39 minute read
WORLDWIDE NEWS
Schematic representation of M6A modifications (blue) attaching to RNA in the liver. CREDIT: Sallam Lab/UCLA
Advertisement
A chemical modification that occurs in some RNA molecules as they carry genetic instructions from DNA to cells’ protein-making machinery may offer protection against non-alcoholic fatty liver, which can lead to advanced liver disease, according to a new study by UCLA researchers. The study, conducted in mice, also suggests that this modification – known as m6A, in which a methyl group attaches to an RNA chain – may occur at a different rate in females than it does in males, potentially explaining why females tend to have higher fat content in the liver.
The researchers found that without the m6A modification, differences in liver fat content between the sexes were reduced dramatically. In addition, in a preclinical model, the investigators demonstrated that gene therapy can be used to enhance or add modifications to key RNAs to slow down or reduce the severity of liver disease. The authors compared the effects of diets with differing fat contents to assess the effects of the modifications on fatty liver disease. In addition, they used measurements from human patients who had undergone liver biopsies during bariatric surgery to correlate markers of m6A RNA modifications with liver fat content and inflammation.
In recent years, scientists have identified hundreds of chemical modifications like m6A that can occur in RNA molecules, altering the RNA’s instructions for making proteins without affecting the core DNA. Some modifications can be beneficial, as in the case of liver disease; others can have a detrimental effect. A key question moving forward is how genetic and environmental factors affect the body’s natural ability to create RNA modifications. Because m6A appears to act as a protective checkpoint that slows the accumulation of fat in the liver, the investigators hope their findings will spur future research on the development of therapies to enhance chemical modifications as a way to protect against liver disease and similar disorders. The study was published this summer in the journal Nature Metabolism.
CLIMATE CHANGE THREATENS FISHERIES
Millions of people could face an increased risk of malnutrition as climate change threatens their local fisheries. New projections examining more than 800 fish species in more than 157 countries have revealed how two major, and growing, pressures – climate change and overfishing – could impact the availability of vital micronutrients from our oceans. Analyses by an international team from the U.K. (led by scientists from Lancaster University), the University of B.C. and the Ocean Frontier Institute at Dalhousie University (featured in the 35th anniversary issue of BioLab Business) reveal that climate change threatens the supply of vital micronutrients from fisheries in 40 percent of countries. An article about the study was published by Current Biology.
Countries among those whose fisheries micronutrient sources are at risk from climate change tend to be tropical nations and include East Asian and Pacific countries such as Malaysia, Cambodia and Indonesia, as well as SubSaharan African countries such as Mozambique and Sierra Leone. These countries are also less resilient to disruptions of their fisheries by climate change because they strongly rely on fisheries and have limited societal capacity to adapt. A key reason for why climate change is such a threat comes down to the species of fish that the countries are targeting as part of their catches.
Professor William Cheung, co-author from the University of British Columbia, said: “As well as highlighting the growing threat of climate change to the food security of millions of people, our study also offers hope for the future. Armed with nutritional information about different fish species, many countries have the capacity to adapt their fisheries policies to target different more resilient fish species. By doing this, these nations can ensure a more reliable supply of micronutrients for their people.” This research was funded by the European Research Council, the Royal Society, the Leverhulme Trust and NSERC Canada.
WILL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE FUEL THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
As early as the Neolithic period, the domestication of animals likely led to the development of diseases including measles and smallpox. Since then, zoonotic disease has led to other major transnational outbreaks including HIV, Ebola, SARS, MERS and H1N1 swine flu, among others. Currently, more than half of all existing human pathogens, and almost threequarters of emerging infectious diseases, are zoonotic in nature. COVID-19 is the latest and most impactful zoonotic event of the modern era, but it will certainly not be the last. Preventing future pandemics suggests re-examining the current global food system – in the name of protecting public health.
In an article published in the journal Food Ethics, the authors – Florida Atlantic University’s Justin Bernstein, Ph.D., and co-author Jan Dutkiewicz, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow at Concordia University – offer three plausible solutions to mitigate zoonotic risk associated with intensive animal agriculture. They explore incentivizing plant- and cellbased animal source food alternatives through government subsidies, disincentivizing intensive animal source food production through the adoption of a “zoonotic tax” and eliminating intensive animal source food production through a total ban.
“Modern medicine has not only failed to catch up to the zoonotic threat, but in some ways is losing ground, due in part to growing global antibiotic resistance. So, from a public health ethics perspective, we should assess measures aimed at mitigating zoonotic risks,” said Bernstein, whose expertise focuses on questions in moral and political philosophy and bioethics, and the intersection of the two. “This is especially the case with systemic, predictable sources of zoonotic risk such as agriculture and food production. We argue that if the government may protect public health generally, then this permission extends to radically altering current animal agricultural practices.”
Associate Professor Clarissa Schwab, Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Aarhus University. CREDIT: Ida Jensen, AU Foto
NEW RESEARCH INTO NATURAL FOOD PRESERVATION
Associate Professor Clarissa Schwab, from the Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering at Aarhus University in Denmark, recently received a grant worth more than $2 million from the Novo Nordisk Foundation for her research project, BioFunc, which aims to improve sustainability in the preservation of food products. The project focuses on using natural biological preservation methods rather than chemical preservatives.
“Worldwide, approximately 30 percent of the food produced is lost, and the biggest cause is spoilage by bacteria and fungi,” says Schwab. Biological preservation using microbes is not exactly a new concept. Favourable microbes and the bio-preserving substances have been used for thousands of years, and natural methods of food preservation have become more popular among consumers. More than 50 percent of Europeans are concerned about the use of preservatives in foods and want natural alternatives (Eurobarometer 394).
“There are a lot of different organic acids, but it is still not entirely clear why and how these organic acids inhibit microbes, and which organic acids work best in a particular food product,” says Schwab, who explains that one of the main aims of the project is to achieve a far better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms behind these processes. Another purpose of the project is to examine which organic acids are most active and under what conditions, and to develop a proof-of-concept for a bio-preservative system that can significantly enhance food safety and reduce food waste.
AN EPIDEMIC OF FOOD WASTE
An estimated 931 million tonnes of food, or 17 percent of total food available to consumers in 2019, went into the waste bins of households, retailers, restaurants and other food services, according to new UN research conducted to support global efforts to halve food waste by 2030. The weight roughly equals that of 23 million fully loaded 40-tonne trucks – enough to circle the Earth bumper-to-bumper seven times.
The Food Waste Index Report 2021, from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and partner organization WRAP (one of the U.K.’s top five environmental charities), looks at food waste that occurs in retail outlets, restaurants and homes – counting both food and inedible parts like bones and shells. The report presents the most comprehensive food waste data collection, analysis and modelling to date, and offers a methodology for countries to measure food waste. More than 150 food waste data points were identified in 54 countries.
The report finds that in nearly every country that has measured food waste, it was substantial, regardless of income level. It shows that most of this waste comes from households, which discard 11 percent of the total food available at the consumption stage of the supply chain. Food services and retail outlets waste five percent and two percent, respectively. On a global per capita-level, 121 kg of consumer-level food is wasted each year, with 74 kg of this happening in households. This also means that eight to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food that is not consumed, when losses before consumer level are taken into account. To build on the work of the report, UNEP will launch regional working groups to help build countries’ capabilities to measure food waste in time for the next round of reporting in late 2022. Over two decades, while the rate of hospital admissions in the U.K. increased dramatically due to food-induced anaphylaxis, the death rate for the same cause halved, according to research published by The BMJ. Food allergy is the commonest cause of potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis. While substantial increases in hospital admissions due to food anaphylaxis have been reported globally, it is unclear whether this trend is continuing, and if it is, whether this has led to an increase in fatal reactions. To explore this further, researchers from Imperial College London’s National Heart & Lung Institute studied U.K. data between 1998 and 2018, measuring time trends, age and sex distributions for anaphylaxis admissions due to food and non-food triggers, and then compared these with reported fatalities.
Between 1998 and 2018, 101,891 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis. Of these admissions, 30,700 (30 percent) were coded as due to a food trigger. Food anaphylaxis admissions showed an annual increase of 5.7 percent, with the largest increase seen in children younger than 15 years (an annual increase of 6.6 percent). Over the 20-year period, 152 deaths were identified where the fatal event was probably caused by food-induced anaphylaxis; the fatality rate decreased from 0.7 to 0.19 percent for confirmed fatal food anaphylaxis, and to 0.3 percent for suspected fatal food anaphylaxis. At least 46 percent of all deaths between 1992–2018 were triggered by peanuts or tree nuts, while cow’s milk was responsible for 26 percent of deaths in school-aged children. The data also showed that over the same time period, prescriptions for adrenaline autoinjectors increased by 336 percent – an increase of 11 percent per year. The researchers say that improvements in the recognition and management of anaphylaxis could partly explain the decrease in the case fatality rate despite increasing hospital admissions for anaphylaxis. No evidence exists to suggest that the clinical criteria used to diagnose anaphylaxis have changed in the U.K. over the study period, they add.
The researchers concluded: “Cow’s milk is increasingly identified as the culprit allergen for fatal food reactions, and is now the commonest cause of fatal anaphylaxis in children. More education is needed to highlight the specific risks posed by cow’s milk to people who are allergic to increase awareness among food businesses.” They add: “Further work is needed to assess the evidence for an age-related vulnerability to severe anaphylaxis in young adults.”
U.K. HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR FOOD-INDUCED ANAPHYLAXIS MORE THAN TRIPLE
THE RAPID EVOLUTION OF CULTURED MEAT
LAB-TO-FORK COULD BE THE NEXT BIG FOOD TREND
BY MARK JUHASZ
Arguably, we are in an unprecedented time for innovation in the food proteins sector. A broad array of factors is motivating consumers, and the industry alike, to find alternatives for animal-based proteins, from public and personal health concerns to awareness of the environmental impacts of industrialized animal agriculture and overfishing. Other factors such as regulation, financing and the politics of food are influencing a rapidly shifting market, which now hinges on the growing popularity of meat substitutes. We have more choices than ever between animal-based, plant-based and, soon, cultured proteins, including lab-grown dairy products.
As such, the food industry is undergoing a tremendous amount of new product development involving applied science, biotechnology and venture capitalism, in Canada and internationally. In 2013, a Dutch team led by Dr. Mark Post developed a lab-grown hamburger made from bovine stem cells, where the cost of the patty was estimated at approximately US$375,000.
According to an extensive study on cultured meat by consulting firm Kearney, “solutions for increasing the efficiency of conventional meat production have been almost exhausted,” and “all predominant innovations [in industrialized animal agriculture], including digitization… won’t overcome global agricultural and food challenges.” Large-scale livestock operations often are cited for cruel conditions and zoonotic transmission of serious afflictions such as SARS, swine flu and mad cow disease.
This March, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and Blue Horizon released a document entitled, Food for Thought: A Protein Transformation. The authors anticipate that Europe and North America will reach “peak meat” in 2025, at which point the consumption of conventional, animal-based meat will start to fall. The report also claims that by 2035, the annual market for animal-based alternatives (meat, eggs, dairy and seafood) will reach $290 billion.
Even if these projections are correct, what will be the feedstock source for the bioreactors that produce cultured meats? What are the implications for economies, communities and animal husbandry that are impacted by the movement toward animal-based alternatives? What are the job prospects for the cultured meat industry if it uses highly automated processes?
Despite the unanswered questions, many jurisdictions clearly are signalling a movement toward less meat consumption. In the U.K., schools and hospitals plan to implement a policy to serve 20 percent less meat, and health professionals are calling for a climate tax on meat. Last November, Singapore approved the sale of cultured meat for the first time. The authors of the BCG report claim that alternative proteins, including cultured meat, can contribute to supporting six UN sustainable development goals: zero hunger, good health and well-being, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water and life on land.
Competition and disruption in the meat alternatives category
One of the considerations for the cultured meat food sector will be the degree to which it displaces plant-based meat alternatives. How will consumers migrate toward cultured meat, especially if they are vegetarians or vegans?
More broadly, the global meat market in 2018 was estimated to be worth US$1 trillion according to Kearney, and by 2040, cultured meat could represent 35 percent of this market. Furthermore, the BCG study speculates that “nine out of 10 of the world’s favourite dishes will have a realistic meat alternative by 2035.” This will be dependant on matching the taste, texture and price of conventional meat products.
It is also evident that cultured meat, and its specific variations, will look different in different regions. For example, the Asia-Pacific region is more likely to indicate consumer approval. Israel is leading in cultured meat through a combination of private and public sector support, and in the past five years alone, a variety of companies have been established: Redefine Meat, SuperMeat, MeaTech, Aleph Farms and SavorEat. These developments are not being lost amid the conventional meat industry, where U.S. meat giants Tyson Foods and Cargill are investing in cultured companies such as Memphis Meats. Forty percent of leading food firms, including Kroger, Tesco and Unilever, now have dedicated teams developing conventional meat alternatives.
Investment is coming in a variety of forms and policies. The competition driving cultured meat companies is often for the innovative science behind the products. Canadian start-up Future Fields outline in a 2020 interview in Tech Crunch how “the next steps are more about iteration and commercialization to produce a [cultured meat] growth medium at scale and to do it 1,000 times cheaper.” Alternately, food startup BlueNalu is focused on simulated yellowtail fish, which is cultured in a serum-free solution containing plant proteins.
A recent article in Anthropocene magazine draws attention to a technical and ethical dilemma in the development of cultured meat. A form of “scaffolding” is required to provide a framework in which the food product is “grown” or produced in the bioreactor. Some food scientists have defaulted to gelatin derived from beef, which negates the “animal free” benefit. Scaffolds also are being made from algae, and a new finding discovered that spinach’s veiny structure can be ideal as scaffolding for cultured meat, while also being ready-formed, abundant and cost effective. These scientific challenges are what the newly established Cellular Agriculture Canada (CAC) organization seeks to address. According to its advocates, these novel foods would be regulated by Health Canada’s Food Directorate, and CAC writes, “We believe it is crucial to start a dialogue with regulators.”
Venture capital and financing in the cultured meat space
A recent CB Insights report shows that the majority of venture capital funding in 2020 is financing alternative protein companies. The list of venture funds is extensive and includes such names as Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson (DFJ), Atomico, Eat Beyond Global, Finistere Ventures and Big Idea Ventures. The BCG report adds that “investors with the right vision and expertise can fund the transformation and participate in every step of the value chain.”
When speaking to The Guardian this spring, the policy manager at the Good Food Institute Europe, Acacia Smith, said that “the cultivated meat sector had a record-breaking year in 2020, but that much of this progress has been happening outside of Europe.” In 2019, U.S.-based Big Idea Ventures launched its New Protein Fund, and companies chosen for funding include an alternative version of Spanish cured ham, a cell-based bison jerky, Biftek (which is seeking to replace the use of controversial fetal bovine serum in producing cultured beef) and Peace of Meat, a B2B supplier of cultured animal fat. In Canada, Eat Beyond Global (EBG) claims to be the first investment fund of its kind focused on conventional meat alternatives while allowing retail investors to engage directly with brands. EBG also performs due diligence so that investors can support a company’s growth with less risk.
A major element in venture capital financing will be funding scale in production so that cost factors begin moving toward parity. According to the BCG report, cultured meats will reach conventional meat prices by the early 2030s. Cargill’s managing director of alternative proteins adds that “in the coming years, speed to parity [in terms of cost production] will be a key differentiator.” Recently, Israelbased Future Meat claimed to half the production costs of a four-ounce cultivated chicken breast from $7.50 to $4, and expects to drop production costs below $2 within 18 months.
Last spring, the New Scientist reported that “about 60 startups around the world are developing and improving on cultured meats.” Each of these companies needs to formulate a process by which to grow these special cells within a growth media, and with cellular scaffolding. A big challenge is scaling production to reduce costs, all within the right formulation. Different companies can have up to 100 ingredients in their products, including sugars, salts, amino acids, micronutrients and growth factors. Some companies are using animal byproducts, while others are seeking completely animal-free elements. For example, according to the New Scientist report, “culture media can cost hundreds of dollars per litre.” Companies are racing to develop the scaffolding and specialized bioreactors needed to scale up.
Consumer perception, marketing and terminology
One of the important aspects that the cultured meat industry will need to address is consumer perception and associated terminology for these products. Certainly, the broader food industry – especially critics – and those in the conventional meat sector will resist or be concerned with the use of the term “meat.” This has been an issue specific to milk, for example, where the dairy cow industry has been resistant to plant-based beverages using the “milk” moniker. The authors of the BCG study note that “the growth of the alternative protein market depends largely on consumer willingness to use these substitutes in their chosen diets, and that acceptance depends on [price] parity.” Last year, a step in this direction was the establishment of a concept restaurant called The Chicken, in Tel Aviv, Israel. Diners are seated in a room with a view of the bioreactor that makes their cultured chicken. Patrons do not pay, but provide feedback on the products, and according to a Fast Company article, “feedback from multiple tasting panels are consistent with conventionally manufactured chicken.”
The verdict is still out on the terminology for this new food category. Advocates for cultured meat, such as the Good Food Institute, are seeking to use the term “cultivated meat.” Other terms, depending on the proponent, have also included: lab-grown, cell-based, clean, slaughter-free, franken food or schmeat. The Good Food Institute is aware that “consumer acceptance starts long before someone walks into a grocery store or sits down to a meal at their local diner. It starts in the headlines, debates on social media and conversations that people have with their friends.”
The academic community is weighing in with consumer studies on perceptions of cultured meat. In a 2019 article for Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, a survey on “clean meat” in the U.S. and Asia found that there is significantly higher acceptance in Asia. The authors noted that when consumers encounter cultured meat through a “high tech” approach, they have significantly more negative attitudes toward the concept and are less likely to consume the product. Another study published last year in Trends in Food Science & Technology found that “the academic sector can play a vital role in understanding and communicating the science of cultured meat to the public.” Other research suggests that there may be generational differences in openness to trying cultured meats, and that academic and scientific research on consumer perceptions of this new food category can support a better understanding of product development, messaging and the likely adoption path of this food innovation.
In Canada, University of Guelph professor Simon Somogyi is leading a research group, along with Second Harvest and
CAC, to understand what retailers and consumers think about cellular agriculture. Somogyi explains, “There is a bit of a yuck factor, uncertainty and hesitancy about something that is very new and complicated.”
Speculation on the future of cultured meat, plant-based foods and animal agriculture
The 2019 study by Kearney on how cultured meat will disrupt the animal agriculture and food industry outlines eight essential criteria that will be required to lead the development of these new products. These are: input materials (the media required to grow and build these foods); conversion rates; product features (e.g. muscle-fat-nutrient ratios); scalability; consumer acceptance; ethics and sustainability; regulatory approval; and venture capital. Undoubtedly, this is a busy space. The business prospects are clearly attractive if these ventures and companies meet scale, with products that have appealing taste, price and presentation. Scientists are asking the technical questions about product DREAM. GROW. THRIVE. structure, while food engineers are developing the bioreactors required to turn prototypes into working models. Amid all this enthusiasm, there also are critical perspectives to consider. In Forbes last year, the research director for the Food Futures Lab at the Institute for the Future, Max Elder, noted, “I worry most startups in the cultured meat space are overestimating their short-term timeline to get to market, and underestimating their potential long-term impact on completely redesigning our food system from the cell level up.” Cultured meat is not without its critics, never mind the serious concerns from the industrial animal agriculture industry. Last year, an article in Frontiers in Nutrition, “The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review,” drew attention to the You’re invested unclear nutritional composition of cultured meats, and the implications in your business for plant-based alternatives. The authors referenced how consumers often dislike “unnatural” foods, and So are we how some animals will still need to be reared to harvest cells for production Partner with the only lender 100% of cultured meat; however, there are invested in Canadian food. already companies trying to eliminate this aspect. 1-800-387-3232 | fcc.ca/Food Furthermore, with the offerings of cultured food products, what are the religious implications for Kosher or Halal diets? In this rapidly developing sector, there are many questions – and many possibilities – that will have sweeping implications for human food consumption in this decade, and far beyond.
Dr. Daniel Drucker
Exploring the mechanics of digestive hormones leads to a Gairdner Award
BY JANA MANOLAKOS
This is a story of the relentless pursuit of new knowledge, driven by observation, collaboration and hope. It’s almost epic in some ways, but quiet champions like Dr. Daniel Drucker probably wouldn’t classify it that way. The endocrinologist is a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto (UofT) and senior scientist at Sinai Health’s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute. He is also a winner of the 2021 Canada Gairdner International Award, along with two of his colleagues, Joel Habener of Harvard Medical School and Jens Holst of the University of Copenhagen.
It’s an honour bestowed on them for their work with previously unfamiliar hormones – glucagon-like peptides (GLP-1 and GLP-2) – which they found help maintain healthy sugar levels in our blood. The team’s work also led to the development of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The decades-long research opened the door to lifesaving drugs for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, obesity and bowel disorders that affect millions of people worldwide.
Every year, seven winners are selected for the Gairdner, each receiving $100,000. Almost a quarter of them go on to win Nobel prizes.
“The path to commercial success and the introduction of a drug to the clinic is not always a rapid, straightforward journey,” explains Drucker, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Regulatory Peptides and the Banting and Best Diabetes Centre – Novo Nordisk Chair in Incretin Biology. “There are all kinds of challenges to be met, and it can be a long and difficult process. But many things in life are like that.”
Indeed, the work for which the trio was recognized represents four decades of research, eventually leading to the development of several new classes of drugs for treating more than 100 million people worldwide. These unique peptides are released by the lining of the intestines and act to control insulin and glucagon for the management of sugar levels in the body. Smaller than proteins, peptides play key roles in regulating the activities of other molecules. Drucker, Holst and Habener identified GLP-1 and -2, observing and classifying their molecular and physiological effects in cells and animals, and applying their discovery in human studies.
“GLP-1 therapies have really advanced our treatment for diabetes and metabolic disorders, and GLP-2 can effectively address a huge unmet need in people with intestinal failure,” notes Drucker.
Based on his work, effective medications like Trulicity and Ozembic became available in Canada in the last few years. These mimic GLP-1 and GLP-2, so that when sugar levels rise after someone has eaten, the drugs trigger the secretion of insulin. Worldwide, millions of people with Type 2 diabetes have benefitted from either GLP-1 analogue or a DPP-4 inhibitor, another class of drugs that supports GLP-1 and GLP-2 functions in the body. Drugs based on GLP-2 can improve nutrient absorption in people with short-bowel syndrome, eliminating the need for intravenous feeding in some patients. GLP-1-based drugs show promise as cardio-protective agents and may help against non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and dementia.
Beyond the simple joy Drucker finds while working alongside other great minds – people like University of Toronto’s Charles Hollenberg, Gerard Burrow and Patricia Brubaker, as well as his colleagues, Habener and Holst – he is also fascinated by the human body’s ability to produce hormones in the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract and the brain. The story began in 1984, when the Montreal-born Drucker worked as a research fellow at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, studying molecular endocrinology.
“I loved the simplicity of the endocrine system – too much or not enough hormone is easy to understand – and I was excited that many endocrine disorders are not that difficult to diagnose and treat, often with excellent clinical outcomes,” he explains. In the mid-1980s, Drucker joined Habener’s team as a post-doctoral researcher, helping to detail the biological function and systemic effects of glucagon-like peptides that Habener had discovered. His discovery was based on work by Holst, who had identified a type of glucagon in blood that originated in the gut but was different from glucagon made in the pancreas.
Holst made the initial observation that patients who had undergone intestinal surgery experienced a rise in insulin, followed by a drop in blood sugar after eating – an early sign of links between the gut, sugar levels and the pancreas, which is the main site of insulin and glucagon production.
The scientists later observed that gut cells release GLP-1 into the blood in response to food – increasing insulin release in the pancreas and tempering glucagon, while also slowing digestion and decreasing appetite, a promising discovery for the treatment of obesity.
Together with Patricia Brubaker in UofT’s Department of Physiology and Department of Medicine, Drucker worked on the role GLP-2 plays in supporting the growth and health of intestinal cells that enable food absorption, which led to a new treatment for short-bowel syndrome.
Subsequent work on a chemical that inhibits gut hormones yielded another class of drug called DDP-4 inhibitors. Both classes of drugs help people with diabetes lower their blood sugar without causing weight gain or hypoglycemia, side effects of previous generations of drugs.
As both a physician and a scientist, Drucker believes much of his success lies in asking research questions with medical relevance. “I’m a clinician-scientist, and I probably know far more clinical medicine than I do science, to my embarrassment, but I’ve always kept one eye on unmet clinical needs and chosen research experiments accordingly,” he explains.
“For a physician, there’s nothing better than every day doing something that may improve the health of someone. For me, to actually see decades of work translate into medicines that actually make a difference, that the GLP-1 drugs do things that the other medicines don’t do, [that’s a great feeling].”
Commercialization isn’t a primary driver for Drucker. “We study basic mechanisms of hormone action. We do not set out initially to design our experiments with a view towards discovering an invention,” he admits. “We do the science, we hope that we ask good questions and we hope that our findings are novel and of interest. When we make observations or discoveries, we always have a little light on that says, beyond the pure joy and satisfaction of understanding how this works, might this be relevant to treatment of human disease, and might this have commercialization potential?”
On the 10th floor of Mount Sinai Hospital in downtown Toronto, Drucker often can be found glued to his computer in a nondescript office, pouring over reports and studies, or
wearing a white coat in his lab among benches, a jumble of tubes, banks of refrigerators and analyzers. Over decades of seeking answers, he’s relied on highly sensitive equipment to point the way. The most stalwart has been the Mettler Toledo balance. “Our research is not very sophisticated, and we often make fascinating discoveries by weighing animals and their organs’ hormone administration, like body weight loss or intestinal growth,” Drucker explains.
As a standard bearer for the Gairdner Award, Drucker encourages young people to pursue STEM fields. “I can’t think of a better place to put yourself in, to be able to lead the health and prosperity of your nation, while having a great time, constantly learning new things, being very productive and being challenged and excited,” he says. Drucker believes the global pandemic has made the need to engage and support young researchers even more relevant than before. To young scientists, he says, “Stay focused, rigorous, persistent, committed and patient. Solid important science ultimately triumphs, but not overnight.”
So, what needs to happen to encourage future scientific discovery and build the country’s reputation as a global leader in the innovation space? Drucker explains, “Canada has wonderful scientific talent and very good infrastructure, yet as a nation, we seriously under-invest in funding scientific research, relative to our economic peers. We also have a less developed pharmaceutical biotechnology sector, for various reasons, and no philanthropic organizations to rival those operating in other countries, so it is a challenging environment right now for Canadians in science to maintain an internationally competitive program.” At a time when every nation is recognizing the importance of their scientific communities, Drucker is among the leaders we should listen to.
USask computer scientist Ian Stavness (right) and his team in a plant greenhouse. (Photo: University of Saskatchewan)
Engineering Biology Agri-food Innovation Centre
IN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA’S NEWEST BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTRE IS WORLD-CLASS
It isn’t easy to improve on nature, but a new engineering biology hub at the University of Saskatchewan’s Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) has received funding to take up the challenge. With an investment of $3.2 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), GIFS is launching a one-of-a-kind research and innovation centre and biomanufacturing facility dedicated to the agri-food sector and food security. The federal funding will augment the $9.2 million price tag for the facility, which opens its doors to researchers, entrepreneurs and students in the coming months.
The Engineering Biology Agri-food Innovation Centre has the potential to transform what consumers eat, the medicines they take and the fuels they use. It will foster the type of advances in engineering biology that are contributing to the global bio-economy.
When the new facility at the University of Saskatchewan (USask) was announced, Vice-President of Research Dr. Baljit Singh said, “This new centre will establish the University of Saskatchewan as the national node for engineering biology applications in agriculture and food that will accelerate science and innovation to support and grow our agri-food sector. Using automation and other emerging technologies, our researchers will harness the power of biology to design more nutritious and sustainable crop varieties and food products.”
The funding will be used for critical infrastructure including robots, computers, cell culture systems and other equipment for the centre. “We’re using it to purchase equipment that will enable the engineering biology platform. Engineering biology is a critical enabler to the global bioeconomy,” stated Steve Webb, GIFS executive director and CEO. He is also a member of the National Engineering Biology Steering Committee, which is helping drive the influx of engineering biology in Canada. Last November the committee released a white paper, “Engineering Biology – A platform technology to fuel multi-sector economic recovery and modernize bio-manufacturing in Canada.”
The new centre is similar to Concordia University’s Centre for Applied Synthetic Biology, which focuses mainly on health applications. “The planning stage for the project was relatively short,” explains Webb. “Consultation with researchers on campus and industry within the agri-food ecosystem demonstrated the real need and demand for its capability. It integrates across various verticals and horizontally into other business areas – health, manufacturing, etc.”
Rapidly growing innovation with ancient roots
Historically, far more rudimentary forms of biomanufacturing and bioengineering technologies existed as early as 5,000 years ago, when the Mesopotamians first fermented lactobacillus bacteria to make yogurt and the ancient Egyptians used yeast to cause bread to rise and beer to bubble.
Today, engineering biology is an exploding field that combines genomics and molecular biology with highperformance computing, automation and artificial intelligence, unleashing the power to transform what we eat, medicines we take – like COVID vaccines – and the fuels we use. A May 2020 report from the McKinsey Global Institute, The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies and our lives, estimates engineering biology could have a global economic impact of up to $4 trillion in the next 10 to 20 years, with more than a third of this growth in the agrifood area.
In the coming months, more than 20 researchers will set up shop in the 10,000-sq.ft. lab space, with access to platforms for advanced computational and genomics support. They’ll be exploring such areas as climate change–resilient canola varieties, new ingredients and flavours for pulsebased meat alternatives, and nonanimal enzyme alternatives for the dairy industry.
“Engineering biology integrates automation, biology and computation – the ‘ABC’ approach – to advance research and new product development by accelerating the design-build-testand-learn cycle, beyond the reach of traditional approaches,” explains Webb.
USask plant scientist Tim Sharbel believes that engineering biology will enable researchers to advance the application of genomics to agriculture. “We can now identify important genes, but translating this into something that’s useful to industry and beneficial to society is a gap that’s been very difficult until now,” he explains. Significant automation and computational power is required to enable the rapid production and testing of thousands of gene and protein variants, for the development of new products and plant varieties.
For USask pharmacy researcher Jane Alcorn, the lab will enable creating compounds to discover new drug candidates. USask nutrition researcher Carol Henry will use new protein variants produced at the facility to improve the nutritional quality of foods, while agricultural researcher Bobbi Helgason is looking to enhance plant-microbial interactions that help plants with stress tolerance. Key researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the National Research Council and the private sector also will use the facility. In the coming months, more than 20 researchers will set up shop in the 10,000-sq.ft. lab space, Investing in powerful automation and with access to platforms for machine learning advanced computational “We’re talking about automation and machine learning. This is something and genomics support. that we need to recognize...is a great investment. Countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, the European Union and Singapore have all been investing in this,” Webb commented in a CFI news release. He adds, “It’s really about being able to harness the power of automation, miniaturization, computational power and biology to create new and better tools and technologies – things like herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, new plant varieties – even faster, and new seed treatments based on microbial treatments. There’s so The Engineering Biology much we can give to farmers with this technology.” Agri-food Innovation Centre The centre’s technology platform – comprising separate has the potential to transform “suites” for engineering biology, what consumers eat, the proteomics and genomics, and metabolomics (the study of small medicines they take and the molecules in an organism) – will fuels they use. be integrated into the workflow of GIFS’s existing technology platforms, which include the Omics and Precision Agriculture Laboratory (OPAL), Data Management and Analytics, and Cell Biology. “GIFS and the Global Institute for Water Security partner with the University of Saskatchewan through Copernicus, a general purpose, high-performance computing infrastructure,” Webb explains. “Through this system, GIFS has storage and computing capacity available for use. GIFS leverages this capacity for its technology platforms and science programs, including OPAL and its imaging technologies. GIFS’s biomanufacturing facility will represent its own storage and computational node in the Copernicus environment.” Designed for efficient workflow, the facility will use a range of standard laboratory robots. Among these, there are automated liquid handling platforms, like the Agilent Bravo and TECANS robotic systems for dispensing liquids, colony pickers that automate the process of isolating colonies or species so they can be identified, and the KingFisher Flex, a lab instrument used for extracting and purifying DNA, RNA, protein and cells from a large number of samples.
Essential collaborations
Webb says academic and industry researchers will be able to order the DNA, RNA, peptides and other proteins they need for their studies from the centre’s bio-manufacturing facility, or “biofoundry.” The research will be proprietary to GIFS and its clients; however, the engineering biology technology platform will be integrated into the emerging Canadian engineering biology network.
“What GIFS develops and uses will fit the national and international standards for foundries, and the institute will have an unencumbered path to market,” explained Webb. As the centre continues to ramp up, the foundry is expected to begin operating again in the next 12 months.
Collaboration is key for the centre, which looks to work with other Canadian universities that have biofoundries, as well as with industry and international partners such as the U.S., U.K., Australia and Singapore. Moving forward, GIFS will continue to engage the National Engineering Biology Steering Committee and its network of key players in the space, like Ontario Genomics, the National Research Council of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Concordia University, the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto, McMaster University and other experts in bringing core biotechnologies forward and products to market. The group created a technology roadmap for promoting engineering biology as a national opportunity to advance Canada’s knowledge-based economy and create high-quality jobs and training opportunities. It will also ensure that Canadian biotechnology companies and manufacturers don’t get left behind in the rapidly growing global market.
OPTIMIZING VACCINATION WORKFLOWS
Pharmapod’s Clinical Services app streamlines the end-to-end process for patients and those administrating the vaccine, allowing individuals to easily book their vaccine (via any device), complete their eligibility criteria and provide details of any side-effects that have occurred – with the data flowing securely from patient to administrating organization and to national governmental organizations, where required. By simplifying the entire process, the solution promotes vaccine uptake, minimizes the time required to administer each vaccine and provides critical sideeffect trend data, enabling corrective actions, if necessary. pharmapodhq.com
GAMECHANGING DEVICE LETS ELECTRONIC PIPETTES COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER
Eppendorf recently introduced its VisioNize pipette manager, a potential gamechanger for digitalized manual pipetting. The system is ideal for scientists who manage high workloads and require many intricate pipetting steps. The VisioNize pipette manager acts as a control panel and communicates with connected electronic pipettes from Eppendorf, boosting speed, accuracy, efficiency and collaboration. It can be used to quickly enter volumes, immediately transferring all settings to the connected electronic pipettes. The integrated software provides guidance to ensure accuracy when working with different liquid types. Conventional tablets also can be connected alongside the electronic pipettes to work in parallel. eppendorf.com
Distributed through Avantar’s VWR delivery channel, the PHCbi MPR series pharmaceutical refrigerators offer a complete, integrated solution for achieving strict and regulated storage temperatures for pharmaceuticals, medicines, vaccines and other temperature-sensitive biological samples. The slim front-to-back design and optional sliding shelves allow for ergonomic, accessible retrieval. A highly efficient hermetic compressor provides efficient cooling and maintains set temperature levels. Defrosting is performed automatically during compressor “off” cycles by sensing frost, and the defrosting heater also acts as an emergency heat source to prevent samples from freezing in extremely low ambient temperature conditions (below 0°C). phchd.com
COMPACT PHOTOREACTOR COMES WITH SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE
The ThalesNano PhotoCube Series is the first professional photoreactor in the world that is available as a self-assembly kit as well. Various customized configurations can be applied to a diverse set of batch, flow, stop-flow and CSTR photochemical reactions. Options for multicolour and UV LEDs enable the users to apply up to 7+1 wavelengths simultaneously for a wide range of chemical applications. Reactions can be carried out in the same instrument with a range of UV to red lights in an effective and easy manner. The compact and flexible design, combined with high performance, makes this modular product series unique. thalesnano.com
HARD-TO-REMOVE SOILS ARE NO MATCH FOR THESE ANALOG ULTRASONIC CLEANERS
Cole-Parmer analog ultrasonic cleaners feature simple controls with superior cleaning technology. They offer heating temperatures from 30–80°C, in 5° increments, with a rotary dial and can operate continuously or in timed runs. Sweeping waves ensure even sound distribution throughout the bath at 37 kHz. A pulse mode option increases ultrasonic power for tougher soils and pastes. For safety, there’s an auto-shutoff after continuously running for eight hours, or if bath temperature exceeds 90°C. A sealed display and elevated feet protect against splashes and spills. Baths with capacities above one gallon also feature a side-mounted drain for easy emptying and cleaning. coleparmer.ca
LIST OF ADVERTISERS & WEBSITES
Bio Talent Page 2................................................................. www.biotalent.ca/essential Government of Saskatchewan Page 5 .................................. www.thinksask.ca/invest Ag-West Bio Page 9.....................http://www.abic.ca/pages/abic_speaker_series.html FCC Page 18..........................................................................................www.fcc.ca/food CPDN Page 51............................................................................................ www.cpdn.ca
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY PROVIDES A SYSTEM APPROACH TO GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
Agilent Technologies recently unveiled its Agilent 8697 Headspace Sampler, the first headspace sampler with integrated gas chromatography communication. Advanced hardware features, such as a microchannelbased electronic pneumatic control module with atmospheric pressure compensation and valve-based sampling, allow for precision and performance. Customers also will have increased troubleshooting capabilities, more robust connections between the HS and GC system, and integrated instrument connectivity through the increased headspace-gas chromatography system intelligence. Removable sample racks can be exchanged while the device is operating to allow the addition of samples while the sequence is running. An isolated carrier flow path allows for alternate carrier gas use and safely vents vials. The system’s touch screen enables easy communication anywhere in the lab network. agilent.com
FIBRE ANALYZER IS FAST AND CONNECTED
The fully automatic analyzer for crude and detergent fibre determination needs minimal operator time and offers a unique user interface and cloud connectivity. All reagents are contained in dedicated glass tanks and bottles located inside the instrument. The analyzer preheats, dispenses and collects hot chemicals automatically so the risk of contact with the operator is eliminated. The VELP Ermes cloud platform enables operators to monitor and control the analyses from any location, avoiding routine instrument checks and data downloads. The seven-inch touchscreen display and the user interface developed by VELP make operations simple and smart. While the FIWE Advance comes with pre-installed methods, it also allows for customization. geneq.com
