Download - European Biotechnology News 1-2/2012 - FreeExcerpt - BASF Plant Science quits Europe for the US
BASF Plant Science quits
Europe for the US
CENTRAL EUROPE
Roche makes hostile bid for US sequencing specialist Illumina
NORTHERN EUROPE
BioInvent International teams up with Servier in oncology
WESTERN EUROPE
French government boosts seed funding for biotech firms
SPECiAL
Euro BioFairs Compass 1/12:Guide to life sciences events
SOUTHERN EUROPE
Spanish Okairos delivers novel vaccine platform technology
EASTERN EUROPE
BIA Separations to cooperate with Japanese industrial giant
SCiENCE & TECHNOLOgy
Researchers model human body to predict drug response
EuropeanBiotechnology
Science & Industry News
Nº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012 | 10.00 € | ISSN 1618-8276 | A 60711 |
FREE EXCERPT
www.LifeScienceAustria.at
Advancing Austrian life science //at the heart of Europe In 2012 meet LISA at >>
Arab Health // Dubai // January 23-26 Medtec // Stuttgart // March 13-15 BIO-Europe Spring // Amsterdam // March 19-21 Analytica // Munich // April 17-20 BIO International Convention // Boston // June 18-21 CPhI Worldwide // Madrid // October 09-11BIO-Europe // Hamburg // November 12-14 Medica // Duesseldorf // November 14-17
INS_LISA_210x275_102011_01.indd 1 05.10.11 16:36
Euro|Biotech|NewsNº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012 3
INtro
T he extensive coverage of the world wide financial crises has masked a looming crisis in healthcare. In addition to the
financial constraints affecting every part of society, healthcare also faces an innovation crisis. Innovation in the field is clearly advancing faster than the ability of the system to adapt to the new innovations. Most experts acknowledge that the future of healthcare will involve sophisticated diagnostic and evaluative processes to dictate precise approaches for the treatment of disease or the maintenance of individual health. The evidence in favour of personalized healthcare is accumulating rapidly in some areas – for example, the molecular diagnosis of cancer – but numerous barriers to rapid implementation remain. Because many of these new processes could save lives, we need to ask why rapidly expanding these new innovations to all patients is proving so difficult.
A recent meeting in Luxembourg entitled “Personalized Medicine in Europe: What will it take to succeed?” brought together leaders from healthcare, business and academia to discuss the various aspects of implementation of personalized care. Unique and major challenges face each sector of the system. Patients are faced with a bewildering spectrum of options; device and pharmaceutical manufacturers are faced with shrinking markets for each intervention, making it difficult to create a profitable model. Physicians and health professionals face a big challenge in filtering patient data to find the best, individualized intervention. Finally, health policy experts are expressing concern about the cost of personalized medicine and the feasibility of introducing the new innovations without bankrupting the health system.
Most developed countries now spend from 8–12% of GDP on healthcare, and feel that if this increases substantially, it will seriously
affect other essential services and compromise overall quality of life. Thus, the radical changes required in healthcare systems to accommodate innovation must occur primarily by replacing old processes with new. This approach has failed in the past, as healthcare professionals are often reluctant to give up traditional approaches for new ones without overwhelming evidence of improved outcome and efficiency.
Health policy experts know that introducing new processes from carefully controlled clinical trials into widespread clinical use almost never achieves the same efficacy as that obtained in the clinical study. Many factors account for this discrepancy, and these factors lead to a reluctance to introduce expensive new processes that may not produce the expected benefits.
A lot of healthcare researchers now recognize that we need to create a new process for introducing innovation into a healthcare system. Following confirmation in a clinical study, many new interventions should next be tested in an actual healthcare environment to determine whe ther or not the benefits of the new process can be easily achieved in a realistic healthcare setting. Such experiments in ‘real’ healthcare systems are difficult to organize and manage, but several countries are leading the way in testing innovations in a realworld setting before attempting to introduce the innovation in the entire system (the Maimonides Project). Such experiments in community settings – involving only a few thousand people – can provide essential information on the feasibility of implementing the innovation in the entire system. The Maimonides group of countries has already achieved some documented successes in implementing costeffective innovations that improve health and wellbeing. Hopefully, more countries will adopt this intermediate method of testing innovation, and will share their experiences with others. B
Editorial
The Bumpy Road to Personalized Healthcare
robert A. Phillips, CEo of IBBL & rudi Balling, Director of LCSB, Luxembourg
robert A. Phillips, 1967–2010, professor, University of toronto: 1996–2010 Leadership positions: National Cancer Institute of Can-ada, ontario Cancer research Network, ontario Institute for Cancer research; 2010 CEo, In-tegrated Biobank of Luxembourg
rudi Balling, 1993-2001 Director, Institute of Mammalian Genetics, Helmholtz Centre Munich; 2001– 2009 Director, Helmholtz Centre for Infection research, Braun-schweig; 2009, Visiting Professor, Broad Institute, Boston; since 2010 Founding Director Luxem-bourg Centre for Systems Bio-medicine, University of Luxem-bourg
FREE EXCERPT
4 Euro|Biotech|News Nº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012
CIRCULATION
European Biotechnology News is published in co-operation with the following organizations:
Europe: european-biotechnology.net Switzerland: swissbiotech.org
EuroBiotechNews covers the biotechnology sector of the current 27 EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. If you would like to subscribe, please refer to
www.eurobiotechnews.eu
Europe: ebe-biopharma.org
The Netherlands: niaba.nl
Denmark: danskbiotek.dk
Spain: asebio.com France: france-biotech.org Italy: assobiotec.it
Portugal: www.apbio.pt
Europe: cebr.net
Hungary: hungarianbiotech.org
Belgium: bio.be
Germany: biodeutschland.org
Council of European BioRegions
Europe: europabio.org
CMYK
Blue: 100/15/0/35Orange: 0/75/90/0
Sweden: swedenbio.com
EuropeanBiotechnology
Net work
Ireland: ibec.ie/ibia
Norway: biotekforum.no
Finland: finbio.net
FREE EXCERPT
Euro|Biotech|NewsNº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012 5
coNteNts
Cover Story
A lack of acceptance for GM crops finally drives Europe’s biggest developer to relocate to the US 6
INsIght europe
Editorial Bob Phillips, CEO of IBB Luxembourg Rudi Balling, Director of LCSB 3
Heard in Brussels: A couple of outraged philosophical questions 8
The cost of GMO coexistence; EC to change food enzymes regulation 10
IP flash; EU animal test ban watered down 12
Interview: Hans Westerhoff Modelling virtual patients 29
regulatory affaIrs
Clinical trials 13
EMA news 14
ecoNomIc
Focus on newsflow and dividends 15
Stock markets 16
regIoNal News
Northern Europe Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden 18
Central Europe Germany, Austria, Switzerland 20
Western Europe UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands 22
Southern Europe Italy, Spain, Portugal 24
Eastern Europe Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia 26
SpeCial
Euro BioFairs CompassIntro 33
EuroPlx 34
BioEurope Spring, Amsterdam 36
Analytica 38
Biotech 2012 40
European Lab Automation 42
Achema 44
MedTechPharma 46
“BASF announced today that it is concentrating its plant biotechnology activities on the main markets in North and South America …” The press release began in-nocuously, and even sounded slightly upbeat, but biotech proponents are viewing the firm’s decision as a death knell for agribiotech development in Europe. After more than a decade of fighting stubborn politicians and a recalcitrant European public, the German chemical giant has thrown in the towel.
serVIces
Partners & Associations 4
Imprint 5
Biopeople News from Roche, Sobi, Algeta, Horizon Discovery, and the EMA 28
Company index 48
Events from February-March 2012 49
Encore 50
Imprint: European Biotechnology News is published monthly by: BIOCOM AG, Lützowstr. 33–36, D-10785 Berlin, Germany, Tel.: +49-30-264921-0, Fax: +49-30-264921-11, E-Mail: [email protected], Internet: www.eurobiotechnews.eu, Publisher: Andreas Mietzsch, Editorial Team: Thomas Gabrielczyk (Managing Editor), Derrick Williams (Co-editor), Dr. Patrick Dieckhoff, Dr. Bernd Kaltwaßer, Christoph Mayerl, Dr. Philipp Graf, Advertising: Oliver Schnell, +49-30-2649-2145, Advertising USA: Avani Media, Inc., Leslie Hallanan, Tel.: +1-415-331-2150 , Fax: +1-415-289-0402, E-Mail: [email protected], Distribution, Angelika Werner, +49-30-2649-2140, Printed at: Druckhaus Humburg, Bremen, Graphic Design: Michaela Reblin. – European Biotechnology Science & Industry News is only regularly available through subscription at BIOCOM AG. Annual subscription fees: D 100.00, Students D 50.00 (subject to proof of enrollment). Prices include VAT, postage & packaging. Ordered subscriptions can be cancelled within 2 weeks directly at BIOCOM AG. The subscription is initially valid for one year. Subscriptions will be renewed automatically for one more year, respectively, unless they are cancelled at least 6 weeks before the date of expiry. Failures of delivery which BIOCOM AG is not responsible for do not entitle the subscriber to delivery or reimbursement of pre-paid fees. Seat of court is Berlin, Germany. As regards contents: individually named articles are published within the sole responsibility of their respective authors. All material published is protected by copyright. No article or part thereof may be reproduced in any way or processed, copied and proliferated by electronic means without the prior written consent of the publisher. Cover Photo: BASF; Supplements: Concept Heidelberg; DECHEMA. ® BIOCOM is a registered trademark of BIOCOM AG, Berlin, Germany.
© B
asf
se
FREE EXCERPT
6 Euro|Biotech|News Nº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012
INSIGHT EUROPE
AGribiotech
A new low point for bioscience in the EU After years of strife, recriminations and boycotts surrounding the potential dangers and promise of GM crops, it should have come as no surprise. Even so, the BASF Plant Sci-ence announcement in mid-January that the company was moving its headquarters from Germany to the US dealt a possibly mortal blow to the future of innovative agri biotech in Europe. A week later, Monsanto announced that due to a lack of acceptance, it will not sell its genetically modified MON810 maize in France either in 2012 or in the near future – although the country's highest court overturned a three-year national ban on the plant last November. It appears that after more than a decade of refighting the same battles, the biggest participants in crop science in Europe are bowing to the inevitable and tak-ing European expertise in this future technology to greener pastures.
The world's largest chemical company BASF said that its subsidiary will retain just 11 staff positions – primarily regulatory – at its the current headquarters site in Limburgerhof (Germany). 157 employees currently work there in the area of biotech R&D. The company is also planning to close sites in Gatersleben (Germany) and Svalöv (Sweden). After a reshuffle involv
ing BASF locations that are being retained in Berlin and Ghent (Belgium), the company says a total of around 140 positions will have been lost in Europe. BASF says it will try to offer the affected employees other positions within the BASF Group.
“We are convinced that plant biotechnology is a key technology for the 21st century,” said Dr. Stefan Marcinowski, a mem
ber of BASF's Board of Executive Directors . But the “lack of acceptance for this technology in many parts of Europe (means) it doesn't make business sense to continue investing in products exclusively for cultivation in this market.”
BASF’s research in Europe until now has focussed primarily on GM strains of potatoes. The varieties Amadea, Modena and Amflora were engineered to provide large amounts of amylopectin starch for industrial applications, while the Fortuna variety was tweaked to be resistant to the devastating potato blight caused by Phytophthora infestans. The company has also been developing a GM strain of wheat that is resistant to fungus. The Amflora potato was finally granted approval for use in industrial applications in 2010 – more than 13 years after the application was first submitted. However, at least in part due to protests, BASF decided to plant just two hectares of the GM crop in Germany in 2011.
Public response in Germany, where the facility is closing, has been mixed. In an article in the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung one day after the BASF announcement, the Environment Minister in the German state of RheinlandPfalz – where Limburgerhof is located – cheered the decision, saying that “Genetic engineering in agriculture is not a future technology that is worth investing in.” Those sentiments were echoed by Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero: “BASF admits that Europeans don’t want GM crops…(they) go hand in glove with factory farming, pesticide use, pest resistance and disappointing longterm yields.” Marcinowski's estimate of the current situation in Europe encapsulates the often vitriolic debate surrounding the topic in five succinct words: “It's schizophrenic, but it's reality.”
The domino effect
Faced with threats by the French government to renew a ban on MON810 in spite of a European Court of Justice (EJC) ruling in its favour late last fall, Monsanto has now preempted further confrontations by saying it will not attempt to sell the approved GM seeds in France in the near future (see p. 23). In an official statement, it added that
BASF's agriculture centre at Limburgerhof will be shutting down biotech R&D, but not plant protection activities.
© B
ASF
SE
FREE EXCERPT
8 Euro|Biotech|News Nº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012
INSIGHT EUROPE
Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network
Brussels – Europe likes to make life hard, creating situations where an idea must struggle mightily before it can achieve success, even when there is a more straightforward route (just look at the euro). Of course, in the world of biotechnology, this maxim can be applied pretty much everywhere (as we are masochists in this trade), but the focus of my musings today are the topics of GMOs and embryonic stem cells. Both have received hundreds of millions of euros from the public purse, yet continue to deliver a big fat zero to the European economy due to sloth and indecision on the part of those that control their fates.
Throwing good money after bad
In the case of GMOs, it has long been obvious that Europe was never going to be an economic generator for its research. The question for Europe is – why did we continue to invest public money in GMO technologies targeted at the field if we were never going to get it back? Europe is now so far behind the rest of the world in foodcrop GM technology that a euro spent is a euro wasted. We should have had the strength to either counteract antiGMO claims immediately (too late now) or call the political bluff and say “stop the research funding for fieldbased GMOs.” But instead, Europe did what Europe always does, creeping down the middle path, trying to offend nobody while building a suboptimal R&D base with no exploitation. You might be asking yourself what has triggered this contemplation from somebody who usually supports biotech in all it's many forms. It was the closure of BASF Plant Science, at a German research base that has been open since 1914. This was no closure on an epic scale, just 140 jobs, but it tells you that the life has bled slowly from commercial research in Europe
until the company finally just called it a day and went off to live in America. So Europe – spend your money on building a biotech sector that delivers a benefit you can measure, don’t wait for it to die quietly while you fanny about appeasing politicians who are chasing reelection.
That brings me to the 2011 embryonic stem cell ruling – you must have heard me rolling my eyes from the other side of Brussels when that was announced. Well done Europe! Once again we have taken a technology where the EU had a leg up and killed its commercial potential. This time it wasn't even due to a public outcry. European citizens generally like the idea of stem cells – they can see the possible bene fits and understand in general what they do. But if the ruling isn’t overturned, you might as well cancel the funding. If Europe cannot benefit economically, then there is no point in funding the science. There isn't enough money to fund biotech where the door is closed to a return. The sector has spent decades persuading people to part with large sums of cash for highrisk technology, and it cannot justify its existence if the gate to clinic and market has been shut. B
Heard in BrusselsM A couple of outraged philosophical questions
“Monsanto considers that favourable conditions for the sale of the MON810 in France in 2012 and beyond are not in place”.
And it doesn’t look as though they will be any time soon. Two actions organised by GMO opponents were aimed at the company in France in January. Early in the month, dozens of beekeepers invaded a Monsanto office with the aim of hindering sowing of MON810 this spring. Under yet another disputed ECJ ruling from last September (see EuroBiotechNews 910/2011), their honey could be taken from shelves if it is found to contain pollen from the transgenic maize. A second protest took place outside a Monsanto plant in southwestern France on 24 January, with activists claiming the company was planning to sell GMO seeds ahead of springtime sowing.
And the future of MON810 doesn't appear much brighter in the rest of Europe. Other nations in the EU – among them Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary – continue to ban its cultivation, even though the GM maize has been approved as a safe agricultural product since 1998.
The wider picture
Monsanto’s cavein and BASF's flight across the Atlantic are not equivalent indicators in predicting the longterm health of agribiotech in Europe. Although Monsanto is invested heavily in Europe, it is fundamentally a North American company seeking to sell a product developed there on European markets. The USbased firm is also now paying a price for failing dismally to convince Europeans of the future importance of GM crops back in the 1990s. BASF Plant Science, on the other hand, is a homegrown European firm that has invested well over a1bn in the groundbreaking science essential to converting to the muchdesired ’bioeconomy’. But both announcements reflect the relationship Europeans currently have with GMOs. It has now entered a critical phase – one that many experts in the sector feel is terminal. For reasons ranging from energy supply to reducing pollution, Europe has dedicated itself to building a greener future. Without the knowhow of companies like BASF Plant Science, that will be impossible. It's schizophrenic, but it’s a reality. B
FREE EXCERPT
48 Euro|Biotech|News Nº 1-2 | Volume 11 | 2012
CompaNy aNd adVertiser iNdex
aAbingworth LLP (GB) ………………………… 22
AB Science (F) ………………………………… 16
Actelion AG (CH) ……………………………… 15
Adocia S.A.S. (F) ……………………………… 23
Algeta ASA (N) ……………………………… 15, 28
Allos Therapeutics Inc. (USA) ………………… 14
Almirall-Prodesfarma, S.A. (E) ………………… 25
Amgen Inc. (USA) …………………………… 16, 19
Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics (NL) …… 14
Antisense Pharma GmbH (GER) ……………… 13
Applied Biosystems Inc. (USA) ………………… 20
AstraZeneca (GB) ……………………………… 30
Athena Drug Delivery Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (IND) 18
austria wirtschaftsservice | erp-fonds (A) …… CP2
BBaltCap (LIT) …………………………………… 26
BASF AG (GER) …………………………………… 5
Basilea Pharmaceutica (CH) …………………… 21
Baxter Innovations GmbH (A) ………………… 14
Baxter Oncology GmbH (B) …………………… 18
Bayer Healthcare AG (GER) …………………… 28
Bayern Innovativ GmbH (GER) ……………… 46
Ben Venue Laboratories (USA) ……………… 18
BerGenBio AS (N) ……………………………… 19
BerlinPartner (GER) …………………………… CP3
Best of Biotech - BOB (A) ……………………… 39
BIA Separations d.o.o. (SI) …………………… 26
BIO.NRW (GER) ………………………………… 7
BIOCOM AG (GER) …………………………20, 47
BioFocus (GB) ………………………………… 25
Biogen Idec (USA) ……………………………… 23
BioInvent International AB (S) ………………… 18
BioPhausia AB (S) ……………………………… 15
Biotie Therapies Corp. (FI) …………………… 25
BioWin - The Health Cluster of Wallonia (B) … 11
Birk Venture (N) ………………………………… 19
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (USA) ……… 19
Braganza AS (N) ……………………………… 18
Bristol Laboratories Ltd. (GB) ………………… 25
CCellerix, S.A. (ES) ……………………………… 17
CEREP (F) ……………………………………… 15
Clavis Pharma (N) ……………………………… 18
Concept Heidelberg (GER) ……… 21, Supplement
dDako Denmark A/S (DK) ……………………… 19
DASGIP AG (GER) …………………………… 15, 21
Dechema e. V. (GER) ……………44, Supplement
deCode genetics (IS) ………………………… 19
eEBD-Group BEUS Amsterdam (USA) ………36, 37
Elan Corp. (IRL) ………………………………… 23
Envestia Ltd. (GB) ……………………………… 14
NNew Brunswick Scientific (F) ………………… 21New Enterprise Associates (USA) …………… 22Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A. (IT) ………… 25Norsk Innovasjonskapital (N) ………………… 19Novartis Europharm Ltd. (GB) ………………… 14Novozymes A/S (DK) ………………………… 19
oOctoplus (NL) ………………………………… 17Okairos Srl. (IT) ………………………………… 24Orexo (S) ……………………………………… 17Oxford Biomedica (GB) ……………………… 17
pPaion (GER) …………………………………… 17
Pharma Omnium SAS (F) ……………………… 22
Pharmatest Services Oy (FI) …………………… 18
Pharming Group N.V. (NL) …………………… 15
Plasmia Biotech S.L. (E) ……………………… 25
Poet LLC (USA) ………………………………… 23
Pronota N.V. (B) ………………………………… 23
Prosensa BV (NL) ……………………………… 22
ProStrakan (GB) ………………………………… 15
Q/rQiagen NV (GER) ……………………………… 15RauCon Business Development EuroPLX (GER) 34, 35RecipharmCobra (GB) ………………………… 25Reed Exhibitions (USA) ………………………… 40Roche Diagnostics GmbH (GER) ……………… CP4Roche Registration Ltd. (GB) ………………… 14Royal DSM (NL) ………………………………… 23
sSangamo Biosciences Inc. (USA) ……………… 28SAP AG (GER) ………………………………… 16Sarsia Development (N) ……………………… 19SEKAB E-Technology AB (S) …………………… 19Select Biosciences (GB) ……………………42, 43Sigma-Aldrich (USA) …………………………… 28Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (S)………………… 28Sygnis Pharma (GER) ………………………… 13Syntex Pharm AG (GER) ……………………… 28
tTigenix N.V. (B) ………………………………… 17
VValiRX plc (GB) ………………………………… 18Veloxis Pharmaceuticals A/S (S) ……………… 18
WWestLB AG (GER) ……………………………… 15Wilex AG (GER) ……………………………… 15, 16
ZZealand Pharmaceuticals A/S (DK) …………… 19Zeltia-Group (E) …………………………………… 9
Eppendorf AG (GER) …………………………… 21
EuroBioJobs.org (CH) ………………………… 29
European Biotechnology Network (B) ………… 32
FF. Hoffmann - La Roche AG (CH) ……… 13, 20, 28
Fresenius Medical Care (GER) ………………… 14
GGalapagos NV (B) ……………………………18, 25
Genentech Inc. (USA) ………………………… 20
Genzyme (USA) ………………………………… 28
GIMV (B) ………………………………………… 22
GlaxoSmithKline (GB) ………………………… 22
Gregory Fryer Associates Ltd. (GB) …………… 14
Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte (GER) … 12
HHellsinn Healthcare S.A. (CH) ……………… 13, 19
Horizon Discovery Ltd. (GB) …………………… 28
Hybrigenics S.A. (F) …………………………… 18
iIDInvest Partners (F) …………………………… 22
Illumina Inc. (USA) ……………………………… 20
ImmuPharma France SA ……………………… 22
Innate Pharma SAS (F) ………………………… 22
Intercell AG (A) ………………………………… 21
Invest in DK (DK) ……………………………… 27
Ipsogen SA (F) ………………………………… 15
JJanssen Biologics B.V. (NL) …………………… 14
Johnson & Johnson (USA) …………………… 21
JSR Corp. (JP) …………………………………… 26
KKölnmesse GmbH PerMediCon (GER) ……… 41
LLabochema Group (LIT) ……………………… 26
Les Laboratoires Servier S.A. (F) ……………… 18
Life Sciences Partners (NL) …………………… 22
Life Technologies Corp. (USA) ………………… 20
mM+W Process Industries (GER) ……………… 45
Magforce (GER) ………………………………… 17
MediGene AG (GER) …………………………… 15
Medivir (GB) Ltd. ……………………………… 15
MedSciences Capital BV (NL) ………………… 22
Meiji Seika Pharma (JP) ……………………… 25
Merck Serono (CH) …………………………… 25
Messe München GmbH, Analytica (GER) … 13, 38
Meteva GmbH (GER) ………………………… 19
Micromet AG (GER/USA) ……………………… 16
Monsanto (USA) ……………………………… 23
MorphoSys AG (GER) ………………………… 15
FREE EXCERPT
Life Sciences.Living Research. Berlin. Brandenburg.
A vibrant network
Berlin-Brandenburg is one of Europe’s leading locations for the Life Sciences. It is also an R&D capital that magnetically attracts the world’s top scientists. Here you’ll find attractive subsidy condi-tions, close linkages between business and science, the highest concentration of R&D in Europe, a dynamic startup scene and a multifaceted entrepreneurial environment made up of roughly 480 pharmaceutical, biotech and medical engineering companies. Come discover this one-of-a-kind landscape for scientists and entrepreneurs.www.biotop.de/business
Meet us at BIO-Europe Spring!March 19–21, 2012, Amsterdam, Hall 10, Booth 52
210x275_EBN_Biotech_en_Arial_Clusterkomm_rz.indd 5 24.01.2012 14:26:53 Uhr
Get to know a completely new type of real-time PCR instrument at:www.lightcycler-nano.com
Size: Reduced. Fun: Amplified.
For life science research only.Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
LIGHTCYCLER is a trademark of Roche.
Roche Diagnostics GmbHSandhofer Straße 11668305 Mannheim, Germany
© 2011 Roche Diagnostics.All rights reserved.
LightCycler_Ad_EuroBioTech_210x275mm.indd 1 26.05.11 09:28