Eating foods with choline in pregnancy may boost baby's brain

Singapore, Feb 24: Last week Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry revised their 2020 GDP growth projections downwards to -0.5 to 1.5 per cent, confirming fears of economic fallout from the coronavirus COVID-19. Just three days earlier, while visiting Changi Airport, the Prime Minister told the media that the country is bracing for a significant hit on the economy and the possibility of a recession.

In the budget announcement on February 18, various measures to help affected companies were announced.

This included a jobs support scheme to help companies retain workers that will see the government offset 8 per cent of wages up to SGD3,600(USD2,600) per worker, per month, for a three-month period. Companies will also get a 25 per cent rebate on their taxes for the year capped at SGD15,000 (USD10,800) per company.

There will be additional support for sectors directly affected by the virus outbreak such as tourism, aviation and retail. Qualifying companies will be given property tax rebates and can apply for temporary bridging loans to ease cash flow. Rebates will be offered on aircraft landing and parking charges as well as rental rebates for shops and cargo agents at Changi Airport.

Overall, the economic package will cost Singapore some USD 4.6 billion, well in excess of the USD 500 million some analysts had predicted. The resulting spending plan including the virus economic package will see a budget deficit of SGD 10.9 billion or 2.1 per cent of GDP, the highest since the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

It is hoped that with financial support, companies in Singapore will not only be able to ride through the current rough patch but be able to position themselves better to take off once the economic crisis brought upon by the contagion is over.

Which then are the Singapore companies that can potentially ride out the current storm and emerge stronger?

Aviation and hospitality firms are among those most impacted by the virus outbreak and Singapore Airlines (SIA) comes to mind. SIA is a well-run company but has seen its share price fall about 5.2 percent since the beginning of the year. In the short term, revenue and profits will no doubt be affected but it will recover in the long run.

Hospitality sector companies like Ascott Residence whose main sponsor is Capitaland, Southeast Asia's largest landlord, and CDL Hospitality, have seen 1.5 and 5.5 percent (respectively) shaved off their share prices since the start of the year.

In reporting financial results for the quarter which ended in December on February 14, Alibaba CEO Daniel Zhang said that due to the virus, they are seeing large changes in buying patterns. With widespread home confinement, there is a growing demand for delivery services including online food and grocery delivery, as well as office apps and streaming entertainment.

Similarly, in Singapore, with more people staying and working from home, the three main food delivery services, Grab Food, Foodpanda and Deliveroo, are doing roaring business. All three are privately held.

In late January, as the scale of the outbreak became more apparent, investors began pouring money into health-product firms in Asia that they think will benefit from the virus outbreak.

Bloomberg reported that when Chinese pharmaceutical companies like Da An Gene Co, Xilong Scientific and Shanghai Kehua Bio-Engineering said they have developed kits for detecting the virus, their stocks soared to hit the 10 per cent daily limit. Firms manufacturing protection gear and air-cleaning equipment climbed more than 10 per cent in Japan, while Malaysian rubber gloves producers climbed at least 5 per cent.

Naturally, many would view that pharmaceutical companies that have the technology and expertise to develop drugs to treat patients with the virus or are able to develop a vaccine, would stand to benefit from the coronavirus outbreak.

Firms like and Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi are the pharmaceutical behemoths that dominate the global vaccine market.

However, industry experts speaking to the BBC warned that a pot of gold is not necessarily waiting for any company that successfully develops a vaccine. Although the global vaccine market is expected to grow to USD60 billion this year, it is costly and time-consuming to develop and pass it through for use by the general public.

It is also unclear if Indian pharmaceutical firms will be able to benefit from the demand for medicines that can treat or prevent the virus.

India is the world's largest manufacturer of generic drugs and it supplies 20 percent of the world's drugs by volume. However, it sources 70 percent of its raw material from China. If supplies are disrupted beyond a month to a month and a half, they may see a slow-down in production. According to a CNN report, the companies that are most impacted by material shortages are GSK India, Pfizer (PFE) and Cipla. Other companies like Aurobindo Pharma, Cadila Healthcare and Sun Pharma are said to be carefully monitoring the situation.

The American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and the European biotechnology company BioNTech SE have conducted an experimental trial of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate and found it to be safe, well-tolerated, and capable of generating antibodies in the patients.

The study, which is yet to be peer-reviewed, describes the preliminary clinical data for the candidate vaccine -- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA), BNT162b1.

It said the amount of antibodies produced in participants after they received two shots of the vaccine candidate was greater than that reported in patients receiving convalescent plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients.

"I was glad to see Pfizer put up their phase 1 trial data today. Virus neutralizing antibody titers achieved after two doses are greater than convalescent antibody titers," tweeted Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist from Baylor College of Medicine in the US, who was unrelated to the study.

Researchers, including those from New York University in the US, who were involved in the study, said the candidate vaccine enables human cells to produce an optimised version of the receptor binding domain (RBD) antigen -- a part of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 which it uses to gain entry into human cells.

"Robust immunogenicity was observed after vaccination with BNT162b1," the scientists noted in the study.

They said the program is evaluating at least four experimental vaccines, each of which represents a unique combination of mRNA format and target component of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Based on the study's findings, they said BNT162b1 could be administered in a quantity that was well tolerated, potentially generating a dose dependent production of immune system molecules in the patients.

The research noted that patients treated with the vaccine candidate produced nearly 1.8 to 2.8 fold greater levels of RBD-binding antibodies that could neutralise SARS-CoV-2.

"We are encouraged by the clinical data of BNT162b1, one of four mRNA constructs we are evaluating clinically, and for which we have positive, preliminary, topline findings," said Kathrin U. Jansen, study co-author and Senior Vice President and Head of Vaccine Research & Development, Pfizer.

"We look forward to publishing our clinical data in a peer-reviewed journal as quickly as possible," Jansen said.

According to Ugur Sahin, CEO and Co-founder of BioNTech, and another co-author of the study, the preliminary data are encouraging as they provide an initial signal that BNT162b1 is able to produce neutralising antibody responses in humans.

He said the immune response observed in the patients treated with the experimental vaccine are at, or above, the levels observed from convalescent sera, adding that it does so at "relatively low dose levels."

"We look forward to providing further data updates on BNT162b1," Sahin said.

According to a statement from Pfizer, the initial part of the study included 45 healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age.

It said the priliminary data for BNT162b1 was evaluated in 24 subjects who received two injections of 10 microgrammes ( g) and 30 g -- 12 subjects who received a single injection of 100 g, and 9 subjects who received two doses of a dummy vaccine.

The study noted that participants received two doses, 21 days apart, of placebo, 10 g or 30 g of BNT162b1, or received a single dose of 100 g of the vaccine candidate.

According to the scientists, the highest neutralising concentrations of antibodies were observed seven days after the second dose of 10 g, or 30 g on day 28 after vaccination.

They said the neutralising concentrations were 1.8- and 2.8-times that observed in a panel of 38 blood samples from people who had contracted the virus.

In all 24 subjects who received two vaccinations at 10 g and 30 g dose levels, elevation of RBD-binding antibody concentrations was observed after the second injection, the study noted.

It said these concentrations are 8- and 46.3-times the concentration seen in a panel of 38 blood samples from those infected with the novel coronavirus.

At the 10 g or 30 g dose levels, the scientists said adverse reactions, including low grade fever, were more common after the second dose than the first dose.

According to Pfizer, local reactions and systemic events after injection with 10 g and 30 g of BNT162b1 were "dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient."

It said the most commonly reported local reaction was injection site pain, which was mild to moderate, except in one of 12 subjects who received a 100 g dose, which was severe.

The study noted that there was no serious adverse events reported by the patients.

Citing the limitations of the research, the scientists said the immunity generated in the participants in the form of the T cells and B cells of their immune system, and the level of immunity needed to protect one from COVID-19 are unknown.

With these preliminary data, along with additional data being generated, Pfizer noted in the statement that the two companies will determine a dose level, and select among multiple vaccine candidates to seek to progress to a large, global safety and efficacy trial, which may involve up to 30,000 healthy participants if regulatory approval to proceed is received.

Birmingham, Feb 7: According to a new study, social media users are more likely to eat healthy or junk food after getting influenced by their peer group.

The research published in the scientific journal 'Appetite' found that study participants ate an extra fifth of a portion of fruit and vegetables themselves for every portion they thought their social media peers ate. So, if they believed their friends got their 'five a day' of fruit and veg, they were likely to eat an extra portion themselves.

On the other hand, Facebook users were found to consume an extra portion of unhealthy snack foods and sugary drinks for every three portions they believed their online social circles did.
The findings suggested that people eat around a third more junk food if they think their friends also indulge in the same.

The Aston University researchers said the findings provide the first evidence to suggest our online social circles could be implicitly influencing our eating habits, with important implications for using 'nudge' techniques on social media to encourage healthy eating.

Researchers asked 369 university students to estimate the amount of fruit, vegetables, 'energy-dense snacks' and sugary drinks their Facebook peers consumed on a daily basis.

The information was cross-referenced with the participants' own actual eating habits and showed that those who felt their social circles 'approved' of eating junk food consumed significantly more themselves. Meanwhile, those who thought their friends ate a healthy diet ate more portions of fruit and veg. Their perceptions could have come from seeing friends' posts about the food and drink they consumed, or simply a general impression of their overall health.

There was no significant link between the participants' eating habits and their Body Mass Index (BMI), a standard measure of healthy weight, however. The researchers said the next stage of their work would track a participant group over time to see whether the influence of social media on eating habits had a longer-term impact on weight.

The most recent figures from the NHS's Health Survey for England showed that in 2018 only 28 percent of adults were eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day. In Wales, this was 24 percent, in Scotland 22 percent and in Northern Ireland around 20 percent. Children and young people across the UK had even lower levels of fruit and veg consumption.

Aston University health psychology Ph.D. student Lily Hawkins, who led the study alongside supervisor Dr. Jason Thomas, said: "This study suggests we may be influenced by our social peers more than we realize when choosing certain foods. We seem to be subconsciously accounting for how others behave when making our own food choices. So if we believe our friends are eating plenty of fruit and veg we're more likely to eat fruit and veg ourselves. On the other hand, if we feel they're happy to consume lots of snacks and sugary drinks, it can give us a license to overeat foods that are bad for our health. The implication is that we can use social media as a tool to 'nudge' each other's eating behavior within friendship groups, and potentially use this knowledge as a tool for public health interventions."

"With children and young people spending a huge amount of time interacting with peers and influencers via social media, the important new findings from this study could help shape how we deliver interventions that help them adopt healthy eating habits from a young age and stick with them for life," said professor Claire Farrow.

A dietitian called Aisling Pigott further mentioned that "Research such as this demonstrates how we are influenced by online perceptions about how others eat. The promotion of positive health messages across social media, which are focused on promoting healthy choices and non-restrictive relationships with food and body, could nudge people into making positive decisions around the food they eat."

"We do have to be mindful of the importance of 'nudging' positive behaviors and not 'shaming' food choices on social media as a health intervention. We know that generating guilt around food is not particularly helpful when it comes to lifestyle change and maintenance," Aisling added.