY END USER7.1. Overview 7.1.1. Market size and forecast 7.2. Biotechnology & pharmaceutical industry 7.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.2.2. Market analysis, by country 7.3. Academic institute 7.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.3.2. Market analysis, by country 7.4. Research laboratory 7.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.4.2. Market analysis, by country 7.5. Others 7.5.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.5.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 8: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY REGION

CHAPTER 9: COMPANY PROFILES9.1. Avantor, Inc. 9.1.1. Company overview 9.1.2. Company Snapshot 9.1.3. Operating business segments 9.1.4. Product portfolio 9.1.5. Business performance 9.2. Becton Dickinson and Company. 9.2.1. Company overview 9.2.2. Company snapshot 9.2.3. Operating Business Segment 9.2.4. Product portfolio 9.2.5. Business performance 9.2.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.3. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. 9.3.1. Company Overview 9.3.2. Company Snapshot 9.3.3. Operating segments 9.3.4. Product portfolio 9.3.5. Business performance 9.3.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.4. Corning Incorporated. 9.4.1. Company overview 9.4.2. Company Snapshot 9.4.3. Operating Segments 9.4.4. Product Portfolio 9.4.5. Business performance 9.4.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.5. Fujifilm Holdings Corporation 9.5.1. Company overview 9.5.2. Company snapshot 9.5.3. Operating business segments 9.5.4. Product portfolio 9.5.5. Business performance 9.5.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.6. General Electric Company 9.6.1. Company overview 9.6.2. Company snapshot 9.6.3. Operating business segments 9.6.4. Product portfolio 9.6.5. Business performance 9.7. Hi Media Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 9.7.1. Company overview 9.7.2. Company snapshot 9.7.3. Operating business segments 9.7.4. Product portfolio 9.8. Lonza Group AG 9.8.1. Company overview 9.8.2. Company snapshot 9.8.3. Operating business segments 9.8.4. Product portfolio 9.8.5. Business performance 9.8.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.9. Merck & Co., Inc. 9.9.1. Company overview 9.9.2. Company snapshot 9.9.3. Operating business segments 9.9.4. Product portfolio 9.9.5. Business performance 9.9.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.10. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 9.10.1. Company overview 9.10.2. Company snapshot 9.10.3. Operating business segments 9.10.4. Product portfolio 9.10.5. Business performance 9.10.6. Key strategic moves and developments

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/z6f8rg

More:
The Worldwide Culture Media Industry is Expected to Reach $13+ Billion by 2030 - GlobeNewswire

Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and…

The Global Automated And Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market size is expected to reach $2,247. 8 million by 2027, rising at a market growth of 20. 3% CAGR during the forecast period.

New York, Dec. 27, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and Forecast, 2021 - 2027" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06193295/?utm_source=GNW Cell therapy is a technology that is based on replacing any dysfunctional or diseased cell with active & functional cells. Stem cells have the capability to differentiate into certain cells required for repairing damaged or defective tissues or cells, which is the reason why they are utilized for these advanced therapies.

Cell therapy technologies are very important in the medicine and cell therapy sector, which has emerged as a crucial aspect of medical practice. In addition, these cell therapy technologies have common functionality as drug delivery, gene therapy, cancer vaccines, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine. The process of cell therapy products delivery can vary from injections to surgical implantation by using some specific equipment.

The growth of the market is driven by the increasing popularity of regenerative medicines & cell therapies along with various advantages provided by automation technologies for the development of these therapies. Additionally, the market growth is further driven by the increasing combination of software technologies and sophisticated therapy development procedures.

COVID-19 Impact Analysis

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has positively impacted the growth of the automated and closed cell therapy processing systems market. It is due to the growing focus of the companies and governments on automation technologies. Along with that, companies have highly invested in the development of advanced therapies and regenerative medicines to fight against the COVID-19 virus. This would support the growth of the market in the coming years.

There are numerous key players that are also focusing on the development of new therapies like exosomes, natural killer cell therapy, stem cell therapy, and others, which would augment the growth of the market in the upcoming years. In addition, governments across the world have also provided their support to the companies for the development of advanced therapies for the coronavirus, thereby created lucrative growth opportunities for the market.

Market Growth Factors:

Growing cases of chronic diseases

Chronic disease is the term used for a group of diseases including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes among others. There is a rise in the number of chronic diseases among the population across the globe. It is majorly due to the sedentary lifestyle, unhealthy diet, and consumption of tobacco. As per the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), chronic disease is a condition that lasts for more than one year and needs immediate medical attention or restricts daily activities or both and involves heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many more.

The rising popularity of regenerative medicines & cell therapies

Regenerative medicine refers to a group of medicine, which makes different methods to repair, regrow or replace diseased or damaged cells, organs or tissues. In addition, regenerative medicine consists of the generation and usage of therapeutic stem cells, tissue development, and the making of artificial organs. Due to the high accuracy and effectiveness, regenerative medicines and cell therapies are estimated to witness a surge in demand, thereby bolstering the growth of the market.

Market Restraining Factor:

Lack of skilled professionals

As cell therapies are gaining more popularity, the automated processing systems market needs more skilled professionals to carry out these therapies and operate automated systems. However, the dearth of skilled professionals is estimated to hinder the growth of the automated and closed cell therapy processing systems market over the forecast period. In addition, the usage of technologically advanced and highly complicated flow cytometers and spectrophotometers for generating a huge amount of data outputs require knowledge for interpreting and reviewing would hinder the market growth.

Type Outlook

Based on type, the market is segmented into stem cell therapy, and non-stem cell therapy. The non-stem cell therapy segment acquired the highest revenue share of the market in 2020 and is estimated to display the fastest growth rate over the forecast period. This growth is attributed to the rising number of product launches for various non-stem cell therapy applications.

Workflow Outlook

Based on workflow, the market is segmented into separation, expansion, apheresis, fill-finish, cryopreservation and others. Among all, the expansion segment dominated the market with the highest revenue share in 2020. It is due to the rise in adoption of strategies like partnerships among the key market players for the application and adoption of systems.

Scale Outlook

Based on scale, the market is segmented into Pre-commercial/R&D Scale and Commercial Scale. Among these, the pre-commercial/R&D scale segment procured the maximum revenue share of the market in 2020. In the current scenario, the market is in its initial phase owing to the restricted number of products. In addition, many key companies are launching their products only for research objectives.

Regional Outlook

Based on Regions, the market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, Middle East & Africa. In 2020, North America emerged as the leading region in the market with the highest revenue share and is estimated to witness a significant growth rate over the forecast period due to the high demand for regenerative medicines across the regional healthcare sector.

The major strategies followed by the market participants are Partnerships. Based on the Analysis presented in the Cardinal matrix; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. and Cytiva (Danaher Corp.) are the forerunners in the Automated And Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market. Companies such as Terumo Corporation, Lonza Group AG, Miltenyi Biotec are some of the key innovators in Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market.

The market research report covers the analysis of key stake holders of the market. Key companies profiled in the report include Lonza Group AG, Terumo Corporation, Cytiva (Danaher Corporation), Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG, Thermogenesis Holdings, Inc., Cellares Inc., Biospherix ltd., Sartorius AG, and Fresenius Kabi AG.

Recent Strategies Deployed in Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market

Partnerships, Collaborations and Agreements:

Oct-2021: Terumo joined hands with BioCentriq, a clinical manufacturing facility for cell and gene therapies. This collaboration aimed to boost the adoption of automated manufacturing to provide novel cell and gene therapies (CGT) to patients more rapidly and cost-effectively.

Oct-2021: Terumo collaborated with BioCentriq laboratories, a clinical manufacturing facility for cell and gene therapies. This collaboration aimed to bring together the companies respective automation and CDMO knowledge, products, skills, and services to assist meet users where they are in their product development pathway and allow a scalable strategy for the future.

Jul-2021: Cellares Corporation signed an agreement with Poseida Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. Under this agreement, Poseida joined Cellaress Early Access Partnership Program (EAPP).

Jun-2021: Lonza teamed up with CellPoint, a private, clinical-stage Biopharmaceutical Company. This collaboration aimed to swiftly develop numerous T-cell-based therapies and use the Cocoon Platform for clinical point-of-care manufacturing. The utilization of the Cocoon Platform, along with the range of CellPoints therapies & technologies, and Lonzas manufacturing capabilities, would assist to boost the path to the clinic and offer a smoother path to commercial approval.

May-2021: Cytiva collaborated with Multiply Labs, a leader in developing robotic systems for pharmaceutical manufacturing. This collaboration aimed to make a robotic manufacturing system, which would automate the manual portions of the cell therapy manufacturing workflow.

Apr-2021: Fresenius Kabi entered into a distribution agreement with Corvida Medical, provider of a smarter Closed System Transfer Device for Chemotherapy. In this agreement, Fresenius Kabi would be the exclusive U.S. distributor for the HALO Closed System Drug-Transfer Device (CSTD).

Jan-2021: Sartorius joined hands with RoosterBio, a biotechnology company. The collaboration aimed to advance the scale-up of hMSC manufacturing for regenerative medicine by using the top-class solutions of the companies to substantially decrease process development efforts, industrialize the supply chain and boost the development & commercialization of groundbreaking cell-based regenerative cures.

Aug-2020: Lonza came into collaboration with IsoPlexis, a life science technology company. This collaboration aimed at the evolution of cell therapy manufacturing.

Jun-2020: ThermoGenesis entered into an agreement with Corning Incorporateds Life Sciences Division. Under this agreement, ThermoGenesiss X-SERIES products would be distributed under the Corning brand.

Jun-2020: BioSpherix Medical teamed up with Sexton Biotechnologies, a provider of novel manufacturing solutions for the cell and gene therapy (CGT) industry. This collaboration aimed to identify the requirement for cost-efficient & flexible automation solutions during cell and gene therapy process development.

Acquisitions and Mergers:

Jul-2021: Sartorius Stedim Biotech, a division of Sartorius acquired Xell, an innovative partner for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry. This acquisition aimed to expand its current media offering, particularly by specialized media for manufacturing viral vectors and, along with the area of media analytics.

Jan-2020: Fresenius Kabi formed a joint venture with Wilson Wolf and Bio-Techne, namely, ScaleReady. This joint venture aimed to offer the manufacturing technologies & processes required to develop and commercialize the latest cell and gene therapies via individual company products and expertise.

Product Launches and Product Expansions:

Dec-2020: Thermo Fisher Scientific released its Gibco CTS Rotea Counterflow Centrifugation System. This system allows cost-effective, scalable cell therapy development and manufacturing. This CTS Rotea system is the Gibco instrument for cell therapy processing applications as well as streamlines workflows from research via GMP clinical development & commercial manufacturing.

Jul-2020: Miltenyi Biotec introduced the latest CliniMACS Prodigy Adherent Cell Culture System. This system allows the automated, scalable, and closed manufacturing of numerous adherent cell types that include stem cells and their derivatives. Tested procedures involve, for example, GMP-compliant expansion of human mesenchymal stromal cells, and pluripotent stem cells, and the differentiation of the latter into dopaminergic progenitors.

Scope of the Study

Market Segments covered in the Report:

By Type

Separation

Expansion

Apheresis

Fill-Finish

Cryopreservation

By Workflow

Stem Cell Therapy

Non-Stem Cell Therapy

By Scale

Pre-commercial/R&D Scale

Commercial Scale

By Geography

North America

o US

o Canada

o Mexico

o Rest of North America

Europe

o Germany

o UK

o France

o Russia

o Spain

o Italy

o Rest of Europe

Asia Pacific

o China

o Japan

o India

o South Korea

o Singapore

o Malaysia

o Rest of Asia Pacific

LAMEA

o Brazil

o Argentina

o UAE

o Saudi Arabia

o South Africa

o Nigeria

o Rest of LAMEA

Companies Profiled

Lonza Group AG

Terumo Corporation

Cytiva (Danaher Corporation)

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG

Thermogenesis Holdings, Inc.

Cellares Inc.

Biospherix ltd.

Sartorius AG

Fresenius Kabi AG

Unique Offerings

Exhaustive coverage

Continued here:
Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and...

With soaring demand for meat, it’s time to fund animal-free protein research | TheHill – The Hill

Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaWith soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research Khanna advocates for 'honest and reflective patriotism' in America Democrats call on Education secretary to address 'stealthing' at federal level MORE (D-Calif.) recently wrote, Nearly 10 [percent] of the world's population today is experiencing hunger. He called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to invest in alternative proteins research to improve the sustainability and resiliency of our food systems and help put us on the path to ending hunger around the globe.

Khanna is hardly the only member of Congress interested in seeing more agriculture research and development (R&D) dollars flowing toward animal-free protein. House Appropriations Chairwoman Rosa DeLauroRosa DeLauroWith soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research Manchin undercuts Biden, leaving his agenda in limbo No, Senator Manchin Americans cannot wait for paid leave MORE (D-Conn.) has also embraced the need for the U.S. to be a leader in the clean protein space, recently telling USDA that we should pursue parity in research funding for alternative proteins as a means of combatting climate change and adding resiliency to our food system.

Its no longer a secret that raising billions of animals for food is at the heart of so many of humanitys most pressing problems, from environmental degradation to pandemic risk and more. With groups like the United Nations and World Health Organization touting the benefits of shifting toward plant-based foods, it seems like there must be a role for public policy to help nudge us in the right direction.

Case in point: The Netherlands, increasingly worried about the impact of its livestock sector on the Dutch environment, has hatched a 25 billion euro plan ($28 billion USD) simply to pay farmers to raise fewer animals. But without addressing the root of the concern increasing demand for animal protein such a policy is likely just to shift the environmental harms of animal agriculture from Holland to somewhere else, like the Amazon rainforest.

Congress members like Khanna and DeLauro are proposing a smarter and much more cost-effective way. Rather than spending tens of billions of dollars paying farmers to raise fewer animals, why not just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund R&D into creating meat-type experiences without animals? After all, were funding research into methods of producing energy without fossil fuels; its time to do the same with producing protein without factory farms.

While its still a drop in the bucket compared to what the USDA spends supporting animal agriculture (for example, half a billion dollars recently to increase U.S. slaughter capacity), this kind of federal support is starting to trickle toward the alt-protein sector. Nonprofits like the Good Food Institute have been instrumental in helping garner a $3.5 million National Science Foundation grant to UC-Davis to study cultivated meat (real meat grown from animal cells) and a $10 million USDA grant to Tufts to do the same.

Former USDA secretaries from both Republican and Democratic administrations seem enthusiastic about such promising new technology that could help satisfy humanitys meat-tooth in a far more efficient and sustainable way.

For example, former Trump administration Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue noted that weve got new technology with stem cell protein growth there. While some people may be anxious about taking their markets, shouldnt we in the United States be about how we can grow and feed people more efficiently and more effectively these techniques need to be embraced, not kept out of.

Similarly, former Clinton administration Ag Secretary Dan Glickman found common ground with his Republican counterpart when he observed that cellular agriculture may supplement conventional agriculture, and concluded about such technology that innovation offers a variety of additional ways to feed a hungry and growing world.

The United States has already fallen behind Asia in the production of clean energy technologies such as solar panels and lithium ion batteries. We can still be a leader when it comesto the clean protein that will be needed to sustainably feed humanity meat into the future. With the right kind of R&D incentives to those seeking to recreate the meat experience without such a heavy hoofprint on the planet, the federal government can help the U.S. maintain our leadership as a meat basket to the world.

Paul Shapiro is the CEO of The Better Meat Co. and the author of Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World.

View post:
With soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research | TheHill - The Hill

Global Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product, Molecule, Cell type, Application, End-user, and Region – Forecast to 2026 – Yahoo Finance UK

Dublin, Dec. 30, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product (System, 2D, 3D Media Bag, Filtration Assemblies), Molecule (mAbs, Vaccine), Cell type (Mammalian, Bacteria), Application (R&D, Process Development), End User (Biopharma, CROs & CMOs) - Global Forecast to 2026" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global single-use bioreactors market is projected to reach USD 8.8 billion by 2026 from USD 3.4 billion in 2021, at a CAGR of 21.1% during the forecast period.

Increasing adoption of SUBs among small companies and startups, reduced automation complexity, ease in the cultivation of marine organisms, reduced energy and water consumption, the growing biologics market, technological advancements in SUBs, and increasing Biopharmaceutical R&D are factors driving the growth of this market.

By type, the stirred-tank SUBs segment accounted for the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market

The single-use bioreactors market is categorized into major four types, wave-induced SUBs, stirred-tank SUBs, bubble-column SUBs, and other bioreactors. The stirred-tank SUBs segment dominated the single-use bioreactors market in 2020. The large share of this segment can be attributed to factors such as the high preference for stirred-tank SUBs in the cultivation of aerobic microbial cultures due to its ability to provide greater oxygen transfer and reduced engineering challenges such as heat removal, mass transfer, and higher agitation rates.

Asia Pacific: The fastest-growing region in the single-use bioreactors market

The Asia Pacific market is projected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period, mainly due to the growing biopharmaceutical industry, increasing life science research, rising investments by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and the growing number of CROs and CMOs in several APAC countries contribute to its growth.

North America: the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market

Story continues

North America accounted for the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market. Factors such as to the presence of an established biopharmaceutical industry and the presence of major players operating in the single-use bioreactors market in the region are the major factors driving the market growth.

Research Coverage

The report segments the single-use bioreactors market based on region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East & Africa), products (Single-use bioreactor systems (up to 10L, 11-100L, 101-500L, 01-1500L, above 1500L), single-use media bags (2D bags, 3D bags, other bags), single-use filtration assemblies, and other products), type (Stirred-tank SUBs, wave-induced SUBs, bubble-column SUBs, and other SUBs), Type of Cell (Mammalian cells, bacterial cells, yeast cells, and other cells), Molecule Type (Monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, gene-modified cells, stem cells, and other molecules), application (Research & development, process development, and bioproduction), end users (Pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, CROs and CMOs, and academic & research institutes).

The report also provides a comprehensive review of market drivers, challenges, and opportunities in the single-use bioreactors market.

Market Dynamics

Drivers

Increasing Adoption of Subs Among Small Companies and Startups

Reduced Automation Complexity

Ease in the Cultivation of Marine Organisms

Reduced Energy and Water Consumption

Growing Biologics Market

Technological Advancements in Subs

Increasing Biopharmaceutical R&D

Restraints

Opportunities

Patent Expiry

Emerging Markets

Challenges

Key Industry Trends

Increasing Focus of Single-Use Bioprocessing Capacities and Technological Competitiveness

Increasing Adoption of Single-Use Systems by Contract Manufacturing Organizations

Advent of Automation in Single-Use Bioreactors

Companies Profiled

ABEC

Able Corporation & Biott Corporation

Aptus Bioreactors

BBI-Biotech GmbH

Cell Culture Company

Cellexus

Celltainer Biotech BV

Cesco Bioengineering Co. Ltd.

Danaher Corporation

Distek, Inc.

Endel Engie

Eppendorf AG

G&G Technologies, Inc.

Getinge AB

GPC Bio

Meissner Filtration Products, Inc.

Merck Millipore

New Horizon Biotechnology Inc.

Omnibrx Biotechnologies

PBS Biotech, Inc.

Sartorius Stedim Biotech

Satake Chemical Equipment Mfg. Ltd.

Solida Biotech GmbH

Stobbe Pharma GmbH

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/wfowv6

Read more from the original source:
Global Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product, Molecule, Cell type, Application, End-user, and Region - Forecast to 2026 - Yahoo Finance UK