I thought this would be an interesting article for y'all to read.

UNMC creates pure proteins for genetics

BY BILL HORD


WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

A scientist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center has developed a way to separate newly created proteins from other cell matter, purifying them for use in medicines and other products.
Click to Enlarge
Elliott Bedows, a reproductive biologist at UNMC, has found a way to separate newly created proteins from other cell matter. The new process can be patented, UNMC says, and can be marketed to geneticists worldwide.

UNMC, which says the discovery is a major breakthrough in genetic research, plans to patent and market the process to geneticists worldwide.

Elliott Bedows, a reproductive biologist who discovered the method, said about 70 percent of the cost of producing recombinant - or genetically modified - proteins is in the purification process.

"We could cut our costs by 75 to 80 percent," Bedows said. "The usefulness (of the new process) is as much as your imagination will allow."

Bedows was engineering a hormone protein to help tigers at the Henry Doorly Zoo get pregnant when he discovered that proteins of a certain shape would cling to an industrial dye.

Called a "tag," the protein's job in a purification chamber is to take a newly created protein along for the ride, as it is attracted like a magnet to a column containing the dye. UNMC has not yet disclosed details of how that is accomplished.

Once the tag and its passenger are attached to the column, the unwanted material can be washed away.

"The proteins are essentially 100 percent pure - cheap and fast," Bedows said.

Under current purification systems, the desired proteins are much more difficult to separate. Not only does it take longer, Bedows said, but much of the desirable protein is washed away in the process.

Since scientists began manipulating genes more than 30 years ago, they have become adept at splicing a gene into a cell - such as an enzyme or a corn plant - to achieve a desired trait or to create a new protein for a special purpose.

"The hard part is purifying it," Bedows said.

The gene-splicing process is used, for example, to create corn and soybeans that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides, or are drought-resistant. It also is used to make proteins for medicines, such as insulin, or ingredients for cleaning products.

Researchers are exploring the possibility of mass-producing pharmaceutical drugs by combining outside genes with tobacco, milkweed or corn plants. The proteins being purified at UNMC were grown in bacteria and in cell culture systems. If adopted universally, Bedows said, the UNMC process would cut costs in an industry that reached $32 billion in 2005 and is expected to grow to more than $100 billion by 2010.

UNMC is doing further research to prove the extent that the tags can be used.

"This technology could revolutionize and enrich the field of production of recombinant proteins," said Tom McDonald, president of UNeMed Corp., a corporation established by UNMC to try to derive revenue from newly discovered technologies.

UNeMed has formed a stand-alone company called Nebgene Inc. that could market the purification process, McDonald said. UNMC is waiting for a patent and the additional research results before moving forward.

"We are trying to demonstrate that it does work in many, many different growth systems - algae, corn, tobacco, yeast - for producing recombinant protein," McDonald said. "We've already proven that this tag definitely works in some systems."

UNMC is working with the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, Calif., to test whether the tag can be used to purify proteins from algae, one of the most common plants for reproduction of recombinant proteins. The medical center also is working with plant geneticists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to prove the process's value in proteins grown in other plants.

"We will do this to see if we can engineer this tag into some product grown economically in Nebraska," McDonald said. "We want to see if we can pull that tag out of corn."

Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom

---

What struck me, reading that, was the early emphasis in the article, that the process was patentable and marketable. This, from an academic research effort.

Of course, this could have been introduced by the author of the piece, rather then the body who's work he was reporting, but you never know these days. It is very depressing.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Definately patentable... in fact, funny thing is, even if it DOESN'T actually work, it sounds like a unique, non-obvious extension of existing processes and is therefore patentable.

The UPside of that is that in order to patent it, you must define EXACTLY what the process and chemicals involved ARE... so now EVERYONE will know HOW to do it, they just can't sell that process to others... but if someone can MODIFY the process, so that it is no longer similar enough to the patented process... then they could PUBLISH their findings in a science journal. And once such information is published, it is considered common knowledge and therefore can NOT be patented.

...so there's still hope that mankind can benefit from this new process. And if indeed it does work better then existing processes, then they certainly deserve some compensation as well (which they will get while others work to alter the patented process in to another unpatented process). And patents only last 17 years I believe it is, so either way, they don't get to keep it forever.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

You clearly see my point. This is an academic research project and the end result should be publication, not patenting. It knocks your faith in the academic world.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Certainly do see your point. Just wanted folks to understand that stuff like this IS patentable. Even if you couldn't patent a gene sequence... in this case it is a process, which let's you do work (apparently) faster, easier, and produces a more pure result. If that process were how to build better cars, or anything else on an assembly line, it's somehow easier to see as patentable.

But, like many things, it is a two edge sword. People can't compete with your patent, but they CAN alter what you've done and make ANOTHER process, and then PUBLISH ;)

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Just because something is patentable, does not mean that the patent is enforceable in court. Sort of counterintuitive, however it does make sense!

You can get a patent if you slightly modify the process or some people try to make a patent by keeping it detailed enough for the patent office but general enough that they have a chance in court or for the case to be settled.

The best example that I can remember is with the Blackberry company. There was a company called NTP who had a patent for Blackberry technology that they felt they should get royalties for. However Blackberry claims that the patent was too general and that the company has other general patents that they were also suing other companies. Basically NTP was just taking out "general patents" and that they are just trying to gain income by suing the hardworking companies. The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court.

You may often see this with drug companies as well. There is a name brand drug on the market called Sarafem. Its active ingredient is fluoxetine which is generic for Prozac. Sarafem costs about $120.00 a month. If the doctor writes for just fluoxetine, that you will get the same active ingredient but it will only cost $40.00 dollars a month. You may be asking yourself, "How is it possible that Sarafem can be marketed as a brand name medication when its active ingredient is already a generic on the market?" Maybe there is some special coating on the capsule. I don't know. Its just another way for the drug companies to make more money, by slightly changing something and charging 3 times the price because it is a name brand medication. If you are ever in a pharmacy, ask the pharmacist the difference between sarafem and fluoxetine. Then, ask him/her the price difference. I am willing to bet that 99 percent of the pharmacists will shrug their shoulders and not have an answer!

Patents are like science in a way. You may have all the studies and evidence in the world, its just how you interpret the evidence presented........

I found the newspaper article interesting. It sounds a little bit like column chromatography however it does not give enough technical details for me to exactly see how it works. Column chromatography is a way to purify a protein you have or to find out how proteins interact with each other.

This is how it works in very very general terms. You take a tube and place beads in the tube that have a given property that you want to separate proteins for. The beads could have a specific charge, size, or shape. Then, you run your protein mixture across the beads (the beads are bound to the edge of the tube) and only the specific protein(s) will bind to them depending on their propterties. Then you wash the column with a solvent that will remove all of the unbound proteins which did not have the properties to bind to the beads.

You then take out the beads and analyze the proteins attached. If all goes well, you will have a purified sample because all of the proteins attached to the beads have the same property. Some scientists may also use this method to discover the properties of proteins.

The person has obviously discovered some sort of protein that is cheaply produced and covalently bids to the proteins in the column strong enough so you get a high yield with little loss. Column Chromatography is often used in Biology so it may have an impact but until the details are released, who knows? Anyone know any venture capitalists?????

Sorry if I am off topic or got into too much detail. I am a biology student at my university here in the midwest so when I see these articles outside of scholarly literature, they peak my interest. I often wonder what details the newspaper writer left out when he came upon the story because a lot of the time they see something shocking and report it but do not always tell the whole story....... One day the news anchor will say they found a study that says chocolate is good for you and the next day they say they found a different study saying it can harm you.......I won't even go there though!

---

what details the newspaper writer left out when he came upon the story

The old, "never let the facts get in the way of a great story", business!

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

You may be asking yourself, "How is it possible that Sarafem can be marketed as a brand name medication when its active ingredient is already a generic on the market?"

That is simple to answer, there are however a few reasons and they depend largely on the country.

A few key notes: The US has the most expensive health care in the world. Number two is Switzerland. At this time, although there is debate in the US, not much is actually done to really lower the price. Switzerland has the same debate and there are some steps being taken, others are being debated - in any case, there is a growing concern that quality may suffer because of cost, something that wouldn't stand a chance politically. (and here it's guaranteed to end up in a popular vote, so this is a big concern for politicians, of course)


In the context of this discussion we shall only examine the cost of drugs themselves, not other health care expenses. As you mentioned, often times (in almost any case) there is a generic available for a brand name product, so why would people still buy the branded drug?

Two reasons:

One, doctors are legally permitted to accept "gifts" from pharma companies. What this means is doctor A might get a fully paid golf weekend in exchange for recommending his patients drug of company X instead of the generic or a competing product. The doctor has little incentive to keep health care costs down, and a lot of incentive to get free deals. That is illegal in other countries, so this is an issue in the US only. By the way, that may also be part of an explanation on why so many Americans are taking prescription drugs comparing to people in Europe. Doctors benefit themselves by prescribing drugs even where a weaker (and cheaper) option would be just as good or even better because of fewer side effects.

Two, patients nowadays often know exactly what they want when they go to the doctor. Either they heard about the product on TV (it is illegal to advertise prescription drugs in Switzerland, I think not in the US?) or through word of mouth. Of course much more money is spent on advertising brand name products than generics, which usually have no advertisement at all. This is often difficult, even for doctors who mean best: How would you tell a patient who's been coming to you for years that he REALLY shouldn't take the well known product A but a generic that has a connotation of being "cheap" and like a fake imitation instead.


In Switzerland doctors are now "encouraged" to at least mention that there is a cheaper generic available. As you pick up a brand drug at the pharmacy, they too will inform you about the availability of a generic. Additionaly, health insurance now covers only 80% of the cost of brand products when a generic is available. This also encourages patients to take the generic instead - not least to safe a little themselves, especially on longer treatments.

I think this is a pretty good move - no one is forced to pick up a generic if they don't want to, they just end up paying more for it instead of the cost being passed on to everyone.


Is there an actual difference between a brand name product and the generic? Yes and no. The binding component is usually different. In 99.9% of cases this doesn't make a difference, but it has happened that the effectiveness of the drug was weakened (or enhanced) because of that. In the big picture, I think it can safely be ignored though.

In the end this is one area where the free market can't regulate itself to what could be considered a desirable outcome. If product A can be marketed at 2-3x the price of the exact same product B and STILL fly of the shelves, but the cost of that is actually passed down to others, not the buyer himself, the government has to step in and regulate. Many people feel uneasy about such regulations, but think of it this way: If no one had any insurance and you had to pay all drugs yourself - would you still buy the brand name instead of the generic?

---

If no one had any insurance and you had to pay all drugs yourself - would you still buy the brand name instead of the generic?

But surely, the insurance companies are in the business to make profit. Thus, if you are taking the expensive branded drugs, they will pass their increased costs onto people buying the insurance, i.e. the same person chosing the expensive drug.

I propose, that via an indirect route involving insurance premiums, they are already paying for their choice.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

If no one had any insurance and you had to pay all drugs yourself - would you still buy the brand name instead of the generic?

But surely, the insurance companies are in the business to make profit. Thus, if you are taking the expensive branded drugs, they will pass their increased costs onto people buying the insurance, i.e. the same person chosing the expensive drug.

I propose, that via an indirect route involving insurance premiums, they are already paying for their choice.

The insurance company passes on the cost to ALL their customers though, even those who chose generics. So there really isn't any incentive for someone to get the generic - unless it was a combined effort by a LOT of people. It may even provide disincentive: Why should you pay for branded products but only get generics?

And that, of course, leads to much higher costs than there should be.

---

Yea, its funny how things get messed up when money and is involved. I guess I should be careful saying that because history has proven that socialism does not work. Anyways, when you go to a state school and they conserve 5 cent PCR tubes becase they can barely afford them, you know how much more money is needed in research and education. Its kinda funny because a private school has more money to invest in science labs both in personnel and equipment while relying on donations........I know this from first hand experience. The saying "Money speaks louder than words" has some truth to it!

---

Yea, its funny how things get messed up when money and is involved. I guess I should be careful saying that because history has proven that socialism does not work.

I don't think that's the case... probably a topic for a different thread but:

Communism has proven not to work, because it relies on the 'good' in people, which coincidentally is also the reason pure capitalism doesn't work. It's in the nature of the beast that a successful company would abuse their power to keep competition out - not a desirable outcome either, because it doesn't lead to the entity with the best product winning, but the one who was there first and can keep others out by brute force.

What western countries these days use is a combination of socialism and capitalism and the difference is mostly in how much of either is applied. Social security, pensions, unemployment benefits etc - all could be considered socialism - yet those are also some of the biggest achievements of our time.

Swiss Telecom (Swisscom) is a good example of a socialism/capitalism hybrid too: It is publicly traded (shareholding company), but the government owns the majority of the shares in order to assure phone and internet service is provided in areas where it wouldn't make economic sense to do so. In that case the "good" of the disadvantaged people (disadvantaged because of location) takes precedent over economic success.

So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything related to Socialism, even if you have a lot of conservatives trying to tell you how bad it is ;)

---