In this feature, I review newly-filed biotech patent applications published by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Comments are welcome. What do you think of the inventions? Are they useful? Commcerically viable? Should the patents be granted? Are they novel? Overly broad and restrictive of future research or individual rights? Will society reap rewards if the patent is granted and the technology is exploited?This month we have:
"METHODS TO IDENTIFY POLYNUCLEOTIDE AND POLYPEPTIDE SEQUENCES WHICH MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL CONDITIONS"
Application number: 11/781,818
Filing date: Sep 12, 2007
Inventor: Walter Messier
Assignee: EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS LLC
This invention describes a method for finding gene sequences responsible for the resistance of non-human primates, such as chimps, to diseases that afflict humans, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer and neurodegeneration. The method basically involves comparing genetic sequences from human and non-human primate species to determine which human disease genes have undergone evolution in primates since our lineages diverged. Information about these genes would then be used to design novel therapeutics. As an example, the inventors propose to determine how the gene encoding 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase has evolved in chimps to mediate cancer resistance.
CE7-SPECIFIC REDIRECTED IMMUNE CELLS
Application number: 11/849,643
Filing date: Sep 4, 2007
Inventor: Michael JENSEN
Assignee: CITY OF HOPE
This application describes how to engineer cytotoxic (cell-killing) immune cells that target a protein antigen specifically expressed on the surface of neuroblastoma tumor cells. An antibody against the neuroblastoma antigen is fused to the zeta chain of the T-cell receptor. This chimeric receptor can then be introduced into T cells, natural killer cells, neutrophils and macrophages so that they express it on their surface and thereby recognize and kill neuroblastoma cells.
"PORTABLE NMR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MAKING AND USING THE SAME"
Application number: 11/851,291
Filing date: Sep 6, 2007
Inventors: Chang-Min Park, Shriram Ramanathan, Patrick Morrow, Kenneth Cadien
Assignee: INTEL CORPORATION
This one's pretty self-explanatory. NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) technology is used in medicine for MRI imaging scans, as well as certain types of chemical analysis. This invention is describes a hand-held device that analyzes clinical DNA samples to perform disease diagnosis.
"TETRAPLOID WATERMELONS PRODUCING SMALL FRUITS"
Application number: 11/854,362
Filing date: Sep 12, 2007
Inventor: Xingping Zhang
Tetraploid watermelons are used to breed the triploid, seedless variety that we all love so much. This invention describes a way to make smaller, tastier tetraploid watermelon with a higher ratio of flesh-skin.
METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING IMMUNOLOGIC FOOD SENSITIVITY
Application number: 11/899,670
Filing date: Sep 7, 2007
Inventor: Kenneth D. Fine
This invention describes methods for diagnosing food allergies by determining whether the patient produces antibodies against commonly ingested foods. The approach is to collect fecal samples ( ie, "poop") and analyze it for the presence of antibodies against food antigens by ELISA. I would not want to be the poor sucker who works in this diagnostic lab:
"One method of concentrating the stool specimen is to spin the stool in a centrifuge to obtain a watery supernatant...Another method of concentrating the stool specimen, which is particularly used when the specimen is watery or diarrheal, is to freeze-dry or lyophilize the specimen to solid material and reconstituting it with water at a dry matter to water ratio equal to that of non-diarrheal stool".
Podcast
6 comments:
Since when is Intel into medical devices?
Intel spends about $6B a year on research. I bet there's not much they're not into. Plus this involves gathering genetic information (IT) and the detector is microchip based.
I spent my Ph.D. working on NMR, and particularly the detection of biologically significant metabolites in biofluids (plasma, urine etc). Honestly, I don't know where I would use this sort of chip.
Firstly, you need a big magnet to get much in the way of meaningful information - like 10 tesla or so. Those come from big magnets - like really big. Like not-portable sized magnets. The one I played on was a 500 MHz (~12 tesla) which is about 4 feet tall, cooled with liquid helium and big enough to slow your heart down measurably if/when you lie underneath it.
Granted, they want to use a small space, which makes getting that sort of field easier, but still...
Then there's hybridizing DNA and using NMR to detect the hybridisation... why would you do that if you have neat fluorescent detectors which do the same job in about as much time?
Also, biological samples (like plasma) are not nice to use in NMR. They're too viscus and full or protein, which swamps most signals unless the CPMG train is used to supress them, and that will probably drown out your hybrid DNA signal as well (you'd be looking for an increased T2 signal to detect it... I guess).
Honestly, I don't really see this taking off anytime soon.
Oh, and there's water to contend with (about 55 MOLAR in biological samples, which is MUCH more than any 0.5 mM metabolite concentrations).
Trust me... I spent years trying to get it to work in big tubes... let alone little ones.
(and incidentally, I created some usable proceedures for diagnosis too)
"..but otherwise, the design was good"
holy fuck!
what on earth is good about an experimental design involving animal subjects that offers zero hope of reaching any valid conclusions? The experimental design wasn't anything near good precisely because it was pointless.
Maybe you nuts should spend less time blogging and more time focusing on your graduate studies, because something real basic seems to have shot right by you without you apparently noticing
Your comment is on the wrong thread btw. Having judged many science fairs, I can tell you that the public generally has a pretty poor understanding of how to design a study. This amateur actually justified the dosing (although it's way off) and included a control group (although the control is poor as discussed above). Too bad there is no analysis and poor animal care ethics. Still above the fray IMO. Still it's a scary thought to have amateurs doing rogue experiments on living beings.
Post a Comment