History of biotechnology

Last updated

Brewing was an early example of biotechnology The Brewer designed and engraved in the Sixteenth. Century by J Amman.png
Brewing was an early example of biotechnology

Biotechnology is the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services. [1] From its inception, biotechnology has maintained a close relationship with society. Although now most often associated with the development of drugs, historically biotechnology has been principally associated with food, addressing such issues as malnutrition and famine. The history of biotechnology begins[ citation needed ] with zymotechnology, which commenced with a focus on brewing techniques for beer. By World War I, however, zymotechnology would expand to tackle larger industrial issues, and the potential of industrial fermentation gave rise to biotechnology. However, both the single-cell protein and gasohol projects failed to progress due to varying issues including public resistance, a changing economic scene, and shifts in political power.

Contents

Yet the formation of a new field, genetic engineering, would soon bring biotechnology to the forefront of science in society, and the intimate relationship between the scientific community, the public, and the government would ensue. These debates gained exposure in 1975 at the Asilomar Conference, where Joshua Lederberg was the most outspoken supporter for this emerging field in biotechnology. By as early as 1978, with the development of synthetic human insulin, Lederberg's claims would prove valid, and the biotechnology industry grew rapidly. Each new scientific advance became a media event designed to capture public support, and by the 1980s, biotechnology grew into a promising real industry. In 1988, only five proteins from genetically engineered cells had been approved as drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but this number would skyrocket to over 125 by the end of the 1990s.

The field of genetic engineering remains a heated topic of discussion in today's society with the advent of gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, and genetically modified food. While it seems only natural nowadays to link pharmaceutical drugs as solutions to health and societal problems, this relationship of biotechnology serving social needs began centuries ago.

Origins of biotechnology

Biotechnology arose from the field of zymotechnology or zymurgy, which began as a search for a better understanding of industrial fermentation, particularly beer. Beer was an important industrial, and not just social, commodity. In late 19th-century Germany, brewing contributed as much to the gross national product as steel, and taxes on alcohol proved to be significant sources of revenue to the government. [2] In the 1860s, institutes and remunerative consultancies were dedicated to the technology of brewing. The most famous was the private Carlsberg Institute, founded in 1875, which employed Emil Christian Hansen, who pioneered the pure yeast process for the reliable production of consistent beer. Less well known were private consultancies that advised the brewing industry. One of these, the Zymotechnic Institute, was established in Chicago by the German-born chemist John Ewald Siebel.

The heyday and expansion of zymotechnology came in World War I in response to industrial needs to support the war. Max Delbrück grew yeast on an immense scale during the war to meet 60 percent of Germany's animal feed needs. [2] Compounds of another fermentation product, lactic acid, made up for a lack of hydraulic fluid, glycerol. On the Allied side the Russian chemist Chaim Weizmann used starch to eliminate Britain's shortage of acetone, a key raw material for cordite, by fermenting maize to acetone. [3] The industrial potential of fermentation was outgrowing its traditional home in brewing, and "zymotechnology" soon gave way to "biotechnology."

With food shortages spreading and resources fading, some dreamed of a new industrial solution. The Hungarian Károly Ereky coined the word "biotechnology" in Hungary during 1919 to describe a technology based on converting raw materials into a more useful product. He built a slaughterhouse for a thousand pigs and also a fattening farm with space for 50,000 pigs, raising over 100,000 pigs a year. The enterprise was enormous, becoming one of the largest and most profitable meat and fat operations in the world. In a book entitled Biotechnologie, Ereky further developed a theme that would be reiterated through the 20th century: biotechnology could provide solutions to societal crises, such as food and energy shortages. For Ereky, the term "biotechnologie" indicated the process by which raw materials could be biologically upgraded into socially useful products. [4]

This catchword spread quickly after the First World War, as "biotechnology" entered German dictionaries and was taken up abroad by business-hungry private consultancies as far away as the United States. In Chicago, for example, the coming of prohibition at the end of World War I encouraged biological industries to create opportunities for new fermentation products, in particular a market for nonalcoholic drinks. Emil Siebel, the son of the founder of the Zymotechnic Institute, broke away from his father's company to establish his own called the "Bureau of Biotechnology," which specifically offered expertise in fermented nonalcoholic drinks. [1]

The belief that the needs of an industrial society could be met by fermenting agricultural waste was an important ingredient of the "chemurgic movement." [4] Fermentation-based processes generated products of ever-growing utility. In the 1940s, penicillin was the most dramatic. While it was discovered in England, it was produced industrially in the U.S. using a deep fermentation process originally developed in Peoria, Illinois. [5] The enormous profits and the public expectations penicillin engendered caused a radical shift in the standing of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors used the phrase "miracle drug", and the historian of its wartime use, David Adams, has suggested that to the public penicillin represented the perfect health that went together with the car and the dream house of wartime American advertising. [2] Beginning in the 1950s, fermentation technology also became advanced enough to produce steroids on industrially significant scales. [6] Of particular importance was the improved semisynthesis of cortisone which simplified the old 31 step synthesis to 11 steps. [7] This advance was estimated to reduce the cost of the drug by 70%, making the medicine inexpensive and available. [8] Today biotechnology still plays a central role in the production of these compounds and likely will for years to come. [9] [10]

Penicillin was viewed as a miracle drug that brought enormous profits and public expectations. Penicillin cures gonorrhea.jpg
Penicillin was viewed as a miracle drug that brought enormous profits and public expectations.

Single-cell protein and gasohol projects

Even greater expectations of biotechnology were raised during the 1960s by a process that grew single-cell protein. When the so-called protein gap threatened world hunger, producing food locally by growing it from waste seemed to offer a solution. It was the possibilities of growing microorganisms on oil that captured the imagination of scientists, policy makers, and commerce. [1] Major companies such as British Petroleum (BP) staked their futures on it. In 1962, BP built a pilot plant at Cap de Lavera in Southern France to publicize its product, Toprina. [1] Initial research work at Lavera was done by Alfred Champagnat, [11] In 1963, construction started on BP's second pilot plant at Grangemouth Oil Refinery in Britain. [11]

As there was no well-accepted term to describe the new foods, in 1966 the term "single-cell protein" (SCP) was coined at MIT to provide an acceptable and exciting new title, avoiding the unpleasant connotations of microbial or bacterial. [1]

The "food from oil" idea became quite popular by the 1970s, when facilities for growing yeast fed by n-paraffins were built in a number of countries. The Soviets were particularly enthusiastic, opening large "BVK" (belkovo-vitaminny kontsentrat, i.e., "protein-vitamin concentrate") plants next to their oil refineries in Kstovo (1973) [12] [13] and Kirishi (1974).[ citation needed ]

By the late 1970s, however, the cultural climate had completely changed, as the growth in SCP interest had taken place against a shifting economic and cultural scene (136). First, the price of oil rose catastrophically in 1974, so that its cost per barrel was five times greater than it had been two years earlier. Second, despite continuing hunger around the world, anticipated demand also began to shift from humans to animals. The program had begun with the vision of growing food for Third World people, yet the product was instead launched as an animal food for the developed world. The rapidly rising demand for animal feed made that market appear economically more attractive. The ultimate downfall of the SCP project, however, came from public resistance. [1]

This was particularly vocal in Japan, where production came closest to fruition. For all their enthusiasm for innovation and traditional interest in microbiologically produced foods, the Japanese were the first to ban the production of single-cell proteins. The Japanese ultimately were unable to separate the idea of their new "natural" foods from the far from natural connotation of oil. [1] These arguments were made against a background of suspicion of heavy industry in which anxiety over minute traces of petroleum was expressed. Thus, public resistance to an unnatural product led to the end of the SCP project as an attempt to solve world hunger.

Also, in 1989 in the USSR, the public environmental concerns made the government decide to close down (or convert to different technologies) all 8 paraffin-fed-yeast plants that the Soviet Ministry of Microbiological Industry had by that time.[ citation needed ]

In the late 1970s, biotechnology offered another possible solution to a societal crisis. The escalation in the price of oil in 1974 increased the cost of the Western world's energy tenfold. [1] In response, the U.S. government promoted the production of gasohol, gasoline with 10 percent alcohol added, as an answer to the energy crisis. [2] In 1979, when the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan, the Carter administration cut off its supplies to agricultural produce in retaliation, creating a surplus of agriculture in the U.S. As a result, fermenting the agricultural surpluses to synthesize fuel seemed to be an economical solution to the shortage of oil threatened by the Iran–Iraq War. Before the new direction could be taken, however, the political wind changed again: the Reagan administration came to power in January 1981 and, with the declining oil prices of the 1980s, ended support for the gasohol industry before it was born. [1]

Biotechnology seemed to be the solution for major social problems, including world hunger and energy crises. In the 1960s, radical measures would be needed to meet world starvation, and biotechnology seemed to provide an answer. However, the solutions proved to be too expensive and socially unacceptable, and solving world hunger through SCP food was dismissed. In the 1970s, the food crisis was succeeded by the energy crisis, and here too, biotechnology seemed to provide an answer. But once again, costs proved prohibitive as oil prices slumped in the 1980s. Thus, in practice, the implications of biotechnology were not fully realized in these situations. But this would soon change with the rise of genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering

The origins of biotechnology culminated with the birth of genetic engineering. There were two key events that have come to be seen as scientific breakthroughs beginning the era that would unite genetics with biotechnology. One was the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and the other was the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique by which a section of DNA was cut from the plasmid of an E. coli bacterium and transferred into the DNA of another. [14] This approach could, in principle, enable bacteria to adopt the genes and produce proteins of other organisms, including humans. Popularly referred to as "genetic engineering," it came to be defined as the basis of new biotechnology.

Genetic engineering proved to be a topic that thrust biotechnology into the public scene, and the interaction between scientists, politicians, and the public defined the work that was accomplished in this area. Technical developments during this time were revolutionary and at times frightening. In December 1967, the first heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard reminded the public that the physical identity of a person was becoming increasingly problematic. While poetic imagination had always seen the heart at the center of the soul, now there was the prospect of individuals being defined by other people's hearts. [1] During the same month, Arthur Kornberg announced that he had managed to biochemically replicate a viral gene. "Life had been synthesized," said the head of the National Institutes of Health. [1] Genetic engineering was now on the scientific agenda, as it was becoming possible to identify genetic characteristics with diseases such as beta thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.

Responses to scientific achievements were colored by cultural skepticism. Scientists and their expertise were looked upon with suspicion. In 1968, an immensely popular work, The Biological Time Bomb, was written by the British journalist Gordon Rattray Taylor. The author's preface saw Kornberg's discovery of replicating a viral gene as a route to lethal doomsday bugs. The publisher's blurb for the book warned that within ten years, "You may marry a semi-artificial man or woman…choose your children's sex…tune out pain…change your memories…and live to be 150 if the scientific revolution doesn’t destroy us first." [1] The book ended with a chapter called "The Future – If Any." While it is rare for current science to be represented in the movies, in this period of "Star Trek", science fiction and science fact seemed to be converging. "Cloning" became a popular word in the media. Woody Allen satirized the cloning of a person from a nose in his 1973 movie Sleeper , and cloning Adolf Hitler from surviving cells was the theme of the 1976 novel by Ira Levin, The Boys from Brazil . [1]

In response to these public concerns, scientists, industry, and governments increasingly linked the power of recombinant DNA to the immensely practical functions that biotechnology promised. One of the key scientific figures that attempted to highlight the promising aspects of genetic engineering was Joshua Lederberg, a Stanford professor and Nobel laureate. While in the 1960s "genetic engineering" described eugenics and work involving the manipulation of the human genome, Lederberg stressed research that would involve microbes instead. [1] Lederberg emphasized the importance of focusing on curing living people. Lederberg's 1963 paper, "Biological Future of Man" suggested that, while molecular biology might one day make it possible to change the human genotype, "what we have overlooked is euphenics, the engineering of human development." [1] Lederberg constructed the word "euphenics" to emphasize changing the phenotype after conception rather than the genotype which would affect future generations.

With the discovery of recombinant DNA by Cohen and Boyer in 1973, the idea that genetic engineering would have major human and societal consequences was born. In July 1974, a group of eminent molecular biologists headed by Paul Berg wrote to Science suggesting that the consequences of this work were so potentially destructive that there should be a pause until its implications had been thought through. [1] This suggestion was explored at a meeting in February 1975 at California's Monterey Peninsula, forever immortalized by the location, Asilomar. Its historic outcome was an unprecedented call for a halt in research until it could be regulated in such a way that the public need not be anxious, and it led to a 16-month moratorium until National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines were established.

Joshua Lederberg was the leading exception in emphasizing, as he had for years, the potential benefits. At Asilomar, in an atmosphere favoring control and regulation, he circulated a paper countering the pessimism and fears of misuses with the benefits conferred by successful use. He described "an early chance for a technology of untold importance for diagnostic and therapeutic medicine: the ready production of an unlimited variety of human proteins. Analogous applications may be foreseen in fermentation process for cheaply manufacturing essential nutrients, and in the improvement of microbes for the production of antibiotics and of special industrial chemicals." [1] In June 1976, the 16-month moratorium on research expired with the Director's Advisory Committee (DAC) publication of the NIH guidelines of good practice. They defined the risks of certain kinds of experiments and the appropriate physical conditions for their pursuit, as well as a list of things too dangerous to perform at all. Moreover, modified organisms were not to be tested outside the confines of a laboratory or allowed into the environment. [14]

Synthetic insulin crystals synthesized using recombinant DNA technology Insulincrystals.jpg
Synthetic insulin crystals synthesized using recombinant DNA technology

Atypical as Lederberg was at Asilomar, his optimistic vision of genetic engineering would soon lead to the development of the biotechnology industry. Over the next two years, as public concern over the dangers of recombinant DNA research grew, so too did interest in its technical and practical applications. Curing genetic diseases remained in the realms of science fiction, but it appeared that producing human simple proteins could be good business. Insulin, one of the smaller, best characterized and understood proteins, had been used in treating type 1 diabetes for a half century. It had been extracted from animals in a chemically slightly different form from the human product. Yet, if one could produce synthetic human insulin, one could meet an existing demand with a product whose approval would be relatively easy to obtain from regulators. In the period 1975 to 1977, synthetic "human" insulin represented the aspirations for new products that could be made with the new biotechnology. Microbial production of synthetic human insulin was finally announced in September 1978 and was produced by a startup company, Genentech. [15] Although that company did not commercialize the product themselves, instead, it licensed the production method to Eli Lilly and Company. 1978 also saw the first application for a patent on a gene, the gene which produces human growth hormone, by the University of California, thus introducing the legal principle that genes could be patented. Since that filing, almost 20% of the more than 20,000 genes in the human DNA have been patented.[ citation needed ]

The radical shift in the connotation of "genetic engineering" from an emphasis on the inherited characteristics of people to the commercial production of proteins and therapeutic drugs was nurtured by Joshua Lederberg. His broad concerns since the 1960s had been stimulated by enthusiasm for science and its potential medical benefits. Countering calls for strict regulation, he expressed a vision of potential utility. Against a belief that new techniques would entail unmentionable and uncontrollable consequences for humanity and the environment, a growing consensus on the economic value of recombinant DNA emerged.[ citation needed ]

Biosensor technology

The MOSFET (metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor, or MOS transistor) was invented by Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng in 1959, and demonstrated in 1960. [16] Two years later, L.C. Clark and C. Lyons invented the biosensor in 1962. [17] Biosensor MOSFETs (BioFETs) were later developed, and they have since been widely used to measure physical, chemical, biological and environmental parameters. [18]

The first BioFET was the ion-sensitive field-effect transistor (ISFET), invented by Piet Bergveld for electrochemical and biological applications in 1970. [19] [20] the adsorption FET (ADFET) was patented by P.F. Cox in 1974, and a hydrogen-sensitive MOSFET was demonstrated by I. Lundstrom, M.S. Shivaraman, C.S. Svenson and L. Lundkvist in 1975. [18] The ISFET is a special type of MOSFET with a gate at a certain distance, [18] and where the metal gate is replaced by an ion-sensitive membrane, electrolyte solution and reference electrode. [21] The ISFET is widely used in biomedical applications, such as the detection of DNA hybridization, biomarker detection from blood, antibody detection, glucose measurement, pH sensing, and genetic technology. [21]

By the mid-1980s, other BioFETs had been developed, including the gas sensor FET (GASFET), pressure sensor FET (PRESSFET), chemical field-effect transistor (ChemFET), reference ISFET (REFET), enzyme-modified FET (ENFET) and immunologically modified FET (IMFET). [18] By the early 2000s, BioFETs such as the DNA field-effect transistor (DNAFET), gene-modified FET (GenFET) and cell-potential BioFET (CPFET) had been developed. [21]

Biotechnology and industry

A Genentech-sponsored sign declaring South San Francisco to be "The Birthplace of Biotechnology." South San Francisco gateway sign.jpg
A Genentech-sponsored sign declaring South San Francisco to be "The Birthplace of Biotechnology."

With ancestral roots in industrial microbiology that date back centuries, the new biotechnology industry grew rapidly beginning in the mid-1970s. Each new scientific advance became a media event designed to capture investment confidence and public support. [15] Although market expectations and social benefits of new products were frequently overstated, many people were prepared to see genetic engineering as the next great advance in technological progress. By the 1980s, biotechnology characterized a nascent real industry, providing titles for emerging trade organizations such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

The main focus of attention after insulin were the potential profit makers in the pharmaceutical industry: human growth hormone and what promised to be a miraculous cure for viral diseases, interferon. Cancer was a central target in the 1970s because increasingly the disease was linked to viruses. [14] By 1980, a new company, Biogen, had produced interferon through recombinant DNA. The emergence of interferon and the possibility of curing cancer raised money in the community for research and increased the enthusiasm of an otherwise uncertain and tentative society. Moreover, to the 1970s plight of cancer was added AIDS in the 1980s, offering an enormous potential market for a successful therapy, and more immediately, a market for diagnostic tests based on monoclonal antibodies. [22] By 1988, only five proteins from genetically engineered cells had been approved as drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): synthetic insulin, human growth hormone, hepatitis B vaccine, alpha-interferon, and tissue plasminogen activator (TPa), for lysis of blood clots. By the end of the 1990s, however, 125 more genetically engineered drugs would be approved. [22]

The 2007–2008 global financial crisis led to several changes in the way the biotechnology industry was financed and organized. First, it led to a decline in overall financial investment in the sector, globally; and second, in some countries like the UK it led to a shift from business strategies focused on going for an initial public offering (IPO) to seeking a trade sale instead. [23] By 2011, financial investment in the biotechnology industry started to improve again and by 2014 the global market capitalization reached $1 trillion. [23]

Genetic engineering also reached the agricultural front as well. There was tremendous progress since the market introduction of the genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. [22] Ernst and Young reported that in 1998, 30% of the U.S. soybean crop was expected to be from genetically engineered seeds. In 1998, about 30% of the US cotton and corn crops were also expected to be products of genetic engineering. [22]

Genetic engineering in biotechnology stimulated hopes for both therapeutic proteins, drugs and biological organisms themselves, such as seeds, pesticides, engineered yeasts, and modified human cells for treating genetic diseases. From the perspective of its commercial promoters, scientific breakthroughs, industrial commitment, and official support were finally coming together, and biotechnology became a normal part of business. No longer were the proponents for the economic and technological significance of biotechnology the iconoclasts. [1] Their message had finally become accepted and incorporated into the policies of governments and industry.

According to Burrill and Company, an industry investment bank, over $350 billion has been invested in biotech since the emergence of the industry, and global revenues rose from $23 billion in 2000 to more than $50 billion in 2005. The greatest growth has been in Latin America but all regions of the world have shown strong growth trends. By 2007 and into 2008, though, a downturn in the fortunes of biotech emerged, at least in the United Kingdom, as the result of declining investment in the face of failure of biotech pipelines to deliver and a consequent downturn in return on investment. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biotechnology</span> Use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products

Biotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that involves the integration of natural sciences and engineering sciences in order to achieve the application of organisms, cells, parts thereof and molecular analogues for products and services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified organism</span> Organisms whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering methods

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. The exact definition of a genetically modified organism and what constitutes genetic engineering varies, with the most common being an organism altered in a way that "does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination". A wide variety of organisms have been genetically modified (GM), including animals, plants, and microorganisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetic engineering</span> Manipulation of an organisms genome

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the modification and manipulation of an organism's genes using technology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. A construct is usually created and used to insert this DNA into the host organism. The first recombinant DNA molecule was made by Paul Berg in 1972 by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with the lambda virus. As well as inserting genes, the process can be used to remove, or "knock out", genes. The new DNA can be inserted randomly, or targeted to a specific part of the genome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protein production</span>

Protein production is the biotechnological process of generating a specific protein. It is typically achieved by the manipulation of gene expression in an organism such that it expresses large amounts of a recombinant gene. This includes the transcription of the recombinant DNA to messenger RNA (mRNA), the translation of mRNA into polypeptide chains, which are ultimately folded into functional proteins and may be targeted to specific subcellular or extracellular locations.

A biosensor is an analytical device, used for the detection of a chemical substance, that combines a biological component with a physicochemical detector. The sensitive biological element, e.g. tissue, microorganisms, organelles, cell receptors, enzymes, antibodies, nucleic acids, etc., is a biologically derived material or biomimetic component that interacts with, binds with, or recognizes the analyte under study. The biologically sensitive elements can also be created by biological engineering. The transducer or the detector element, which transforms one signal into another one, works in a physicochemical way: optical, piezoelectric, electrochemical, electrochemiluminescence etc., resulting from the interaction of the analyte with the biological element, to easily measure and quantify. The biosensor reader device connects with the associated electronics or signal processors that are primarily responsible for the display of the results in a user-friendly way. This sometimes accounts for the most expensive part of the sensor device, however it is possible to generate a user friendly display that includes transducer and sensitive element. The readers are usually custom-designed and manufactured to suit the different working principles of biosensors.

The term modifications in genetics refers to both naturally occurring and engineered changes in DNA. Incidental, or natural mutations occur through errors during replication and repair, either spontaneously or due to environmental stressors. Intentional modifications are done in a laboratory for various purposes, developing hardier seeds and plants, and increasingly to treat human disease. The use of gene editing technology remains controversial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recombinant DNA</span> DNA molecules formed by human agency at a molecular level generating novel DNA sequences

Recombinant DNA (rDNA) molecules are DNA molecules formed by laboratory methods of genetic recombination that bring together genetic material from multiple sources, creating sequences that would not otherwise be found in the genome.

Pharming, a portmanteau of "farming" and "pharmaceutical", refers to the use of genetic engineering to insert genes that code for useful pharmaceuticals into host animals or plants that would otherwise not express those genes, thus creating a genetically modified organism (GMO). Pharming is also known as molecular farming, molecular pharming or biopharming.

The word metagenics uses the prefix meta and the suffix gen. Literally, it means "the creation of something which creates". In the context of biotechnology, metagenics is the practice of engineering organisms to create a specific enzyme, protein, or other biochemicals from simpler starting materials. The genetic engineering of E. coli with the specific task of producing human insulin from starting amino acids is an example. E. coli has also been engineered to digest plant biomass and use it to produce hydrocarbons in order to synthesize biofuels. The applications of metagenics on E. coli also include higher alcohols, fatty-acid based chemicals and terpenes.

A biopharmaceutical, also known as a biological medical product, or biologic, is any pharmaceutical drug product manufactured in, extracted from, or semisynthesized from biological sources. Different from totally synthesized pharmaceuticals, they include vaccines, whole blood, blood components, allergenics, somatic cells, gene therapies, tissues, recombinant therapeutic protein, and living medicines used in cell therapy. Biologics can be composed of sugars, proteins, nucleic acids, or complex combinations of these substances, or may be living cells or tissues. They are isolated from living sources—human, animal, plant, fungal, or microbial. They can be used in both human and animal medicine.

This page provides an alphabetical list of articles and other pages about biotechnology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing</span>

Biotechnology is the use of living organisms to develop useful products. Biotechnology is often used in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Notable examples include the use of bacteria to produce things such as insulin or human growth hormone. Other examples include the use of transgenic pigs for the creation of hemoglobin in use of humans.

A yeast expression platform is a strain of yeast used to produce large amounts of proteins, sugars or other compounds for research or industrial uses. While yeast are often more resource-intensive to maintain than bacteria, certain products can only be produced by eukaryotic cells like yeast, necessitating use of a yeast expression platform. Yeasts differ in productivity and with respect to their capabilities to secrete, process and modify proteins. As such, different types of yeast are better suited for different research and industrial applications.

Biomolecular engineering is the application of engineering principles and practices to the purposeful manipulation of molecules of biological origin. Biomolecular engineers integrate knowledge of biological processes with the core knowledge of chemical engineering in order to focus on molecular level solutions to issues and problems in the life sciences related to the environment, agriculture, energy, industry, food production, biotechnology and medicine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified bacteria</span> First organisms to be modified in the laboratory

Genetically modified bacteria were the first organisms to be modified in the laboratory, due to their simple genetics. These organisms are now used for several purposes, and are particularly important in producing large amounts of pure human proteins for use in medicine.

Heterologous expression refers to the expression of a gene or part of a gene in a host organism that does not naturally have the gene or gene fragment in question. Insertion of the gene in the heterologous host is performed by recombinant DNA technology. The purpose of heterologous expression is often to determine the effects of mutations and differential interactions on protein function. It provides an easy path to efficiently express and experiment with combinations of genes and mutants that do not naturally occur.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of genetic engineering</span>

Genetic engineering is the science of manipulating genetic material of an organism. The first artificial genetic modification accomplished using biotechnology was transgenesis, the process of transferring genes from one organism to another, first accomplished by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen in 1973. It was the result of a series of advancements in techniques that allowed the direct modification of the genome. Important advances included the discovery of restriction enzymes and DNA ligases, the ability to design plasmids and technologies like polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. Transformation of the DNA into a host organism was accomplished with the invention of biolistics, Agrobacterium-mediated recombination and microinjection. The first genetically modified animal was a mouse created in 1974 by Rudolf Jaenisch. In 1976 the technology was commercialised, with the advent of genetically modified bacteria that produced somatostatin, followed by insulin in 1978. In 1983 an antibiotic resistant gene was inserted into tobacco, leading to the first genetically engineered plant. Advances followed that allowed scientists to manipulate and add genes to a variety of different organisms and induce a range of different effects. Plants were first commercialized with virus resistant tobacco released in China in 1992. The first genetically modified food was the Flavr Savr tomato marketed in 1994. By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops. In 2000 a paper published in Science introduced golden rice, the first food developed with increased nutrient value.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bio-FET</span> Type of field-effect transistor

A field-effect transistor-based biosensor, also known as a biosensor field-effect transistor, field-effect biosensor (FEB), or biosensor MOSFET, is a field-effect transistor that is gated by changes in the surface potential induced by the binding of molecules. When charged molecules, such as biomolecules, bind to the FET gate, which is usually a dielectric material, they can change the charge distribution of the underlying semiconductor material resulting in a change in conductance of the FET channel. A Bio-FET consists of two main compartments: one is the biological recognition element and the other is the field-effect transistor. The BioFET structure is largely based on the ion-sensitive field-effect transistor (ISFET), a type of metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) where the metal gate is replaced by an ion-sensitive membrane, electrolyte solution, and reference electrode.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cell engineering</span>

Cell engineering is the purposeful process of adding, deleting, or modifying genetic sequences in living cells to achieve biological engineering goals such as altering cell production, changing cell growth and proliferation requirements, adding or removing cell functions, and many more. Cell engineering often makes use of DNA technology to achieve these modifications as well as closely related tissue engineering methods. Cell engineering can be characterized as an intermediary level in the increasingly specific disciplines of biological engineering which includes organ engineering, tissue engineering, protein engineering, and genetic engineering.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bud, Robert; Cantley, Mark F. (1994). The Uses of Life: A History of Biotechnology (1st ed.). London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1, 6, 7, 30, 133, 135, 138, 141–142, 155, 171–173, 165, 167, 174, 177, & 191. ISBN   9780521476997.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Thackray, Arnold (1998). Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 6–8. ISBN   9780812234282.
  3. Sifniades, Stylianos; Levy, Alan B. (2000). Acetone. doi:10.1002/14356007.a01_079. ISBN   978-3527306732.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  4. 1 2 Fiechter, A.; Beppu, T. (2000). History of Modern Biotechnology I (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. pp.  153& 170. ISBN   9783540677932.
  5. Gordon, J. J.; Grenfell, E.; Legge, B. J.; Mcallister, R. C. A.; White, T. (1947). "Methods of Penicillin Production in Submerged Culture on a Pilot-Plant Scale". Microbiology. 1 (2): 187–202. doi: 10.1099/00221287-1-2-187 . PMID   20251279.
  6. Capek, Milantadra; Oldrich, Hanc; Alois, Capek (1966). Microbial Transformations of Steroids. Prague: Academia Publishing House of Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-7603-3. ISBN   9789401176057. S2CID   13411462.
  7. Leigh, H. M.; Meister, P. D.; Weintraub, A.; Reineke, L. M.; Eppstein, S. H.; Murray, H. C.; Peterson, D. H. (1952). "Microbiological Transformations of Steroids.1 I. Introduction of Oxygen at Carbon-11 of Progesterone". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 73 (23): 5933–5936. doi:10.1021/ja01143a033.
  8. Liese, Andreas; Seelbach, Karsten; Wandrey, Christian (2006). History of Industrial Biotransformations – Dreams and Realities (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9783527608188.ch1. ISBN   9783527310012.
  9. Ohno, Masaji; Otsuka, Masami; Yagisawa, Morimasa; Kondo, Shinichi; Öppinger, Heinz; Hoffmann, Hinrich; Sukatsch, Dieter; Hepner, Leo; Male, Celia (2000). Antibiotics. doi:10.1002/14356007.a02_467. ISBN   978-3527306732.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  10. Sandow, Jürgen; Scheiffele, Ekkehard; Haring, Michael; Neef, Günter; Prezewowsky, Klaus; Stache, Ulrich (2000). Hormones. doi:10.1002/14356007.a13_089. ISBN   978-3527306732.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  11. 1 2 Bamberg, J. H. (2000). British Petroleum and global oil, 1950-1975: the challenge of nationalism. Volume 3 of British Petroleum and Global Oil 1950-1975: The Challenge of Nationalism, J. H. Bamberg British Petroleum series. Cambridge University Press. pp. 426–428. ISBN   978-0-521-78515-0.
  12. Soviet Plant to Convert Oil to Protein for Feed; Use of Yeast Involved, By THEODORE SHABAD. the New York Times, November 10, 1973.
  13. Первенец микробиологической промышленности (Microbiological industry's first plant), in: Станислав Марков (Stanislav Markov) «Кстово – молодой город России» (Kstovo, Russia's Young City)
  14. 1 2 3 Grace, Eric S. (2006). Biotechnology Unzipped:: Promises and Realities (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. pp. 78 & 155. ISBN   9780309096218.
  15. 1 2 Krimsky, Sheldon (1991). Biotechnics & society: the rise of industrial genetics (1st ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 18, & 21. ISBN   9780275938598.
  16. "1960: Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS) Transistor Demonstrated". The Silicon Engine: A Timeline of Semiconductors in Computers. Computer History Museum . Retrieved August 31, 2019.
  17. Park, Jeho; Nguyen, Hoang Hiep; Woubit, Abdela; Kim, Moonil (2014). "Applications of Field-Effect Transistor (FET)–Type Biosensors". Applied Science and Convergence Technology . 23 (2): 61–71. doi: 10.5757/ASCT.2014.23.2.61 . ISSN   2288-6559. S2CID   55557610.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Bergveld, Piet (October 1985). "The impact of MOSFET-based sensors" (PDF). Sensors and Actuators. 8 (2): 109–127. Bibcode:1985SeAc....8..109B. doi:10.1016/0250-6874(85)87009-8. ISSN   0250-6874.
  19. Chris Toumazou; Pantelis Georgiou (December 2011). "40 years of ISFET technology:From neuronal sensing to DNA sequencing". Electronics Letters . Retrieved 13 May 2016.
  20. Bergveld, P. (January 1970). "Development of an Ion-Sensitive Solid-State Device for Neurophysiological Measurements". IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering . BME-17 (1): 70–71. doi:10.1109/TBME.1970.4502688. PMID   5441220.
  21. 1 2 3 Schöning, Michael J.; Poghossian, Arshak (10 September 2002). "Recent advances in biologically sensitive field-effect transistors (BioFETs)" (PDF). Analyst. 127 (9): 1137–1151. Bibcode:2002Ana...127.1137S. doi:10.1039/B204444G. ISSN   1364-5528. PMID   12375833.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Rita R, Colwell (2002). "Fulfilling the promise of biotechnology". Biotechnology Advances. 20 (3–4): 215–228. doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(02)00011-3. PMID   14550029.
  23. 1 2 Birch, Kean (2016-08-10). "Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 42 (3): 460–490. doi:10.1177/0162243916661633. PMC   5390941 . PMID   28458406.
  24. Pearson, Sue (2008-08-01). "Is the U.K. Biotech Industry on the Skids?". Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 28 (14): 12–13. ISSN   1935-472X . Retrieved 2008-09-20.

Further reading