News Article | April 19, 2017
Chromosomes undergo DNA repair to correct insults to our genetic code, caused either by errors in copying the DNA or by external factors such as exposure to radiation or toxins. Most damage gets accurately repaired, so the cell is unaffected, but some result in permanent errors (mutations or chromosome rearrangements) that may lead to diseases, including cancer. Especially dangerous are double-strand DNA breaks (DSB's) that sever the chromosome. The work was principally carried out by postdoctoral fellow Ranjith Anand with contributions by technician Annette Beach and physics Phd student Kevin Li. They examined repair of a double-strand break in yeast cells. When a DSB occurs, the cell needs to patch up the break by matching up the ends of the broken chromosome with similar DNA sequences located on an intact chromosome; the intact sequences can be used as a template to repair the break by DNA copying. To accomplish repair, the cell must be able to locate another chromosome with similar sequences to use as a template. Finding such a template is no easy task. Chromosomes are made up of base pairs—pairings of the molecules guanine and cytosine or adenine and thymine. (As you may remember from biology class, G goes with C and A with T). The end of the broken chromosome must be compared with millions of possible short DNA regions in order to find a chromosome with the same arrangement of base pairs. This search is mediated by the RAD51 protein, which promotes the matching up of the broken end with potential donor sequences. But how perfect does the match have to be? Ranjith Anand, the first author on the Nature paper, said this was one of the central questions that the Haber lab wanted to answer. They found that repair was still possible when every sixth base in a stretch of about 100 bases was different. Previous studies of RAD51 in the test tube had suggested that the protein had a much more stringent requirement for matching. That one of the six base pairs could be a mismatch surprised the scientists. The process "is permissive of mismatches during the repairing," says Anand, now an organism engineer at Ginkgo Bioworks in Boston. There was another big surprise in the lab's results. Researchers had thought that mismatches such as an adenine paired with a cytosine were corrected by what are called mismatch repair proteins such as MSH2 or MSH6 whereby the cytosine was removed and replaced by the properly-paired thymine. Instead, Haber and his fellow researchers found an enzyme called DNA polymerase delta serves this proofreading function. Explore further: How breaks in DNA are repaired More information: Ranjith Anand et al. Rad51-mediated double-strand break repair and mismatch correction of divergent substrates, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature22046
News Article | May 18, 2017
Ginkgo designs yeast for the production of cultured ingredients and currently has a portfolio of over 40 products under contract with 20 customers. "It's great to see a project go from conception with a customer, through design of the organism and process development, all the way to a 50,000 liter fermentation," said Jason Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks. "Robertet has been a great partner throughout this process and we look forward to building many more successful products together." From essential oils to cultured ingredients, Robertet has been a leader in natural ingredients for 167 years. "We are thrilled to be working with Ginkgo on the next generation of flavor and fragrance ingredients," commented Bob Weinstein, president of Robertet Ingredients and CEO of Robertet USA. "We're proud to have reached this milestone in commercial scale fermentation and to continue developing innovative ingredients in the future." This milestone comes on the heels of the news that earlier this week, Ginkgo was named 7th on CNBC's annual Disruptor 50 list, a compilation of forward-thinking companies with innovations that are changing the world. The company was recognized for its technology innovations in biology and ability to scale across consumer and industrial products, "enabling customers to grow rather than manufacture better products." More on the CNBC Disruptor 50 list can be found here. About Ginkgo Bioworks Headquartered in Boston, Ginkgo Bioworks uses the most advanced technology on the planet—biology—to grow products instead of manufacturing them. The company's technology platform is bringing biotechnology into consumer goods markets, enabling fragrance, cosmetic, nutrition, and food companies to make better products. For more information, visit www.ginkgobioworks.com. About Robertet Robertet is the world's leading source of natural, sustainable and organic ingredients. We are the only fragrance, flavor and ingredient company fully integrated at each step of the creation process, from the source ingredient to the final fragrance and flavor. Founded in 1850 in Grasse, France, Robertet continues to be privately owned and managed by the fourth and fifth generations of family members. Our passion for and unparalleled understanding of naturals, together with our creativity and market insight, allows us to provide our customers with world class innovation in scent and taste. www.robertet.com To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ginkgo-bioworks-and-robertet-announce-successful-commercial-scale-fermentation-of-flavor-and-fragrance-cultured-ingredient-300459584.html
News Article | May 20, 2017
WHAT is synthetic biology? This question has vexed synthetic biologists and journalists alike since the discipline was named at MIT more than 15 years ago. Is synthetic biology a technique? A goal? A state of mind? In her ethnography of the field, Synthetic, Sophia Roosth offers a useful answer. “Synthetic biologists, by a pragmatic definition, are people who identify as synthetic biologists… at a methodological level what unites this diverse cast of characters is sociology,” she says. The social life of synthetic biologists is just as important to understanding the field as its technical content; it’s the beliefs, ambitions and relationships of these people that make the field what it is. Roosth dives into the history, anthropology and peculiar society of synthetic biologists – of which I consider myself a member, having been trained in a synthetic biology lab across the river from the labs Roosth describes. Synthetic is a traditional anthropological monograph: there are chapters on religion, kinship, property, labour, the household and origin myths. Roosth grounds each chapter in her long-term engagement with the community, and her historical and theoretical analyses give insight into synthetic biologists’ beliefs, practices and language. In one chapter, she draws on queer kinship theory to analyse how synthetic biology is redrawing the tree of life; in another, she offers a Marxist explanation for how automation is accelerating and deskilling biotechnology work at companies like Amyris and Ginkgo Bioworks (where I work). Language is central throughout Synthetic, and a particular focus is laid on the oxymoron of the term “synthetic biology” itself. More than anything else, the word “synthetic” in this context confuses people. Interspersed between the book’s main chapters are interludes meditating on the word – how it has been used to describe textiles, styles of modern art, organic chemistry, electronic music, philosophical analysis and – in a different, 19th-century context – biology itself. These interludes suggest that synthetic biologists have a very particular idea of what knowledge is: something synthesised through construction rather than analysed through reduction. “It is the beliefs, ambitions, and relationships of these people that make synthetic biology what it is” Roosth’s analysis uncovers the origins and varied practices of the field, from early conversations about design, standards and the understandability of life at MIT in the early 2000s, to contemporary attempts to use “unnatural” techniques to revive extinct species and return the world to a more “natural” state, such as George Church’s goal of returning woolly mammoths to Siberia. Synthetic vividly captures the challenges of communication: how words like “design”, “engineering”, “creation”, “nature” and “species” are used and understood within the field, and how these understandings have shaped synthetic biology practices. In her analysis of labour, property and non-institutional biology, such as DIY bio labs, Roosth captures the changing and sometimes precarious nature of work as a biologist; something that is likely to resonate with many readers. Synthetic also reveals how the prevailing culture influences how scientists and engineers make sense of, and remake, the world. Fantastic promises and existential fears have been wrapped around synthetic biology. Practitioners are heard promising to remake life itself to cure disease and solve environmental challenges; nay-sayers warn of pandemics and genetic contamination. Underlying each promise, threat and experimental design are assumptions about what life is and what it should be. These assumptions are influenced by the culture in which synthetic biology emerges. Synthetic is a necessary book for making sense of that culture and the likely implications of its influence. In the aftermath of the March for Science in Washington DC last month, the role of politics and culture in science, and vice versa, is again under the microscope, and not just in the US. While scientists may strive for a science that is free of political prejudice and ideology, it is an ideal that few believe can be achieved, even if – as I rather doubt – it is something we should wish for. For all the rigour that goes into their making, science and technology are still things that human beings do, and as Roosth reminds us, humans are messy. We have opinions, passions and biases; we argue, we learn, we fall in and out of love. As a synthetic biologist, I’ve seen first-hand what may yet prove to be foundational debates about how life works and how it should work. I’ve also learned from anthropologists and historians like Roosth that to do good work, we can’t ignore our humanity or wipe away our history. Instead, we must work to more deeply understand the very human practice of science. Reading books like this one will help. This article appeared in print under the headline “Recreation myths”
News Article | May 24, 2017
In California, Amyris (AMRS) reported Q1 revenues of $13.0M compared with $8.8M for Q1 2016, and touted the “significant increase in product sales, primarily in the personal care and health and nutrition markets, offset by a slight decline in collaboration revenue.” Collaboration revenues contributed $4.7M and product sales added $8.3M for the quarter. As Jeff Osborne at Cowen & Co noted, “Amyris reported revenue of $13.0mn, well below our estimate of $37.1mn due to much lower collaboration payments than we had anticipated. Management has highlighted that these payments can be very lumpy in nature, and attributed the miss to a failed milestone payment from Ginkgo Bioworks. Gross Margin of 2% was well below our estimate of 40% due to the lower collaboration payments.” We liked one item more than anything. In Q1 2016, product sales were $5.2M and the cost of product sales were $11.2M, and a number of informed observers became alarmed that the company was losing money on every product produced, and that growth would be unsustainable. The company noted the concerns but said that future sales would arrive with stronger gross margins. So, let’s look at Q1 2017. And indeed, the company has staged a turnaround in that critical metric. In Q1 2017, product sales were $13.2M and the cost of product sales were $12.8M. IIt’s a rretunr to the kind of gross margins that company had achieved by Q3 2016 — but with a 50% jump in revenues. Long ways to go before the company is out the financial woods, but we may see here a turning point. The company recorded record quarterly Biossance sales following successful launch into Sephora with the brand delivering high growth and expected to drive much better than expected 2017 results — growing from approximately $500,000 in 2016 total retail sales to over $10 million expected for 2017 There wasn’t much insight offered regarding the Ginkgo situaiton, excepting that a mysterious milestone payment was missed — apparently, a huge one, because the miss on revenues compared to analyst expectations was almost $24M. Indeed, the scale-up news from the Ginkgo universe this past week went in a completely different direction. Ginkgo Bioworks and Robertet USA completed the commercial-scale fermentation of “a key flavor and fragrance ingredient” – which one, we don’t yet know. The specific scale was 50,000 liters. But think along the lines of rose oil ingredients and lactone ingredients — that’s the Robertet sector. Overall, Ginkgo has a portfolio of over 40 products under contract with 20 customers. The company highlighted three major developments that will positvely impact the company this year and next: “We are pleased with our continued execution delivering increased product sales and very healthy revenue growth for Amyris,” said John Melo, Amyris President & CEO. “We are very excited to join with Royal DSM to accelerate product sales in health and nutrition markets, deliver better performing products and accelerate market access. With their support and that of our investors we have significantly strengthened our balance sheet and the company’s foundation as a leading company in its sector.” Continued Melo, “Our product portfolio is growing at a faster rate than we expected within nutraceuticals, skin care and fragrance ingredients. We have evolved our business to predictable quarter on quarter product sales and continue to deliver on our strategic milestones for delivery of our collaboration revenue. While our competitors struggle to deliver material revenue and predictable growth we expect to deliver around $60 million of product revenue for 2017, or more than double from 2016, and we expect total revenue to be better than our 2017 plan. It’s the 5th consecutive quater of year on year product revemue growth, and the company is targeting $115-120M in revenue in 2017 and of that $60M is expected to come from product sales. In 2018, guidance is at $160M for product sales. All that’s the good news. Here’s the bad news, Amyris has been pushing back it’s time to $100M in revenue for some time. Back in May 2016 we heard from AMyris that it was “On track to execute 2016 business plan with expected non-GAAP revenue of $90-$105 million for the year.” The company ended up with $67M for the year — and with a $13M result in Q1, the company will need to average out at $33M per quarter to reach its $115M target in 2017. Needless to say, the next 90 days are perhaps the most important in the company’s lifespan. There’s a time for building the long-term future and there’s a time for delivering on stated goals. Wall Street may well be able to put the past in the past with all forgive if Amyris can break out and hit that $100M revenue threshold, and even with a strong second half, the company will need to reach something like $30M in Q2 revenue to maintain belief, given the 2016 miss.
News Article | May 12, 2017
This report studies Oil Seed Crop Protection in Global market, especially in North America, China, Europe, Southeast Asia, Japan and India, with production, revenue, consumption, import and export in these regions, from 2012 to 2016, and forecast to 2022. This report focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Adama Agricultural Solutions American Vanguard Corporation Arysta LifeScience BASF Bayer Bioworks Cheminova Chemtura AgroSolutions Dow DuPont FMC Corporation IsAgro Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha Marrone Bio Innovations Monsanto Natural Industries -Novozymes Nufarm Ltd Syngenta International Valent Biosciences Corp By types, the market can be split into Synthetic Pesticides Biopesticides By Application, the market can be split into Sunflower Rape Sesame Groundnut Linseed Safflower Others By Regions, this report covers (we can add the regions/countries as you want) North America China Europe Southeast Asia Japan India Global Oil Seed Crop Protection Market Professional Survey Report 2017 1 Industry Overview of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.1 Definition and Specifications of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.1.1 Definition of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.1.2 Specifications of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.2 Classification of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.2.1 Synthetic Pesticides 1.2.2 Biopesticides 1.3 Applications of Oil Seed Crop Protection 1.3.1 Sunflower 1.3.2 Rape 1.3.3 Sesame 1.3.4 Groundnut 1.3.5 Linseed 1.3.6 Safflower 1.3.7 Others 1.4 Market Segment by Regions 1.4.1 North America 1.4.2 China 1.4.3 Europe 1.4.4 Southeast Asia 1.4.5 Japan 1.4.6 India 2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Oil Seed Crop Protection 2.1 Raw Material and Suppliers 2.2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Oil Seed Crop Protection 2.3 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Oil Seed Crop Protection 2.4 Industry Chain Structure of Oil Seed Crop Protection 8 Major Manufacturers Analysis of Oil Seed Crop Protection 8.1 Adama Agricultural Solutions 8.1.1 Company Profile 8.1.2 Product Picture and Specifications 18.104.22.168 Product A 22.214.171.124 Product B 8.1.3 Adama Agricultural Solutions 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.1.4 Adama Agricultural Solutions 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.2 American Vanguard Corporation 8.2.1 Company Profile 8.2.2 Product Picture and Specifications 126.96.36.199 Product A 188.8.131.52 Product B 8.2.3 American Vanguard Corporation 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.2.4 American Vanguard Corporation 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.3 Arysta LifeScience 8.3.1 Company Profile 8.3.2 Product Picture and Specifications 184.108.40.206 Product A 220.127.116.11 Product B 8.3.3 Arysta LifeScience 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.3.4 Arysta LifeScience 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.4 BASF 8.4.1 Company Profile 8.4.2 Product Picture and Specifications 18.104.22.168 Product A 22.214.171.124 Product B 8.4.3 BASF 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.4.4 BASF 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.5 Bayer 8.5.1 Company Profile 8.5.2 Product Picture and Specifications 126.96.36.199 Product A 188.8.131.52 Product B 8.5.3 Bayer 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.5.4 Bayer 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.6 Bioworks 8.6.1 Company Profile 8.6.2 Product Picture and Specifications 184.108.40.206 Product A 220.127.116.11 Product B 8.6.3 Bioworks 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.6.4 Bioworks 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.7 Cheminova 8.7.1 Company Profile 8.7.2 Product Picture and Specifications 18.104.22.168 Product A 22.214.171.124 Product B 8.7.3 Cheminova 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.7.4 Cheminova 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.8 Chemtura AgroSolutions 8.8.1 Company Profile 8.8.2 Product Picture and Specifications 126.96.36.199 Product A 188.8.131.52 Product B 8.8.3 Chemtura AgroSolutions 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.8.4 Chemtura AgroSolutions 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.9 Dow 8.9.1 Company Profile 8.9.2 Product Picture and Specifications 184.108.40.206 Product A 220.127.116.11 Product B 8.9.3 Dow 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.9.4 Dow 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.10 DuPont 8.10.1 Company Profile 8.10.2 Product Picture and Specifications 18.104.22.168 Product A 22.214.171.124 Product B 8.10.3 DuPont 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Sales, Ex-factory Price, Revenue, Gross Margin Analysis 8.10.4 DuPont 2016 Oil Seed Crop Protection Business Region Distribution Analysis 8.11 FMC Corporation 8.12 IsAgro 8.13 Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha 8.14 Marrone Bio Innovations 8.15 Monsanto 8.16 Natural Industries -Novozymes 8.17 Nufarm Ltd 8.18 Syngenta International 8.19 Valent Biosciences Corp For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/1270936-global-oil-seed-crop-protection-market-professional-survey-report-2017
News Article | May 8, 2017
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Governor General’s Innovation Awards have recognized David Brown as an outstanding Canadian who is actively shaping our future. The young New Brunswick biotechnology entrepreneur’s innovative technology produces a natural biopolymer, chitosan, which is extracted from fungus and mushrooms and helps researchers to develop cancer therapeutics, gene delivery devices, antimicrobials and other pharmaceuticals. “Innovating means not being complacent with small and large issues facing society,” said Brown founder of Mycodev Group and co-founder of Chinova Bioworks. “There’s no doubt in my mind that innovation is a form of activism. I see the issues of polluting chemical processes and disease-causing food ingredients, and I can use innovation to effect change in a positive direction.” “Innovation is a primary driving force behind Canada’s prosperity, standard of living and quality of life,” said Julia Deans, CEO, Futurpreneur Canada, which has supported Brown’s entrepreneurial journey. “Futurpreneur supports young innovators like David with start-up financing, mentorship and resources so that they can contribute to an inclusive, compassionate Canada. On behalf of the entire team at Futurpreneur, I congratulate David on this well-deserved achievement.” Both the Governor General and Futurpreneur recognize that, in a competitive and interconnected world, innovation is fundamentally important to all Canadians and look to inspire entrepreneurial Canadian youth to foster an active culture of innovation that will have a transformative, positive impact meaningful impact on Canadian lives. “Today’s youth are in for a rough ride,” said Brown. “They need to secure their own future, however it best suits their goals in life. I strongly encourage everyone to look at innovation and entrepreneurship as a way to both have a fulfilling life and to spark change in society and the world.” Futurpreneur Canada has been fueling the entrepreneurial passions of enterprising young Canadians since 1996. We’re the only national, non-profit organization that provides financing, mentoring and support tools to aspiring business owners aged 18-39 – 10,000 to date. Our internationally recognized mentoring program matches young entrepreneurs with a business expert from a network of almost 3,000 volunteer mentors. Futurpreneur is a founding member of the G20 Young Entrepreneurs’ Alliance, the Canadian member of Youth Business International, and the Canadian host of Global Entrepreneurship Week.
Agency: GTR | Branch: Innovate UK | Program: | Phase: Collaborative Research & Development | Award Amount: 330.30K | Year: 2012
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
University of Massachusetts Amherst and Bioworks Inc. | Date: 2015-07-29
Methods for isolating circulating small RNAs, e.g., microRNA (miRNA), from plasma samples, e.g., that comprise using an alkaline phenol:chloroform extraction, and methods of use thereof, including for the detection, prognosis, and/or monitoring of disease in a subject.
Bioworks Inc. | Date: 2011-07-29
Methods of controlling plant diseases mediated by bacterial or fungal plant pathogens. The method comprises providing Streptomyces scopuliridis strain RB72 or an isolated protein or polypeptide comprising the amino acid of SEQ ID NO:1 and applying the Streptomyces scopuliridis strain RB72 or the isolated protein or polypeptide comprising the amino acid of SEQ ID NO:1 to plants or plant seeds under conditions effective to treat plant diseases mediated by bacterial or fungal plant pathogens. Also disclosed is a plant or plant seed treated by this method, a planting composition, and a method of enhancing growth.
Bioworks Inc. | Date: 2015-01-30
The combination of a Trichoderma virens species and a rhizosphere competent Trichoderma harzianum species is used to control plant diseases and enhance plant growth.