Translational Biomedicine

  • ISSN: 2172-0479
  • Journal h-index: 12
  • Journal CiteScore: 8.06
  • Journal Impact Factor: 1.0
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Open J Gate
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • ResearchBible
  • The Global Impact Factor (GIF)
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Proquest Summons
  • Publons
  • MIAR
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
  • ResearchGate
Share This Page

Mini Review - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 8

Research in Biotechnology Advances in New Developing DNA Conjugation Diagnostics

Nosratollah Zarghamia*
Department of Medical Biotechnology, University of Catania, Italy
*Correspondence: Nosratollah Zarghamia, Department of Medical Biotechnology, University of Catania, Italy, Email:

Received: 01-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. Iptb- 22-13042; Editor assigned: 05-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. Iptb- 22-13042; Reviewed: 19-Aug-2022, QC No. Iptb- 22-13042; Revised: 23-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. Iptb- 22-13042 (R); Published: 31-Aug-2022, DOI: 10.21767/ 2172-0479.100247


There are many different topics covered in biotechnology research. Major themes of biotechnology research are outlined in the scopes of the journals Current Research in Biotechnology and Current Opinion in Biotechnology. These themes include genetic and molecular engineering, tissue, cell, and pathway engineering, plant and animal biotechnology, food biotechnology, energy biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, analytical biotechnology, systems biology Nano biotechnology, chemical biotechnology, and pharmaceutical and medicinal biotechnology. Karl Erkey, a Hungarian agricultural economist and engineer, is credited with coining the word "biotechnology" exactly 100 years ago. When translated into English, Karl Erkey's definition of biotechnology is all the fields of endeavour that use living organisms to make goods from raw materials. An intergovernmental economic organisation having 36 member nations is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The use of cellular and molecular processes to address issues or create products; modern biotechnology refers to the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to produce goods and services. Beginning in the middle of the 1980s, the term "biotechnology" became widely used in research papers' titles.


Translational research and clinical intervention; Translational imaging; Translational research


It was used in papers on business, industry, biomedicine, chemical engineering, agricultural sciences, and even social sciences. Briefly said, biotechnology denotes an innovative biological approach to a variety of sectors. White, red, green, and blue were recommended as the primary biotechnology sectors, representing industrial, pharmaceutical/medical, food and agriculture, and environment/marine, respectively. The generation of multifunctional citric acid by fermentation with the assistance of biotechnology is two well-known instances of daily usage [1]. Three distinct fields of gene modified biotechnology have so far been profitably exploited: medical biotechnology, plant biotechnology and industrial biotechnology. This article examines the three fields' economic development and their factors during the previous three decades, showing significant divergences. It is demonstrated that product and market features play a significant enabler or inhibitor role in the financing alternatives available to enterprises. The existence of significant hurdles is then used to explain the lack of commercialization in a fourth category of genemodified biotechnology, namely environmental biotechnology [2]. We make the case that environmental biotechnology has to be commercialised given its huge potential for environmental sustainability [3]. Our findings have important ramifications for biotechnology technology management studies, highlighting the necessity to account for and/or distinguish between various biotechnologies domains [4]. Medical biotechnology refers to applications in the health care sector, plant biotechnology refers to applications in agriculture, and industrial biotechnology refers to applications in industrial processes such as manufacturing and chemical processes. These three fields have seen the majority of the economic valorisation of gene-manipulated biotechnology to date [5]. Although the three sectors' original technologies are comparable, their economic valuations are very different.

What follows explains the development of valorisation and its forces in the medicinal, plant, and industrial gene modified biotechnology industries [6]. Then, we demonstrate how these factors have prevented a fourth area of gene-modified biotechnology environmental biotechnology from being widely used for commercial purposes [7]. However, we contend that this exploitation is very beneficial from a social and environmental perspective [8]. The United States is the birthplace of the medical biotechnology sector. Technology transfer laws like the Bayh- Dole Act encouraged colleges to commercialise their research and permitted academics to start businesses while still holding onto their posts at the university. This aided in boosting the development of numerous new biotechnology companies as well as the biotech sector as a whole. Other motivating factors were the existence of scientists with business ideas, mobile labour, knowledgeable financing in the form of venture capital investors, and robust communication networks, particularly for California, where the biotech industry was born. The latter were carried over from Silicon Valley's prosperous semiconductor sector. Considering that the majority of publicly financed research in the United States was in the field of health care, particularly in topics relating to cancer, a critical mass of based on discoveries made in science at research institutions and primarily funded by venture money [9]. These recently founded businesses were the first to successfully produce the initial batch of genetically altered human pharmaceuticals, which frequently made it possible to treat illnesses for which there had previously been no effective treatments [10]. Companies that focused on developing new diagnostics and animal treatments then started to appear [11]. Numerous avant-garde start-ups have spontaneously developed into fully integrated businesses like Genentech.


There is still a lot of new start-up businesses nowadays, frequently created in conjunction with established pharmaceutical corporations that offer financial or technological help. The emergence of numerous technology-based start-up companies focused on developing methods to make plants resistant to diseases and pests in the 1980s gave rise to the plant biotechnology industry, which has developed in a manner similar to that of the medical biotechnology sector. Unlike the medical biotechnology sector, which produces fundamentally new products to meet unmet consumer requirements, genetically modified crops improved existing crops [12]. There, the sales of conventional agrichemical businesses were decimated by GM crops. In an effort to retain profitability while making investments in their future, this led a number of agrichemical businesses to purchase smaller start-ups [13]. As a result, the plant biotechnology sector primarily followed a trajectory of acquisition-driven growth, which led to significant industry consolidation [14]. Compared to a vast number of smaller businesses, there were still eleven major agrichemical companies involved in biotechnology in 1995. However, by 2003, that number had dropped to only six. The level of attention given to medicinal and agricultural biotechnology has not been the same for industrial biotechnology. Industrial biotechnology's potential the production of more affordable and environmentally friendly materials for textiles, fuels, chemicals, pollution control, and even human medications using plant-based resources and naturally occurring microorganisms. Biomass is still not cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and producing chemicals using biochemical methods is still significantly more expensive than the traditional production routes for the majority of products. As a result, there has been less economic value placed on industrial biotechnological processes. Large chemical businesses initially drove this industry; new start-ups didn't exist in this sector until the past five years. In conclusion, the three domains of genemodified biotechnology saw quite distinct industrial evolutions [15]. The strongest field to have emerged thus far is medical. The nature of the market, including the type of market addressed pull versus push market, added-value from a customer perspective, public opinion, and prospective profit margins, is a third factor influencing the expansion of the biotechnology fields. In the medical biotechnology sector, blockbuster pharmaceuticals with enormous returns on investment have served as several role models. The obvious increased value of the new treatment from a patient's perspective is a major factor in these blockbusters' success. This positively combines with a substantial market potential in the event of a common ailment.


The general public has a favourable view of medical biotechnology given its potential to save lives. As a result, a strong market pull has often been a feature of medical biotechnology. However, do not offer substantially novel products. An further barrier to the commercialization of GMOs has been the growing consumer unease in several regions of the world, particularly Europe, which has resulted in product bans. Therefore, compared to the commercialization of medical biotechnology, it is more challenging for plant biotechnology companies to get their products on the market by replacing conventional products, sometimes under challenging circumstances. Finally, there are still few businesses and business leaders in the industrial biotechnology sector who have successfully monetized scientific advancements in this field. This business initially focused on creating new industrial processes to produce goods that were already on the market. Technology is frequently used early in the production process and is rarely noticeable. Industrial biotechnology has more recently contributed to the creation of novel goods like bio plastics and biofuels. Industrial biotech goods' enhanced value relative to well-known items, however, is less obvious to the client, necessitating a market push mechanism. Unlike a plant while each of the aforementioned variations has had an individual impact on how the various biotechnology sectors have developed, they have also had an impact on a key factor driving that development: the accessibility of financing sources for both new start-ups and established businesses. Additionally, it is crucial to recognise the significance of the national and regional innovation systems in which biotechnology is entrenched. Public funding sources are made available within these innovation platforms in order to support biotechnology technical advancements. This, unfortunately, are frequently not adequate to finance the lengthy process of successfully commercialising biotechnology technologies. In particular, actors in medical and plant biotechnology need the funding for the development of IP, whereas actors in industrial biotechnology primarily need the funding to build infrastructure. This is because investing in the early development stages of each biotechnology field requires significant amounts of funding. The development of new technologies in the realms of plant and medical biotechnology often proceeds in stages with distinct "go" or "no-go" decision points. Due to the possibility of investing in phases in this way, the risk associated with the investment is reduced. However, in the context of industrial biotechnology, a technology's effectiveness is frequently only able to be evaluated on a large, industrial size. Therefore, in the event that technology.



Conflict of Interest



  1. Papagianni M, Mattey M (2006) Morphological development of Aspergillus niger in submerged citric acid fermentation as a function of the spore inoculum level. Application of neural network and cluster analysis for characterization of fungal morphology. Microbial Cell Factories 5: 3.
  2. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss S (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23: 439-444.
  4. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  5. Wei H, Li B, Li J, Dong S, Wang E, at al. (2008) DNAzyme-based colorimetric sensing of lead (Pb2+) using unmodified gold nanoparticle probes. Nanotechnology 19: 095501.
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Embley T M, Hirt RP, Williams DM (1994) Diversity at the molecular level: the domains, kingdoms and phyla of life. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B345: 21-33.
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Bennett JW (1998) Mycotechnology: the role of fungi in biotechnology. J Biotechnol 66: 101-107.
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Muller C (2002) The evolution of the biotechnology industry in Germany. Trends Biotechnol 2002 20: 287-290.
  12. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  13. kpokwasili GC, Odokuma LO (1994) Tolerance of Nitrobacter to toxicity of some Nigerian crude oils. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol B ENVIRON CONTAM TOX 52: 388-395.
  14. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  15. Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China) Environ. Manage 38: 338-349.
  16. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  17. Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F (2008) Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study. Lancet Oncol 9: 730-756.
  18. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  19. Lassen J, Gjerris M, Sandoe P (2006) After Dolly-ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65: 992-1004.
  20. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  21. Evermann JF, Henry CJ, Marks SG (1995) Feline infectious peritonitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 206: 1130-1134.
  22. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  23. Pasini G, Simonato B, Curioni A, Vincenzi S, Cristaudo A, et al. (2002) IgE-mediated allergy to corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy 57: 98-106.
  24. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  25. Tabashnik B, Brévault T, Carrière Y (2013) Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Nat Biotechnol 31: 510-521.
  26. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  27. Peter G, des Vignes Kendrick M, Eickhoff TC (1999) Lessons learned from a review of the development of selected vaccines. National Vaccine Advisory Committee. Pediatrics 104: 942-950.
  28. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  29. Vajo Z, Fawcett J, Duckworth WC (2001) Recombinant DNA technology in the treatment of diabetes: insulin analogs. Endocrine Reviews 22: 706-717.
  30. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

Citation: Nosratollah Zarghamia (2022) Research in Biotechnology Advances in New Developing DNA Conjugation Diagnostics. Transl Biomed, Vol. 13 No. 8: 247.