Qaasid News

Download Our App

Category: 3. Business

  • UK cryptoasset regulation mini-series – Episode 6 – Overview of the Cryptoasset Regulations – Global Regulation Tomorrow

    1. UK cryptoasset regulation mini-series – Episode 6 – Overview of the Cryptoasset Regulations  Global Regulation Tomorrow
    2. FCA indicates path for future crypto regulation  Compliance Week
    3. UK Plans to Implement Comprehensive Regulatory Framework for Crypto Assets  Bitget
    4. How the UK plans to regulate crypto like traditional finance  TradingView — Track All Markets
    5. UK Sets Structured Path for Full Crypto Regulation by 2027  CoinCentral

    Continue Reading

  • FCC Implements Categorical Prohibition on All Foreign-Produced UAS and UAS Critical Components

    FCC Implements Categorical Prohibition on All Foreign-Produced UAS and UAS Critical Components

    In addition to the restrictions on foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components, the new Covered List entry also applies stricter prohibitions against “all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act.” Section 1709(a)(1) specifically identifies Shenzhen Da-Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies Company Limited (DJI) and Autel Robotics as named entities (the “Section 1709 Entities”) and prohibits each entity—and any affiliate, subsidiary, or contractual vehicle of each—from selling communications or surveillance equipment or services generally, in the U.S. market, whether produced domestically or abroad.

    The Covered List
    Pursuant to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), the PSHSB is required to keep an up-to-date list of “communications equipment and services produced or provided by any entity” that, based exclusively on the determination by one or more of four exclusive sources, “poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.” The potential sources, as listed in Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act, include “any executive branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise” and “an appropriate national security agency.” To date, the Covered List has exclusively focused on communications and surveillance products and services from named entities, each tied to either China or Russia.

    The effects of the Covered List have been expanding since its inception. Initially, the Secured Networks Act provided that the Covered List prohibits review or approval of equipment authorizations applications of devices for or that incorporate “covered” equipment, as well as the use of Universal Service Fund sources to purchase “covered” equipment and services. More recently, the FCC has expanded the Covered List restrictions into its  , and is adopting associated restrictions on certification bodies (Bad Labs) involved in the certification process.

    The Foreign UAS Public Notice
    As required by Section 1709(a) of the FY2025 NDAA, the FCC received a National Security Determination (NSD) from an Executive Branch interagency body, concluding that, in light of several upcoming mass gathering events, such as the World Cup and Olympics, and the general need to protect U.S. national security and cybersecurity, UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries “pose unacceptable risks, given the threats from unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, supply chain vulnerabilities, and other potential threats to the homeland.”

    Within a day of receiving the NSD, the PSHSB released the Public Notice to add the following “Foreign UAS Entry” to the Covered List:

    Uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country [incorporating the definitions included in the associated National Security Determination] and all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 118-159).

    The Foreign UAS Entry places a broad prohibition on all “UAS” and “UAS critical components” “produced in foreign countries.”

    UAS. The Public Notice adopts the existing definition of “UAS” under Section 88.5 of its rules, defined as “the uncrewed aircraft (UA) and its associated elements (communication links, uncrewed aircraft stations, and components that are not onboard the UA, but control the UA) that would be required for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States.” The FCC’s rules further define the UA to be “an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.”

    UAS Critical Components. Both the NSD and FCC recognize that there is no existing definition of “UAS critical components.” Instead, both documents provide a broad, non-exhaustive list of components, and are to be treated as inclusive of any associated software:

    • Data Transmission Devices
    • Communications Systems
    • Flight Controllers
    • Ground Control Stations and UAS Controllers
    • Navigation Systems
    • Sensors and Cameras
    • Batteries and Battery
    • Management Systems Motors

    Produced in a Foreign Country. Notably, and aligned with the stated objectives of the Administration, the prohibition is location-based. The Foreign UAS Entry does not distinguish between UAS and UAS critical components made by foreign entities abroad or those produced outside the United States by U.S.-owned, operated or affiliated entities. Nor does the prohibition differentiate between U.S. allies and competitors or adversaries. The restriction is a blanket prohibition on foreign production unless covered by one of two exemptions.

    The Section 1709 Entities. Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA provides specific prohibitions for the two entities named in its provisions, separate and apart from the broad restrictions being placed on other location-based UAS and UAS critical component producers. The Section 1709 Entities are subject to a more “traditional” restriction under the Covered List. The two entities—DJI and Autel Robotics—as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates or partners, or any joint venture or technology sharing or licensing agreement with such entities, for any communications or surveillance equipment or services are prohibited from selling any products or services the United States. This means that, with respect to the Section 1709 Entities, the restrictions extend beyond just drone production and would also include any attempts to set up production within the United States, as well.

    Implementation 
    Under FCC rules, equipment on the Covered List is prohibited from receiving or being included as part of an application for equipment authorization. Entities and individuals applying for equipment authorization—a requirement for products that use or incorporate radiofrequencies before being marketed or made commercially available in the United States—are required to certify that the equipment is not and does not include “covered” equipment. This certification will now apply to any entities seeking authorization for UAS or counter-UAS systems in the United States, including those with applications that are currently pending, but not yet granted, before the FCC. Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) will also be tasked with reviewing equipment authorization applications to assess compliance with the Covered List.

    ***UAS applicants are reminded to ensure applications are up to date and contain accurate certifications given the changes to the Covered List.***

    The Exemptions
    While most foreign production has been effectively blocked from the U.S. market by the Foreign UAS Entry on the Covered List, the Public Notice does provide two notable exemptions:

    • Existing Equipment Authorizations. UAS and UAS critical components that have already received an FCC Part 2 equipment authorization may continue to be imported, marketed, and sold in the United States. However, no modifications, amendments or other updates can be made to existing authorizations.
    • U.S. Department of War (DOW) or U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Waiver. DOW or DHS can make “a specific determination to the FCC that a given UAS or class of UAS [or given UAS critical component] does not pose such [national security] risks.”

    While it is unclear from the Public Notice what a DOW or DHS waiver process will look like, or how it would be implemented by the FCC once made, some standardized waiver process is likely to be implemented. Such processes are also anticipated to cover existing processes like the Defense Contract Management Agency Blue List.

    The Public Notice also clarifies that the effects of the listing are not initially retroactive. This action does not affect continued use of drones previously purchased or acquired by consumers. However, moving forward, the FCC may place restrictions on previously-authorized covered equipment, including an outright prohibition, using additional enforcement mechanisms at its disposal.

    Takeaways
    With immediate effect and without notice, the Foreign UAS Entry substantially expanded the scope and potential impact of what had been expected to be a targeted action regarding the Section 1709 Entities. The consequences of this addition to the Covered List will directly and indirectly affect entities across the UAS and counter-UAS industry. Both international and domestic entities within the UAS ecosystem should carefully review the Public Notice and assess its anticipated impacts on operations, supply chain, and contracts.

    Companies currently selling or seeking to sell UAS and UAS critical components produced outside the United States that want to continue their U.S. sales should consider actively engaging with their business partners and the U.S. Government to both make a waiver request and avoid contract cancellation prior to adjudication of any such requests.

    For more information about the above Public Notice, the Covered List or compliance with these regulations generally, please contact the authors.

    Continue Reading

  • Tuning evolvability via plasmid copy number and regulatory architecture

  • Cameron, D. E., Bashor, C. J. & Collins, J. J. A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 381–390 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. A. N. & Voigt, C. A. Principles of genetic circuit design. Nat. Methods 11, 508–520 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, R., Rubens, J. R., Sarpeshkar, R. & Lu, T. K. Synthetic analog computation in living cells. Nature 497, 619–623 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, T. S., Lou, C., Tamsir, A., Stanton, B. C. & Voigt, C. A. Genetic programs constructed from layered logic gates in single cells. Nature 491, 249–253 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio, D., Abdallah, H., Qian, Y. & Collins, J. J. A blueprint for a synthetic genetic feedback controller to reprogram cell fate. Cell Syst. 4, 109–120.e11 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceroni, F. et al. Burden-driven feedback control of gene expression. Nat. Methods 15, 387–393 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H.-H., Qian, Y. & Del Vecchio, D. A quasi-integral controller for adaptation of genetic modules to variable ribosome demand. Nat. Commun. 9, 5415 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, S. K. et al. A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation. Nature 570, 533–537 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frei, T., Chang, C.-H., Filo, M., Arampatzis, A. & Khammash, M. A genetic mammalian proportional-integral feedback control circuit for robust and precise gene regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2122132119 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyorgy, A., Menezes, A. & Arcak, M. A blueprint for a synthetic genetic feedback optimizer. Nat. Commun. 14, 2554 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A. A. K. et al. Genetic circuit design automation. Science 352, aac7341 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. S., Oliveira, S. M. D., Myers, C. J., Voigt, C. A. & Densmore, D. Genetic circuit design automation with Cello 2.0. Nat. Protoc. 17, 1097–1113 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, A. S. & Collins, J. J. Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 367–379 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephanopoulos, G. Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 514–525 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, K. R. et al. Systems metabolic engineering strategies: integrating systems and synthetic biology with metabolic engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 37, 817–837 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrolli, D. B. et al. Engineering microbial living therapeutics: the synthetic biology toolbox. Trends Biotechnol. 37, 100–115 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubillos-Ruiz, A. et al. Engineering living therapeutics with synthetic biology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20, 941–960 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scown, C. D. & Keasling, J. D. Sustainable manufacturing with synthetic biology. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 304–307 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyorgy, A. et al. Isocost lines describe the cellular economy of genetic circuits. Biophys. J. 109, 639–646 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceroni, F., Algar, R., Stan, G.-B. & Ellis, T. Quantifying cellular capacity identifies gene expression designs with reduced burden. Nat. Methods 12, 415–418 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, E. et al. Biophysical constraints arising from compositional context in synthetic gene networks. Cell Syst. 5, 11–24.e12 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, S. D., Grierson, C. S. & Gorochowski, T. E. Towards an engineering theory of evolution. Nat. Commun. 12, 3326 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Moreno, J., Tasiudi, E., Kusumawardhani, H., Stelling, J. & Schaerli, Y. Robustness and innovation in synthetic genotype networks. Nat. Commun. 14, 2454 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A., Guye, P., Gupta, S., Duportet, X. & Weiss, R. Chapter seven – design and connection of robust genetic circuits. In Voigt, C. (ed.) Synthetic Biology, Part A, vol. 497 of Methods in Enzymology, 159–186 (Academic Press, 2011).

  • Wagner, A. Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 91–100 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giver, L., Gershenson, A., Freskgard, P.-O. & Arnold, F. H. Directed evolution of a thermostable esterase. PNAS 95, 12809–12813 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokobayashi, Y., Weiss, R. & Arnold, F. H. Directed evolution of a genetic circuit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 16587–16591 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H. et al. Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460, 894–898 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Esvelt, K. M., Carlson, J. C. & Liu, D. R. A system for the continuous directed evolution of biomolecules. Nature 472, 499–503 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. J., Segall-Shapiro, T. H., Glassey, E., Zhang, J. & Voigt, C. A. Escherichia coli “marionette” strains with 12 highly optimized small-molecule sensors. Nat. Chem. Biol. 15, 196–204 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleight, S. C., Bartley, B. A., Lieviant, J. A. & Sauro, H. M. Designing and engineering evolutionary robust genetic circuits. J. Biol. Eng. 4, 12 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chlebek, J. L. et al. Prolonging genetic circuit stability through adaptive evolution of overlapping genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, 7094–7108 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. & Hasty, J. Stability, robustness, and containment: preparing synthetic biology for real-world deployment. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 79, 102880 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, D. S., Bren, A., Vaisbourd, E., Mayo, A. & Alon, U. A synthetic differentiation circuit in Escherichia coli for suppressing mutant takeover. Cell 187, 931–944.e12 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Beltrán, J., DelaFuente, J., León-Sampedro, R., MacLean, R. C. & San Millan, A. Beyond horizontal gene transfer: the role of plasmids in bacterial evolution. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 347–359 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Soucy, S. M., Huang, J. & Gogarten, J. P. Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 472–482 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, L. S., Leplae, R., Summers, A. O. & Toussaint, A. Mobile genetic elements: the agents of open source evolution. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 3, 722–732 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carattoli, A. Resistance plasmid families in Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53, 2227–2238 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, H., Göker, M., Koblížek, M., Wagner-Döbler, I. & Petersen, J. Horizontal operon transfer, plasmids, and the evolution of photosynthesis in Rhodobacteraceae. ISME J. 12, 1994–2010 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzano-Marin, A. et al. Serial horizontal transfer of vitamin-biosynthetic genes enables the establishment of new nutritional symbionts in aphids’ di-symbiotic systems. ISME J. 14, 259–273 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • San Millan, A., Escudero, J. A., Gifford, D. R., Mazel, D. & MacLean, R. C. Multicopy plasmids potentiate the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0010 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Beltran, J. et al. Multicopy plasmids allow bacteria to escape from fitness trade-offs during evolutionary innovation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 873–881 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina, R. S. et al. In vivo hypermutation and continuous evolution. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2, 36 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravikumar, A., Arzumanyan, G. A., Obadi, M. K., Javanpour, A. A. & Liu, C. C. Scalable, continuous evolution of genes at mutation rates above genomic error thresholds. Cell 175, 1946–1957.e13 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. L., Papa, L. J. & Shoulders, M. D. A processive protein chimera introduces mutations across defined DNA regions in vivo. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 11560–11564 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, S. O. et al. CRISPR-guided DNA polymerases enable diversification of all nucleotides in a tunable window. Nature 560, 248–252 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halleran, A. D., Flores-Bautista, E. & Murray, R. M. Quantitative characterization of random partitioning in the evolution of plasmid-encoded traits. Preprint at: https://doi.org/10.1101/594879 (2019).

  • Rossine, F., Sanchez, C., Eaton, D., Paulsson, J. & Baym, M. Intracellular competition shapes plasmid population dynamics. Science 390, 1253–1264 (2025).

  • Loveless, T. B. et al. Lineage tracing and analog recording in mammalian cells by single-site DNA writing. Nat. Chem. Biol. 17, 739–747 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Segall-Shapiro, T. H., Sontag, E. D. & Voigt, C. A. Engineered promoters enable constant gene expression at any copy number in bacteria. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 352–358 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alon, U. Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 450–461 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerland, U. & Hwa, T. Evolutionary selection between alternative modes of gene regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 8841–8846 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marciano, D. C. et al. Negative feedback in genetic circuits confers evolutionary resilience and capacitance. Cell Rep. 7, 1789–1795 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyorgy, A. Competition and evolutionary selection among core regulatory motifs in gene expression control. Nat. Commun. 14, 8266 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dublanche, Y., Michalodimitrakis, K., Kümmerer, N., Foglierini, M. & Serrano, L. Noise in transcription negative feedback loops: simulation and experimental analysis. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2, 41 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Becskei, A. & Serrano, L. Engineering stability in gene networks by autoregulation. Nature 405, 590–593 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Igler, C., Lagator, M., Tkacik, G., Bollback, J. P. & Guet, C. C. Evolutionary potential of transcription factors for gene regulatory rewiring. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1633–1643 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Beltrán, J. et al. Genetic dominance governs the evolution and spread of mobile genetic elements in bacteria. PNAS 117, 15755–15762 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, P. et al. Mapping the genomic landscape of CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage. Nat. Methods 14, 600–606 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M., Eslami-Mossallam, B., Arroyo, D. G. & Depken, M. Hybridization kinetics explains CRISPR-Cas off-targeting rules. Cell Rep. 22, 1413–1423 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, V. et al. High-throughput profiling of off-target dna cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 839–843 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. L. et al. Kinetics of dcas9 target search in Escherichia coli. Science 357, 1420–1424 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Savageau, M. A. GenetiC Regulatory Mechanisms And The Ecological Niche of Escherichia coli. PNAS 71, 2453–2455 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Savageau, M. A. Design of molecular control mechanisms and the demand for gene expression. PNAS 74, 5647–5651 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Savageau, M. A. Demand theory of gene regulation. I. Quantitative development of the theory. Genetics 149, 1665–1676 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinar, G., Dekel, E., Tlusty, T. & Alon, U. Rules for biological regulation based on error minimization. PNAS 103, 3999–4004 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerland, U. & Hwa, T. Evolutionary selection between alternative modes of gene regulation. PNAS 106, 8841–8846 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaerli, Y. et al. Synthetic circuits reveal how mechanisms of gene regulatory networks constrain evolution. Mol. Syst. Biol. 14, e8102 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, A., Cotterell, J., Munteanu, A. & Sharpe, J. Dynamics of gene circuits shapes evolvability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 2103–2108 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Helenek, C. et al. Synthetic gene circuit evolution: Insights and opportunities at the mid-scale. Cell Chem. Biol. 31, 1447–1459 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihajlovic, L. et al. A direct experimental test of Ohno’s hypothesis. eLife 13, RP97216 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandegren, L. & Andersson, D. I. Bacterial gene amplification: implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 7, 578–588 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskine, M. & Tawfik, D. S. Mutational effects and the evolution of new protein functions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 572–582 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, E. & Brockhurst, M. A. Plasmid-mediated horizontal gene transfer is a coevolutionary process. Trends Microbiol. 20, 262–267 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouches, M. V., Xu, Y., Cortes, L. B. G. & Lambert, G. A plasmid system with tunable copy number. Nat. Commun. 13, 3908 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thieffry, D., Huerta, A. M., Pérez-Rueda, E. & Collado-Vides, J. From specific gene regulation to genomic networks: a global analysis of transcriptional regulation in Escherichia coli. BioEssays 20, 433–440 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen-Orr, S. S., Milo, R., Mangan, S. & Alon, U. Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nat. Genet. 31, 64–68 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Backwell, L. & Marsh, J. A. Diverse molecular mechanisms underlying pathogenic protein mutations: Beyond the loss-of-function paradigm. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 23, 475–498 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiard, S., Castric, V. & Llaurens, V. The integrative biology of genetic dominance. Biol. Rev. 96, 2925–2942 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, M. J., Pierce, A. P. & Taylor, T. B. Evolutionary innovation through transcription factor rewiring in microbes is shaped by levels of transcription factor activity, expression, and existing connectivity. PLOS Biol. 21, e3002348 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray, G. A. The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 206–216 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, R. et al. Establishing a synthetic orthogonal replication system enables accelerated evolution in E. coli. Science 383, 421–426 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rix, G. et al. Continuous evolution of user-defined genes at 1 million times the genomic mutation rate. Science 386, eadm9073 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chure, G. et al. Predictive shifts in free energy couple mutations to their phenotypic consequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 18275–18284 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tack, D. S. et al. The genotype-phenotype landscape of an allosteric protein. Mol. Syst. Biol. 17, e10847 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, S. H.-N., Yong, C. & Gyorgy, A. Inducible plasmid copy number control for synthetic biology in commonly used E. coli strains. Nat. Commun. 13, 6691 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P. & Libchaber, A. Pressure and temperature dependence of growth and morphology of Escherichia coli: experiments and stochastic model. Biophys. J. 105, 783–793 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson, J. & Ehrenberg, M. Molecular clocks reduce plasmid loss rates: the r1 case. J. Mol. Biol. 297, 179–192 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Datsenko, K. A. & Wanner, B. L. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli k-12 using pcr products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97, 6640–6645 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. et al. Metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing. Metab. Eng. 31, 13–21 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambrook, J. & Russell, D. W. Molecular Cloning: a Laboratory Manual, 3rd edn (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001).

  • Gruber, A. R., Lorenz, R., Bernhart, S. H., Neubock, R. & Hofacker, I. L. The Vienna RNA websuite. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W70–W74 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenberg, S., Helmbrecht, N., Kanis, P., Maricic, T. & Pääbo, S. Improved grna secondary structures allow editing of target sites resistant to CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage. Nat. Commun. 13, 489 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos, M. A. et al. CRISPRscan: designing highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9 targeting in vivo. Nat. Methods 12, 982–988 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo-Hair, S. M. et al. Flowcal: a user-friendly, open source software tool for automatically converting flow cytometry data from arbitrary to calibrated units. ACS Synth. Biol. 5, 774–780 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krašovec, R. et al. Measuring microbial mutation rates with the fluctuation assay. J. Vis. Exp. 60406 (2019).

  • Mazoyer, A., Drouilhet, R., Despréaux, S. & Ycart, B. flan: an R Package for inference on mutation models. R. J. 9, 334–351 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrou, K.-M., Pavlopoulos, G. A. & Moulos, P. Protocol for unbiased, consolidated variant calling from whole exome sequencing data. STAR Protoc. 3, 101418 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zouein, A., Lende-Dorn, B., Galloway, K. E., Ellis, T. & Ceroni, F. Engineered transcription factor-binding arrays for dna-based gene expression control in mammalian cells. Trends Biotechnol. 43, 2029–2048 (2025).

  • Lee, T. & Maheshri, N. A regulatory role for repeated decoy transcription factor binding sites in target gene expression. Mol. Syst. Biol. 8, 576 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. W. et al. Creating single-copy genetic circuits. Mol. Cell 63, 329–336 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

Continue Reading

  • Lost cavers brought to safety in overnight Matlock Bath rescue

    Lost cavers brought to safety in overnight Matlock Bath rescue

    A lost party of cavers were brought to safety in an overnight rescue operation.

    The alarm was raised that a group exploring the Ringing Rake Slough system near Matlock Bath had not returned to the surface just before 21:00 GMT on Tuesday.

    Derbyshire Cave Rescue Organisation volunteers and Derbyshire Police were called to the scene. Teams went underground at 22:30 and were able to locate the group “after a good search”.

    The lost cavers were warmed and then with some digging “in tight areas” were escorted back to the lower entrance near Matlock Mining Museum unharmed just before 05:00 on Wednesday.

    Continue Reading

  • Iron ore price logs annual gain in a dramatic recovery fuelled by steel exports

    Iron ore price logs annual gain in a dramatic recovery fuelled by steel exports

    Stock image.

    Iron ore futures traded in a tight band on Wednesday, but defied early 2025 fears to post annual gains on the back of resilient demand in top consumer China amid robust steel exports and prospects of improved steel fundamentals.

    The most-traded May iron ore contract on China’s Dalian Commodity Exchange (DCE) closed daytime trade 0.57% lower at 789.5 yuan ($112.97) a metric ton, but posted an annual rise of 1.3%.

    The benchmark February iron ore SZZFG6 on the Singapore Exchange was up 0.2% at $105.55 a ton, as of 0736 GMT, set for an annual gain of 5.1%.

    Prices of the key steelmaking ingredient had come under pressure earlier this year on expectations of a supply glut and forecasts of faltering demand in China.

    But China’s consumption proved to be resilient, underpinning iron ore prices, even as crude steel output is set to fall below 1 billion tons this year.

    Cost competitiveness of blast furnace-based steelmaking kept operating rates high, boosting iron ore demand, although the cleaner electric-arc-furnace-based steelmakers had to scale down output when margins were squeezed by dwindling local demand and resilient ore prices.

    Ballooning steel exports, which are set to hit a record high in 2025 despite growing protectionist measures worldwide, offset sagging demand from the crisis-hit Chinese property sector.

    In the near term, ore prices are expected to find support from a flurry of restocking by steelmakers ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday in February. But swelling portside inventories and sluggish steel demand will curb the upside potential.

    Other steelmaking ingredients on the DCE were mixed on Wednesday, with coking coal up 0.45% and coke down 1.25%.

    Steel benchmarks on the Shanghai Futures Exchange moved sideways. Rebar lost 0.48%, hot-rolled coil fell 0.52%, while wire rod SWRcv1 gained 5.66% and stainless steel SHSScv1 firmed 0.57%.

    ($1 = 6.9883 Chinese yuan)

    (Reporting by Ruth Chai and Amy Lv; Editing by Sonia Cheema and Subhranshu Sahu)


    Continue Reading

  • FCC Seeks Comments on Changes to Broadband Labels for Consumers (Updated Comment Period)

    FCC Seeks Comments on Changes to Broadband Labels for Consumers (Updated Comment Period)

    Comments New Due Date: January 16, 2026
    Reply Comments New Due Date: February 16, 2026

    On October 28, 2025, the FCC adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, proposing to eliminate certain broadband label requirements and seeking comment on other ways to streamline the broadband label rules.  The FCC released the Second FNPRM on November 3, 2025, and established the comment period on December 4, 2025.  On December 29, 2025, the FCC granted a 14-day extension of the comment period.    

    Specifically, as to accessibility, the FCC acknowledges the continuing obligation to ensure the accessibility of broadband labels for people with disabilities.  For example, the FCC proposes to eliminate the requirement that providers read broadband labels to consumers by telephone but clarifies that this deletion does not prevent providers from conveying this information over the phone at a customer’s request, or change the providers’ continuing obligation to ensure accessibility of broadband labels for people with disabilities.

    Further, the FCC proposes to eliminate the label machine-readability requirement.  The Commission affirms that this change does not impact any accessibility obligations providers may have to ensure that information displayed on their website, including broadband label information, is compatible with screen readers and assistive technologies used by people with disabilities.

    Specifically, regarding accessibility, the FCC seeks comment on:

    • How providers can comply with the requirement to ensure broadband labels are prominently displayed, publicly available, and easily accessible to consumers with disabilities when there is no requirement that providers read the label to consumers over the phone; and
    • The proposal to close an earlier inquiry on adopting specific accessibility standards for labels, such as further support for ASL, braille and tactile indicators. 

    Interested parties may file comments by accessing the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.  All filings must reference CG Docket No. 22-2 and GN Docket No. 25-133.  People with disabilities who need assistance to file comments online may request assistance by email to FCC504@fcc.gov. 

    Link to the Second FNPRM: 
    https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-simplify-broadband-labels-consumers

    Link to the Comment Due Dates Extension Order:
    https://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-grants-extension-comment-deadlines-broadband-labels-fnprm

    For general information about broadband labels, visit: https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels.  For specific questions about this proceeding, contact Michelle Branigan, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at michelle.branigan@fcc.gov or (202) 418-1345. Individuals who use videophones and are fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) may call the FCC’s ASL Consumer Support Line at (844) 432-2275 (videophone). 

    Continue Reading

  • What were the indicators of 2025 and what will they be for 2026? : Planet Money : NPR

    What were the indicators of 2025 and what will they be for 2026? : Planet Money : NPR

    Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

    2025 is finally over. It was a wild year for the U.S. economy. Tariffs transformed global trading, consumer sentiment hit near-historic lows, and stocks hit dramatic new heights! So … which of these economic stories defined the year?

    We will square off in a family feud to make our case, debate, and decide it. 

    Also, as we enter 2026, we are watching the trends and planning out what next years stories are likely to be. So we’re picking  which indicators will become next years most telling. 

    On today’s episode, our indicators of this past year AND our top indicator predictions for 2026.

    Related episodes:

    The Indicators of this year and next (2024)

    This indicator hasn’t flashed this red since the dot-com bubble 

    What would it mean to actually refund the tariffs?

    What AI data centers are doing to your electric bill 

    What indicators will 2025 bring? 

    Pre-order the Planet Money book and get a free gift. / Subscribe to Planet Money+

    Listen free: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.

    Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.

    This episode of Planet Money was produced by James Sneed. The indicator episodes were produced by Angel Carreras, edited by Julia Ritchey, engineered by Robert Rodrigez and Kwesi Lee, and fact-checked by Sierra Juarez. Kate Concannon is the editor of the Indicator. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer. 

    For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator and Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

    Music: Source Audio – “We Wish You A Merry Christmas,” “Terry And Mildred,” “Airscape,” and “Older Heads.”

    Continue Reading

  • U startup tackles e-waste with degradable materials – @theU

    U startup tackles e-waste with degradable materials – @theU

    Reposted from the Technology Licensing Office.

    When consumers discard electronic devices, they often end up in U.S. landfills or are exported overseas for processing. EnduraCure, a University of Utah startup, is addressing this sustainability challenge by developing high-performance polymer substrates that can be chemically degraded. The goal is to use these materials in electronics so they can be more easily processed to recover valuable metals contained in their circuitry.

    According to the Environmental Protection Agency, electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing environmental problems in the world, posing significant risks both to workers who handle these materials and to the environments where they’re disposed.

    Yet these materials contain precious metals found in circuits that have inherent value for reuse, but current disposal processes often leave them in landfills. Toxic materials, such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, can leach into the environment and expose disposal workers to high levels of contaminants. In response, the National Science Foundation and related organizations have encouraged researchers to develop reusable and reclaimable materials.

    Lightening the load on landfills

    EnduraCure is answering that call. Their technology uses a photocured polymerization process to create flexible substrates that match the durability of conventional materials during use but can be broken down in a mild chemical bath at end-of-life—recovering valuable components in the process.

    “It’s all about making these products degradable by design,” said EnduraCure CEO Dennis Pruzan, a former U engineering graduate student. “We’re pushing towards a circular economy and reducing loads on landfills.”

    The company’s initial focus is on flexible electronic substrates and encapsulants—materials used in medical sensors, smart packaging, and wearable devices. These applications demand both performance and flexibility, making them ideal candidates for EnduraCure’s sustainable alternative to conventional nonrecyclable materials.

    The company originated in the  Wang Research Group in the Price College of Engineering, where sustainable polymers are the central research focus under the leadership of Chen Wang, an assistant professor in the Department of Materials Science & Engineering. Pruzan completed his Ph.D. in materials science in 2018, then spent several years in industry working on carbon fiber products at DPS Skis. Wang recruited him back to his lab as a research associate, and when EnduraCure needed dedicated leadership, Pruzan’s combination of academic training and industry experience made him a natural fit to take the lead.

    “One of the things I admire most about the way Chen operates his lab is that it’s with an eye on translational research,” Pruzan explained. “We don’t want to do research for the sake of doing research. We want to do research that has economic value.”

    In recent months, Pruzan and his team have shifted their work from the lab into a separate business and commercialization space, seeking both funding and collaborators as they establish themselves in this new environment.  The company recently received the National Science Foundation’s Phase 1 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) award, funding continued research and commercialization efforts.

    A university-supported funding pipeline

    To bridge the funding gap between academic research and commercialization, EnduraCure secured an Ascender Grant from the Technology Licensing Office—stopgap funding that proved critical while the team pursued the STTR.

    Pruzan also participated in the NSF I-Corps program through the U, an intensive customer discovery process that reshaped how the team thought about their market. The team’s successful pursuit of the NSF STTR Phase 1 Award provides funding to establish themselves as a company and move beyond the university research environment—an important milestone in their translational research journey.

    In coming months, the EnduraCure team plans to seek out a manufacturing partner—ideally an electronics company with whom they can demonstrate environmentally sustainable and cost-effective ways to degrade used devices and recover valuable materials at scale. Success would position the company for Phase 2 NSF funding.

    “A big part of my job right now is making connections and getting to know people in the landscape of entrepreneurship and small businesses,” Pruzan said. “It’s very clear that Utah has a wealth of resources to make those connections.”

    Get involved

    • For U of U researchers: Interested in exploring commercialization for your own work? The Ascender Grant and I-Corps program help bridge the gap between lab discoveries and market applications.
    • For industry partners: EnduraCure is actively seeking manufacturing partners in flexible electronics, medical devices, and consumer electronics. Contact the Technology Licensing Office to learn more.

    Related news: New substrate for flexible electronics could help combat e-waste

    Continue Reading

  • Decision-making components and times revealed by the single-trial electroencephalogram

    Decision-making components and times revealed by the single-trial electroencephalogram

    Making a decision involves several information processing steps within the time from the presentation of a stimulus to the response. The total time required for the completion of each of these processing steps is the reaction time (RT). Specific processes differ between experimental paradigms, but a minimal set that seems to be agreed upon involves encoding of the choice-relevant features of the stimuli, followed by weighting the evidence for each choice, and initiating a response (Donders, 1868; Ratcliff and McKoon, 2008; Zylberberg et al., 2011; Luce, 1986). Despite being an almost two century-old problem (Helmholtz, 1850), it is unclear how the RT emerges from these putative components.

    The answer to this problem has first been hampered by the relatively poor information gained from RT and response-accuracy data alone. Co-registering physiological signals can clarify and extend conclusions about information processing steps in the RT (Turner et al., 2017). Evidence for the putative components that make up RT has been found by registering the electroencephalogram (EEG) during decision tasks. First, a negative deflection in occipital electrodes happening around 200ms after the presentation of a choice, the N200, has been associated with visual encoding of the choice elements by participants (Nunez et al., 2019; Ritter et al., 1979). Second, EEG data has shown that the weighting of evidence toward the alternatives is associated with a positive voltage developing over centro-parietal electrodes after early visual potentials (Kutas et al., 1977). Computational models of decision-making explain the experimental effects observed on these centro-parietal components as an evidence accumulation mechanism (O’Connell et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2021). Lastly, a component preceding the response has been shown to lateralize with the side of the executed response (Coles et al., 1985). This lateralized readiness potential (LRP) has later been described as arising from an accumulation-to-bound mechanism describing the decision to produce a movement (Schurger et al., 2012).

    However, the knowledge gained on the nature and latencies of cognitive processes within the stimulus-response interval from such electrophysiological components is limited by the low signal-to-noise ratio of classical neural measurements. To improve the SNR, researchers usually rely on information derived from the averaging of these signals over many trials. Unfortunately, averaging time-varying signals will result in an average waveform that misrepresents the underlying single-trial events (Luck, 2005; Borst and Anderson, 2024). In the case of decision-making, several studies have shown wide trial-by-trial variation of the timing of cognitively relevant neural events (Vidaurre et al., 2019; Smyrnis et al., 2012; Weindel et al., 2021; Weindel, 2021). Furthermore, averaged components are further distorted by the fact that multiple cognitive processes and associated EEG components are typically present within trials and overlap in time between trials (Woldorff, 1993), forcing researchers to study physiological components in isolation. A few studies have been able to simultaneously investigate multiple EEG components in decision-making using single-trial approaches. As an example, Philiastides et al., 2006 used a classifier on the EEG activity of several conditions to show that the strength of an early EEG component was proportional to the strength of the stimulus, while a later component was related to decision difficulty and behavioral performance (see also Salvador et al., 2022; Philiastides and Sajda, 2006). Furthermore, the authors interpreted that a third EEG component was indicative of the resource allocated to the upcoming decision given the perceived decision difficulty. In their study, they showed that it is possible to use single-trial information to separate cognitive processes within decision-making. Nevertheless, their method requires separate classifiers for each component of interest, limiting the analysis to existing theory of distinct components.

    One potential solution mixing both behavior and multivariate analysis of single-trial neural signal to achieve single-trial resolution has emerged through the development of the hidden multivariate methods (Weindel et al., 2024; Anderson et al., 2016). These methods model the neural data of each trial as a sequence of short-lived multivariate cortex-wide events, repeated at each trial, whose timing varies on a trial-by-trial basis and define the RT. In the case of EEG, it is assumed that any cognitive step involved in the RT is represented by a specific topography recurring across trials. The time jitter in the topography is accounted for by estimating, for each of these events, a trial-wise distribution where the expected time of the peak of the topography is given by the time distribution of the previous event’s peak and the expected time distribution of the current event. By constraining, through the recorded behavior, the search for trial-shared sequential activations in the EEG during estimated ranges of time, the hidden multivariate pattern (HMP) model (Weindel et al., 2024) provides an estimation of the number of events and their single-trial latency during each trial. Previous similar approaches have shown that different information processing steps can be extracted from the EEG in a wide range of tasks (Berberyan et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2018; Krause et al., 2024). Building on previous work (van Maanen et al., 2021), we expect that the EEG data of a decision-making task will be decomposed into task-relevant intervals indexing the information processing steps in the RT. In the current study, we combine this single-trial modeling strategy with strong theoretical expectations regarding the impact of experimental manipulations on the latent information processing steps during decision-making.

    The task of the participants was to answer which of two Gabor patches flanking a fixation cross displayed the highest contrast (Figure 1, top panel). On a trial-by-trial basis, we manipulated the average contrast of both patches but kept the difference between them constant (see the two example trials in Figure 1, one with an average contrast of 5%, and one with an average contrast of 95%, both with a difference of 5%). We hypothesize that this contrast manipulation generates two opposing predictions on encoding and decision processes (Weindel et al., 2022) associated with two of the oldest laws in psychophysics: Piéron’s law (Piéron, 1913) and Fechner’s law (Fechner, 1860).

    Contrast manipulation used in the experiment.

    Top shows two example stimuli illustrating minimum (left) and maximum (right) contrast values. The bottom panel shows the prediction for the Piéron, the Fechner, and the linear laws for all contrast levels (C) used in the study for a fixed set of parameters. The y-axis refers to the time predicted by each law given a contrast value (x-axis) and the chosen set of parameters. α, β, and ν are respectively the estimated participant-specific intercept, slope, and exponent for the three laws. The Fechner diffusion model additionally includes nondecision and decision threshold parameters (see ‘Materials and methods’).

    Piéron’s law predicts that the time to perceive the two stimuli (and thus the choice situation) should follow a negative power law with the stimulus intensity (Figure 1, green curve). In contradistinction, Fechner’s law states that the perceived difference between the two patches follows the logarithm of the absolute contrast of the two patches (Figure 1, yellow curve). As the task of our participants is to judge the contrast difference, Piéron’s law should predict the time at which the comparison starts (i.e., the stimuli become perceptible), while Fechner’s law should implement the comparison, and thus decision, difficulty. Given that Fechner’s law is expected to capture decision difficulty, we connected this law to evidence accumulation models by replacing the rate of accumulation with Fechner’s law in the proportional rate diffusion model of Palmer et al., 2005. This linking with an evidence accumulation model further allows connecting the RT to the proportion of correct responses. To test the generalizability of our findings and allow comparison to standard decision-making tasks, we also included a speed–accuracy manipulation by asking participants to either focus on the speed or the accuracy of their responses in different experimental blocks.

    Continue Reading

  • Valneva and Serum Institute of India Announce Discontinuation of Chikungunya Vaccine License Agreement

    Saint-Herblain (France), Pune, (India), December 31, 2025 – Valneva SE (“Valneva” or “the Company”), a specialty vaccine company, and Serum Institute of India (SII), a Cyrus Poonawalla Group company today announced that they have mutually agreed to discontinue their license agreement for Valneva’s single-shot chikungunya vaccine.

    To access the full release, please click on the PDF below.

    Continue Reading