Russian Academy of Sciences

A team of researchers at ETH Zurich found evidence that neuroprosthetics work better when they use signals that are inspired by nature. The team, working under Professor Stanisa Raspopovic at the ETH Zurich Neuroengineering Lab, garnered attention years ago with prosthetic legs that enabled amputees to feel sensations from the artificial body part for the first time, according to ETH. This device connected to the sciatic nerve in the thigh through implanted electrodes. The electrical connection enabled the neuroprosthesis to communicate with the patient’s brain. With this connection, the neuroprosthetics could relay information on the constant changes in pressure detected on the prosthetic foot’s sole when walking. That gave the test subjects more confidence in their prosthesis and enabled them to walk faster on challenging terrains. In a recently published paper, Raspopovic and his team used the example of their leg prostheses to highlight the benefits of using naturally inspired, biomimetic stimulation to develop the next generation of neuroprosthetics. Using neuroprosthetics to simulate the activation of nerves in the sole To generate biomimetic signals, Natalija Katic – a doctoral student in Raspopovic’s research group – developed a computer model called FootSim. Katic used data collected by collaborators in Canada to develop this model. They recorded the activity of natural receptors — mechanoreceptors — in the sole of the foot while touching different points on the feet of volunteers with a vibrating rod. The model simulates the behavior of those receptors on the sole of the foot. It then generates neural signals that shoot up the nerves in the leg toward the brain. This occurs from the moment the heel hits the ground and the body’s weight begins to shift toward the outside of the foot before the toes push off the ground, ready for the next step. “Thanks to this model, we can see how semsory receptors from the sole, and the connected nerves, behave during walking or running, which is experimentally impossible to measure” Katic said. Giacomo Valle – a postdoc in Raspopovic’s research group – worked with colleagues in Germany, Serbia and Russia on experiments with cats, whose nervous system processes movement in a similar way to that of humans, in an effort to understand how biomimetic signals correspond to the ones emitted by real neurons. The experiments took place in 2019 at the Pavlov Institute of Physiology in St. Petersburg and were carried out in accordance with the relevant European Union guidelines. Researchers implanted electrodes, connecting some to the nerve in the leg and some to the spinal cord. When applying pressure to the bottom of the cat’s paw, they evoked the natural neural response that occurs when a cat takes a step. They saw the peculiar pattern of activity in the spinal cord that resembled patterns elicited when the researchers stimulated the leg nerve with biomimetic signals. However, they saw stimulation of the sciatic nerve in the cat elicit a much different pattern compared to the spine. “This clearly shows that the commonly used stimulation methods cause the neural networks in the spine to be flooded with information,” Valle said. “This information overload could be the reason for the unpleasant sensations or paraesthesia reported by some users of neuroprosthetics,” Raspopovic adds. Learning how the nervous system works here In a clinical trial with leg amputees, the researchers showed the superiority of biomimetic stimulation compared to time-constant stimulation. Their work showed how the signals that mimicked nature produced better results. Not only could test subjects climb steps faster, but they made fewer mistakes in a task requiring them to climb the same steps while spelling words backward. “Biomimetic neurostimulation allows subjects to concentrate on other things while walking,” Raspopovic said, “so we concluded that this type of stimulation is more naturally processed and less taxing on the brain.” Raspopovic believes the new findings highlight the need to move away from unnatural, time-constant stimulation and toward biomimetic signals. This applies to a number of other aids and devices, he says, including spinal implants and electrodes for brain stimulation. “We need to learn the language of the nervous system,” he said. “Then we’ll be able to communicate with the brain in ways it really understands.”

Researchers at the GI Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics at the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INP SP RAS) has started testing a new coating from boron carboide for the walls of the International Experimental Thermonuclear Reactor (ITER) under construction in France.  Research has been reported in Nuclear Engineering International and explains that the team looked for a substance to withstand damage caused by plasma during a thermonuclear reaction.  The plasma in the tokamak is a toroidal vacuum chamber and finding a material for the first wall that meets all the requirements was difficult. Carbon was used in research for tokamaks to protect the walls but proved problematic because it can retain hydrogen isotopes and radioactive tritium.  Currently, tungsten and beryllium are used in the first wall of the camera in ITER, which can withstand high temperatures and is very light, but the dust from beryllium is toxic and is a strong carcinogen.  Head of the ITER center, Anatoly Krasolnikov has led a team that looked for alternative options for covering the wall of the tokamak, which needed to be heat-resistance, lightweight, with high thermal and electrical conductivity. This includes some types of ceramics which are typically used as an insulator.  The Lavrentyev Institute of Hydrodynamics SB RAS, Khristianovitch Institute of Theoretical & Applied Mechanics, and Tomsk State University of Management Systems & Radio Electronics were involved in the study.  A coating of special material was applied with a thickness of only tens of microns, and tests are being carried out at the BETA installation at INP SP RAS. During the tests, the material is subjected to thermonuclear pulse loads and a laser-powered thermal load from the plasma. Temperature absorbed head and degree of erosion is being tracked using a diagnostic system. The moment erosion begins can also be tracked which can cause roughness to change and can be identified with the subsequent loss of matter.  Research engineer Dmitry Cherepanov explained, “the purpose of the tests was to characterize the limit of the loads that our test martials can withstand during pulsed heating.” “We have been developing neutron protection from boron carbide with Virial (St Petersburg) for a long time. Viral company is a manufacturer of equipment components of ceramic and cera-metallic materials,” said researcher Alexander Burdakov. “This substance is very durable, has relatively good thermal conductivity, and we test it under the impulse loads that are characteristic of tokamaks.” Similar to light beryllium, boron carbide does not cause the walls to cool quickly, and it also is readily available. In using boron carbide there are two options as it can completely replace tungsten or be applied to tungsten walls as a protective coating.   As of now, the results from the BETA complex testing, the threshold values of loads at which ceramics begin to collapse are similar to tungsten. Tests also suggest boron carbine is competitive with tungsten carbide and beryllium coatings.

Dublin, May 11, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2023" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering. The Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2023 report provides comprehensive understanding and unprecedented access to the stem cell partnering deals and agreements entered into by the worlds leading healthcare companies. Trends in stem cell partnering Partnering agreement structure Partnering contract documents Top deals by value Most active dealmakers Average deal terms for stem cells The report provides a detailed understanding and analysis of how and why companies enter stem cell partnering deals. These deals tend to be multicomponent, starting with collaborative R&D, and proceed to commercialization of outcomes. This report provides details of the latest stem cell agreements announced in the life sciences since 2010. The report takes the reader through a comprehensive review stem cell deal trends, key players, top deal values, as well as deal financials, allowing the understanding of how, why and under what terms, companies are entering stem cell partnering deals. The report presents financial deal term values for stem cell deals, listing by headline value, upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties, enabling readers to analyse and benchmark the financial value of deals. The middle section of the report explores the leading dealmakers in the stem cell partnering field; both the leading deal values and most active stem cell dealmaker companies are reported allowing the reader to see who is succeeding in this dynamic dealmaking market. One of the key highlights of the report is that over 700 online deal records of actual stem cell deals, as disclosed by the deal parties, are included towards the end of the report in a directory format - by company A-Z, stage of development, deal type, therapy focus, and technology type - that is easy to reference. Each deal record in the report links via Weblink to an online version of the deal. In addition, where available, records include contract documents as submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission by companies and their partners. Whilst many companies will be seeking details of the payment clauses, the devil is in the detail in terms of how payments are triggered - contract documents provide this insight where press releases and databases do not. The initial chapters of this report provide an orientation of stem cell dealmaking. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the report, whilst chapter 2 provides an overview of the trends in stem cell dealmaking since 2010, including details of headline, upfront, milestone and royalty terms. Chapter 3 provides a review of the leading stem cell deals since 2010. Deals are listed by headline value. Where the deal has an agreement contract published at the SEC a link provides online access to the contract. Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive listing of the top 25 most active companies in stem cell dealmaking with a brief summary followed by a comprehensive listing of stem cell deals announced by that company, as well as contract documents, where available. Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive and detailed review of stem cell partnering deals signed and announced since Jan 2010, where a contract document is available in the public domain. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand. Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive and detailed review of stem cell partnering deals signed and announced since Jan 2010. The chapter is organized by specific stem cell technology type. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each deal on demand. A comprehensive series of appendices is provided organized by stem cell partnering company A-Z, stage of development, deal type, and therapy focus. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each deal on demand. The report also includes numerous tables and figures that illustrate the trends and activities in stem cell partnering and dealmaking since 2010. In conclusion, this report provides everything a prospective dealmaker needs to know about partnering in the research, development and commercialization of stem cell technologies and products. Key benefits Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2023 provides the reader with the following key benefits: In-depth understanding of stem cell deal trends since 2010 Access to headline, upfront, milestone and royalty data Detailed access to actual stem cell contracts entered into by leading biopharma companies Identify most active stem cell dealmakers since 2010 Insight into terms included in a stem cell partnering agreement, with real world examples Understand the key deal terms companies have agreed in previous deals Undertake due diligence to assess suitability of your proposed deal terms for partner companies Report scope Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2023 is intended to provide the reader with an in-depth understanding and access to stem cell trends and structure of deals entered into by leading companies worldwide. Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements includes: Trends in stem cell dealmaking in the biopharma industry since 2010 Access to headline, upfront, milestone and royalty data Access to stem cell contract documents Leading stem cell deals by value since 2010 Most active stem cell dealmakers since 2010 In Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2023, the available deals are listed by: Company A-Z Headline value Stage of development at signing Deal component type Specific therapy target Technology type Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand. The Global Stem Cell PartneringTerms and Agreements 2010-2023 report provides comprehensive access to available deals and contract documents for over 700 stem cell deals. Analyzing actual contract agreements allows assessment of the following: What are the precise rights granted or optioned? What is actually granted by the agreement to the partner company? What exclusivity is granted? What is the payment structure for the deal? How are sales and payments audited? What is the deal term? How are the key terms of the agreement defined? How are IPRs handled and owned? Who is responsible for commercialization? Who is responsible for development, supply, and manufacture? How is confidentiality and publication managed? How are disputes to be resolved? Under what conditions can the deal be terminated? What happens when there is a change of ownership? What sublicensing and subcontracting provisions have been agreed? Which boilerplate clauses does the company insist upon? Which boilerplate clauses appear to differ from partner to partner or deal type to deal type? Which jurisdiction does the company insist upon for agreement law? Companies Mentioned Regenetech Regeneus Stempeutics Bakulev Center of Cardiovascular Surgery of Russian Academy of Sciences CNA Development The New York Stem Cell Foundation Arthrex Generex Biotechnology Celltex Therapeutics Viscofan BioEngineering Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Biosafe BioLife Solutions Rockefeller University Montefiore Medical Center Wake Forest University Fast Forward Jain Foundation Promega Lineage Cell Therapeutics Hepregen Histogen Lentigen Philogen Vascugen Shenogen Pharma VistaGen Therapeutics Centogene Spinogenix Transgenomic Biological Industries Procognia Apceth Munich Technical University Lehigh University Monash University Abu Dhabi Stem Cells Center Shanghai Cell Therapy Group Shanghai Jia Fu Medical Apparatus Sinopharm AXM Pharma For more information about this report visit About ResearchAndMarkets.com ResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Media Contact: Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [email protected] For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900 U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716 Logo: SOURCE Research and Markets