Radically different
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Nature Medicine, Published online: 25 June 2026; doi:10.1038/d41591-026-00033-3
A new study examines the impact of the national HPV vaccination program in England, initiated almost two decades ago — showing huge declines in cervical cancer mortality among young women.
A new study in Cell describes an AI‑enabled strategy that could accelerate the search for next‑generation CAR T cell targets—an enduring bottleneck in expanding the therapy beyond blood cancers. The work, titled “AI‑driven discovery of GPNMB CAR T cells as a multi‑cancer therapy,” was led by researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn’s Abramson Cancer Center, with collaborators at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and RWTH Aachen University.
The Penn team developed a human‑in‑the‑loop AI framework designed to systematically nominate antigens suitable for CAR T cell therapy. Rather than replacing expert judgment, the system integrates large language models (LLMs) with single-cell RNA sequencing datasets from human skin cancer and healthy tissue to generate and refine target lists that scientists then evaluate experimentally.
The challenge is well known: while CAR T therapies have transformed treatment for several hematologic malignancies, identifying safe, selective targets in solid tumors remains slow and labor‑intensive. “Discovering a good CAR target is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, except the haystack keeps growing as more sequencing data becomes available,” said lead author Daniel Baker, PhD, who completed the work under the mentorship of Carl June, MD, and Zoltan Arany, MD, PhD. LLMs, Baker added, excel at scanning broad datasets, while human experts “go deep”—a complementary pairing the team sought to formalize.
To test the framework, the researchers focused on skin cancer, integrating four publicly available single‑cell RNA‑seq datasets with additional public resources. More than 10,000 potential antigens were filtered using criteria relevant to CAR T design, including tumor composition, tissue specificity, and clinical feasibility. Multiple LLMs then repeatedly simulated target nomination—1,000 independent runs—to reduce noise and mitigate hallucinations. The resulting consensus list was reviewed by the team, who selected Glycoprotein non-metastatic melanoma protein B (GPNMB) as the top candidate.
The researchers then engineered a GPNMB‑directed CAR T cell and validated its activity across several preclinical models. In mouse studies, the CAR T cells eliminated tumors not only in melanoma—the original focus of the dataset—but also in monoblastic leukemia and colorectal adenocarcinoma, suggesting broader therapeutic potential. These findings align with the paper’s highlight that GPNMB is expressed across a wide range of tumor types.
The full framework is included in the methods section to enable adoption by other groups. The Penn team plans to apply the approach to additional cancer types and continue advancing the GPNMB CAR T candidate toward potential clinical translation.
According to June, “this study represents one of the first uses of large language models in the field of cell and gene therapy, including CAR T cell therapy.” The framework is intentionally modular and disease‑agnostic, designed to accommodate new datasets and future LLMs as they evolve. Arany emphasized the broader implications: “This is only the tip of the iceberg, as agentic AI is on the rise.”
The post AI Framework Surfaces New CAR T Target with Multi‑Cancer Potential appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.
New research headed by scientists at Baylor College of Medicine suggests that when bacteria are under antibiotic attack, it is not “every man for himself.” The team developed a genetic system in Escherichia coli to track how the cells transferred proteins between them. The results indicated that bacterial populations work as a team to survive antibiotics, pooling their resources and helping quiescent or dormant cells survive. Using different techniques, including high-resolution imaging, the team found that antibiotic treatment induced the transfer of proteins between different E. coli strains, and between E. coli and other species of bacteria.
They discovered that antibiotics stimulate bacteria to differentiate into groups of what they describe as vesicle-producing, and protein-receiving cells, and that antibiotic “persisters” with reduced protein synthesis acquire proteins released by their neighbors. The discoveries may help to explain why some bacteria are hard to eliminate, and also point to potential future approaches to improve antibiotic effectiveness.
“Antibiotics are designed to kill bacteria or stop them from growing,” said Christophe Herman, PhD, professor of molecular and human genetics and of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor. “Yet many times, antibiotics leave behind a small group of survivors. These survivors are not genetically resistant; instead, they temporarily shut down certain parts of their metabolism, entering a dormant-like state that allows them to endure treatment and later regrow. Understanding how survivors form and remain is a major challenge in fighting persistent infections.”
Herman is senior and co-corresponding author of the team’s published paper in Science,” (“Antibiotics stimulate protein transfer to persister cells,”) in which the team further explained, “Protein uptake enhanced the antibiotic persistence of recipient cells, revealing that vesicle exchange promotes bacterial survival during antibiotic treatment.”
Scientists have long known that bacteria can help each other resist antibiotics by sharing genes that provide antibiotic resistance. But as the authors pointed out, “Whereas horizontal gene transfer is known to spread antibiotic resistance genes, far less is understood about the mechanisms and effects of horizontal protein transfer.”
Antibiotic treatment stimulates vesicle production, so for their current study, Herman and colleagues investigated whether bacteria could also directly share proteins. Previous studies had indicated that bacteria can share proteins, but the experimental evidence was not clear. “To directly measure horizontal transfer, we constructed a genetic system in Escherichia coli consisting of a donor and a recipient strain.”
First author Alice X. Wen, a Baylor McNair Scholar in the Medical Scientist Training Program (MD/PhD), working in the Herman lab, further explained, “To detect protein transfer, we designed a sensitive system using the bacterium Escherichia coli. We engineered one group of bacteria (donors) to make a special enzyme called Cre, and another group of the same bacteria (recipients) to contain a genetic ‘switch’ that could only flip if Cre protein entered the recipient.”
Using this system, investigators discovered that when donor and recipient bacteria were grown together, protein transfer occurred but was rare under normal conditions. In contrast, when the bacteria were exposed to low, non-lethal levels of antibiotics, protein transfer increased by thousands of times. “We then investigated how proteins were moving from one cell to another,” Wen said. “We found that the transfer still occurred when donor cells were removed, leaving behind only the liquid in which they had grown. This ruled out direct cell-to-cell contact and pointed to something released into the environment.”
By combining biochemical techniques and advanced microscopy, the team discovered that the proteins were transported by tiny membrane vesicles. These structures, which look like tiny bubbles, are made of bacterial membrane that pinch off from cells and float freely. “Bacterial membrane vesicles, which contain proteins, have been proposed as mediators of horizontal protein transfer,” they pointed out. “Additionally, antibiotic treatment stimulates vesicle production.”
Looking closer at their experimental system, the team found that the recipient cells showed strong signs of dormancy—these cells slowed down protein production, reduced their metabolism, and activated genes associated with persistence, such as HipA. “Recipient cells with high HipA activity were more likely to take up protein-carrying vesicles and survive antibiotic treatment,” Wen said. “When HipA was removed, both protein uptake and survival dropped.”
Protein transfer also helped dormant bacteria survive exposure to lethal antibiotic doses after vesicle transfer; that is, exposing cells to an increased concentration of vesicles before antibiotic treatment led to increased survival. “Protein uptake enhanced the antibiotic persistence of recipient cells, revealing that vesicle exchange promotes bacterial survival during antibiotic treatment,” the authors stated. The results suggested that transferred proteins helped dormant cells endure stress while their own protein production was shut down. “Uptake of key proteins, such as ribosomal components, metabolic enzymes, or DNA repair factors, from active neighbors may help persisters endure proteome-damaging stress despite reduced protein synthesis.”
Herman said, “Our study shows that antibiotics cause a genetically identical group of bacteria to differentiate into two distinct groups: donor cells that respond by releasing protein-filled vesicles, and recipient cells that become dormant but capable of taking up proteins from incoming vesicles, which helps them survive,” Herman said. “This teamwork allows vulnerable members of a bacterial population to persist in the face of a potentially deadly antibiotic attack.”
The researchers are interested in identifying the proteins in vesicles that contribute to recipient persistence. Understanding donor-recipient interactions among bacteria opens new doors in the fight against chronic and persistent infections. In conclusion, the authors stated that their work “… reveals that antibiotics stimulate the differentiation of bacteria into distinct groups of vesicle-producing and protein-receiving cells, which allows antibiotic persisters with decreased protein synthesis to acquire proteins secreted from active neighbors. New strategies to eliminate persisters could be developed by inhibiting or hijacking horizontal protein transfer.”
The post Antibiotics Trigger Protein Sharing Among Bacteria, Aiding Persister Cells appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.
A new charter for the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine use substantially refocuses the responsibilities of the committee, downplaying its role in recommending the use of new vaccines and giving it responsibility to assess alternatives for disease prevention.
Whereas previous iterations of the committee’s charter stressed the importance of vaccine research-relevant experience in the selection of its members, the new version, posted to the CDC’s website on Thursday, merely stipulates that the panel as a whole should “represent a balanced range of scientific, clinical, and public health expertise relevant to the Committee’s mission” — a broad umbrella under which people with little experience in vaccines or vaccination policy might conceivably fit.
An IOCDF Affiliate carries out the mission of the International OCD Foundation through programs at the local community level within the United States. Each Affiliate is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization run entirely by dedicated volunteers.
Below will be quarterly updates from our Affiliates, organized by state. Click the (+) to open each menu and read updates and find contact information for clinics near you.
The post Affiliate Updates: Summer 2026 appeared first on International OCD Foundation.
Over the last decade, there has been unprecedented success and progress in immunotherapy for cancer treatment, so says Ira Mellman, PhD, the president of research at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy during his opening keynote at the Frontiers in Cancer Immunotherapy Symposium hosted by The New York Academy of Sciences, held on June 23, 2026.
Through his talk, Mellman described the research and clinical seeds that were sown over the last two decades. He showed how these seeds have blossomed, and his expectations for which blossoms will bear fruit, with the right focus and pruning.
Before considering therapeutic options, Mellman summarized the biological events required for stimulating an effective immune response in patients. He described the dual stages of T cell activation and T cell exhaustion. Most therapies have relied on interventions that activate T cells, but over time, these T cells become exhausted—they don’t die, but go into senescence.
The next logical step in therapeutic investigation was to explore methods to pull exhausted T cells from senescence back into an active state. While some new therapies are being tested, there is still significant work to be done and there have been many false starts.
Vaccine therapy has emerged to get ahead of the activation-exhaustion problem by developing primed and more efficient T cells.
“The sole purpose of vaccine therapy, as we think of it, is to generate more and better T cells by immunizing against presumptive tumor associated antigens or neo antigens and …having those cells feed into the cycle,” Mellman said. He explained that the idea behind using vaccines is akin to the goal of adaptive therapies, like CAR T, that increase the number of primed and functional T cells, but vaccines do it endogenously.
Broadening his scope further, Mellman spoke about cancers not just in terms of the direct interaction between cancer cells and T cells, but in the broader context of the body. “The tumor microenvironment (TME),” he said, “plays an immense role—both positive and negative—with respect to allowing T cells to do their jobs in the case of anti-tumor immunity.” Consideration of the interactions between cancer and the TME present both opportunities and challenges to developing therapies.
“We’ve had unprecedented success both clinically and commercially” within the last 15 years for a variety of cancer therapies that have come from the research stage to FDA approval in a relatively short time. Mellman pointed out that these therapies not only have been created quickly, are effective across a variety of diseases, are well tolerated, and improve survival of patients.
“All of this activity together has really changed the standard of care in a wide variety of cancer types,” he stressed. “That this has happened over a 15-year period is truly extraordinary.”
With this progress, Mellman returned to his original thesis that the field of cancer immunotherapy is on the precipice of big change.
He asked, “With this success—including clinical and financial—why do we need a renaissance in this area?” He answered his own question stating, that “We are the victims of our own success.”
He described challenges and setbacks stemming from the early progress. He described that identifying new checkpoint targets have not been successful, TIL research is somewhat successful, but outcomes are inconsistent, solid tumors post problems for therapies like CAR T, and cancer vaccines efficacy is unconfirmed except in their use as a post-operative adjuvant.
Reflecting on the history and progress, Mellman presented his four top priorities in progressing cancer immunotherapy over the next ten years. First, focusing on the next generation of cell therapy, especially focusing on treating solid tumors. Second, he suggests moving past CARs to using neoantigen-driven targeting (including vaccines, synthetic neoAg, and TCR platforms). Third, prioritizing in vivo immune engineering to reduce costs and improve accessibility and scalability. Fourth, he stresses the need to focus on a holistic approach to cancer immunology, understanding and optimizing the TME cancer interactions, developing synthetic modulators and utilizing AI models guided by patient insights.
Mellman further explained that through his work over the last two decades, he’s learned many lessons. He pointed out that researchers and clinicians need to remember that there are many therapeutic opportunities derived from various approaches; he cautioned against forgetting that mice are not humans and vice versa, pointing out that what may work in one species may not in the other; he encouraged the use of new technologies, including integrating AI into analysis procedures; and finally he suggested that researchers build on clinical research not just laboratory work.
Focusing on his own work, Mellman described how his team integrated these lessons in studying the application of mRNA vaccines. He described a study comparing the outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer given mRNA vaccines intravenously (IV) or with an intramuscular (IM) dose. They were surprised to find that patients receiving IV delivery responded to the vaccine, but the response was inconsistent at first glance. Through deeper investigation, they determined that non-responsive patients previously had a splenectomy in addition to the removal of their pancreatic tumor. They reasoned that the IV infusion in responsive patients impacted immune cells developing in the spleen. While this study helped explain part of the process, Mellman pointed out that the fundamental mechanisms by which vaccines can be functional as an adjuvant are still unclear and his team is currently working on addressing these questions.
“There is a wealth of new understanding that we can generate if we move to the clinic quickly but do so in a way that really still concentrates on the underlying basic science,” he concluded. He stressed the importance of following approaches with an established proof of concept and suggested that engineering will enable research and scaling up to positively impact many patients.
Tending to the blossoming research and application of cancer therapy will allow for patients to have the opportunity to have better therapies in the future. Though he said this early in his discussion, it seems appropriate to end with Mellman’s assertion that, “This is a remarkable field.”
The post Cancer Immunotherapy Blossoms Are Starting to Bear Fruit appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.
SAN DIEGO — On the exhibition floor at the annual international BIO conference in San Diego, biotech and startup executives hummed around pavilions representing member countries and states, pausing to watch World Cup games on a giant screen at a South Korean contract drug manufacturer’s booth.
Many attendees were thinking about how to compete off the pitch, too. China’s growing power in the business of developing new drugs became a central matter for much of the convention — as well as how to boost biotech in the U.S.
The road map of hopes and fears for a U.S.-centric biotech industry followed, both onstage and off: getting a better hold on Washington and beating back pricing policies, as well as moving quickly on artificial intelligence as early strategies yield clues about how to use the technology to gain a competitive edge.
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, has agreed to acquire Bio-Techne for approximately $11.3 billion, the companies said today, in a deal designed to position the buyer as more of a leader across the life science value chain by expanding its presence in high-growth, next-generation life-sci markets with Bio-Techne’s tools, analytical technologies, and consumables.
The deal would add Bio-Techne’s multiomics offerings, analytical technologies, and integrated workflow solutions to German Merck’s platforms and services in research, bioprocessing and advanced therapeutics, with the aim of creating a combined company capable of helping customers from discovery and translational research through development, testing and commercial manufacturing.
Merck KGaA added that acquiring Bio-Techne would directly deliver on its mid- to long-term strategic agenda, which focuses on adding to its high-growth value drivers, integrated workflows, platformed capabilities—as well as scaling and sourcing innovation through merger-and-acquisition (M&A) deals like the Bio-Techne transaction.
That transaction is the latest in a series of acquisitions for Merck KGaA totaling more than $35 billion, including in the U.S. with acquisitions such as Millipore (for about $7 billion in 2010), as well as Sigma-Aldrich (for $17 billion in a deal announced in 2014 and completed the following year), Versum Materials (for €5.8 billion [about $6.6 billion] in 2019), and last year, SpringWorks Therapeutics (for $3.95 billion).
Merck KGaA said it would also benefit from Bio-Techne’s position as a leading provider of materials, analytics, and process technologies to cell therapy developers. Bio-Techne expects to acquire the ownership in Wilson Wolf it does not own immediately following the end of calendar year 2027 under the terms of a two-part forward contract between the company and Wilson Wolf, a manufacturer of cell culture devices, including the G-Rex product line. Bio-Techne holds 19.9% of Wilson Wolf that it acquired in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2023.
Merck KGaA employs more than 14,000 people in the U.S. across over 70 company and customer sites.
The $11.3 billion Bio-Techne acquisition is the new third largest biopharma merger-and-acquisition (M&A) deal announced so far this year, behind the €10.7 billion ($12.268 billion) cash buyout offer for Italian-based Recordati being pursued by CVC Capital Partners and Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, which aim to take the company private; and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries’ planned $11.75 billion purchase of Organon, the women’s health drug developer spun out of Merck & Co., in a deal expected to close in early 2027.
The previous third-largest M&A deal this year, now fourth-largest, is the $10.9 billion AbbVie purchase of Apogee Therapeutics, announced on Monday. The fifth largest deal is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s planned $10.6 billion buyout of Nuvalent, announced June 9 and expected to close in the third quarter.
“Bio-Techne is an outstanding fit that directly supports our strategic direction focused on delivering cutting-edge products and solutions across the entire industry value chain—from lab customers to those manufacturing in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries,” Kai Beckmann, chairman of the executive board and group CEO of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, said in a statement.
“By combining Bio-Techne’s scientific depth, innovation engine and differentiated portfolio with the global scale, manufacturing excellence and customer reach of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, we are in a strong position to address some of the most important opportunities in life sciences and support our customers in accelerating the next generation of scientific discovery and therapeutic innovation. This positions us to deliver compelling strategic and financial benefits for shareholders, customers and employees,” Beckmann added.
Those benefits, according to German Merck, include immediate accretion to the company’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) pre margin for both the Group as a while and its Life Science business segment upon closing of the acquisition deal.
The Life Sciences segment finished last year with €8.98 billion ($10.36 billion) in revenue. Merck KGaA does not break down its businesses further than its three segments, which also include healthcare (drug development, focused on oncology, neurology and immunology, and “global health” treatments such as for malaria) and electronics (high-tech materials).
The deal is expected to close by late 2026 or early 2027, subject to satisfying customary closing conditions that include obtaining regulatory approvals and approval by Bio-Techne shareholders.
Bio-Techne’s board of directors and the corporate bodies overseeing Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, have already approved the transaction, which will also add to earnings per share (EPS) by year three after closing, German Merck said.
Merck KGaA said it will carry out cost-cutting “synergies” of approximately €140 million (about $159.3 million) that are expected to be fully realized by the third year after closing.
The planned acquisition will be funded through a combination of existing cash on hand and proceeds from new debt, Merck KGaA said, adding that it will preserve its “strong” investment-grade credit rating.
For Minneapolis-based Bio-Techne, the acquisition is expected to increase its geographic and omnichannel access for its customers through integration of its offerings with those of Merck KGaA through a synergistic platform.
Bio-Techne has more than 3,000 employees, with approximately 2,300 employees based in the U.S. The company operates 34 global locations and 15 manufacturing facilities across the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Switzerland and China, and generated net sales of more than $1.2 billion in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2025.
A leader in recombinant proteins with a half-century of heritage in next-generation R&D and new modalities, Bio-Techne said it would bring to German Merck a globally recognized portfolio of cytokines, growth factors, antibodies, and immunoassay kits. Bio-Techne is expected to strengthen the analytical and bioprocess solutions of Merck KGaA by adding to its offerings ProteinSimple, a leader in automated protein detection and analysis instruments. Bio-Techne added that its RNAscope and related in situ hybridization technologies would strengthen the capabilities of Merck KGaA, in spatial biology and diagnostics.
“For 50 years, Bio-Techne has enabled scientific breakthroughs across proteomics, spatial biology, and novel therapeutics,” stated Kim Kelderman, president and CEO of Bio-Techne. “This transaction is a testament to the remarkable company our team has built and to the enduring value we create for our customers and stakeholders.”
Bio-Techne investors appeared to share only muted enthusiasm for the deal, as the company’s shares traded on Nasdaq rose just 19.8% to $70.53 as of 12:48 pm ET, from Wednesday’s close of $58.88 per share. Merck KGaA shares traded on XETRA rose 4.93% to €147.00 ($167.25).
Puneet Souda, senior managing director, life science tools and diagnostics, and a senior research analyst with Leerink Partners, offered a possible explanation in a research note today: “The acquisition appears to be only a 24% premium to yesterday’s close and 26x the Street’s forecast for FY27 [enterprise value]/EBITDA compared to 16x for its LST [life science technologies] peer group.”
“We see the acquisition multiple undervaluing what is a highly accretive asset in our view,” Souda wrote. “Historically, TECH [Bio-Techne’s stock ticker] traded at much higher multiples given their highly accretive consumables profile (80%+ consumables) of consistent 70%+ gross margins and operating margin potential.”
One rival company in particular may benefit from the deal, Souda said: “The announcement is likely to be viewed positive for peer LST companies today, especially RVTY [Revvity] in our view.”
At $73 per share cash, the deal price represents a 36% premium to Bio-Techne’s one-month volume weighted average trading price.
“As part of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, we will have greater scale and expanded capabilities to accelerate innovation and deepen our impact. Together, we will empower our customers to tackle the most important challenges in science and healthcare, helping to improve outcomes worldwide,” Kelderman added.
The post Merck KGaA to Acquire Bio-Techne for $11.3B, Expanding Life Science Tools Presence appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.