FibroBiologics Presents at the Society for Investigative Dermatology Annual Meeting
HOUSTON, May 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FibroBiologics, Inc. (Nasdaq: FBLG) ('FibroBiologics'), a clinical-stage biotechnology company with 240+ patents issued and pending with a focus on the development of therapeutics and potential cures for chronic diseases using fibroblasts and fibroblast-derived materials, today announced that Senior Research Scientist, Dr. Chuo Fang M.D., Ph.D., delivered a poster presentation at the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) Annual Meeting that took place in San Diego May 7-10, 2025. The SID Annual Meeting provides a premier forum for skin biology research and education for researchers to share transformative scientific discoveries and medical innovations that improve human health.
The poster presentation entitled 'Immunomodulatory Potential of Human Dermal Fibroblast Spheroids in Psoriasis Therapy' was presented as a part of a poster session on Friday May 9, 2025. The poster highlighted FibroBiologics' human dermal fibroblast (HDF) spheroids potential to reduce psoriasis severity in preclinical models, and offer a scalable, cell-based therapy with durable effects. A PDF version of the poster can be viewed here.
'Presenting our work at the Society for Investigative Dermatology Annual Meeting highlights our continued commitment to advancing innovative, cell-based treatments for chronic inflammatory diseases,' said Hamid Khoja, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer of FibroBiologics. 'Psoriasis remains a challenging chronic disease with limited long-term treatment options, and our IND-enabling preclinical data demonstrate that our fibroblast-based candidate may potentially offer a durable, therapeutic option with a unique immunomodulatory mechanism, and enable a sustained remission, reduced relapse, and a significantly lower adverse side effects profile.'
For more information, please visit FibroBiologics' website or email FibroBiologics at: [email protected].
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This communication contains 'forward-looking statements' as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include information concerning the potential and capabilities of human dermal fibroblast (HDF) spheroids fibroblasts. These forward-looking statements are based on FibroBiologics' management's current expectations, estimates, projections and beliefs, as well as a number of assumptions concerning future events. When used in this communication, the words 'estimates,' 'projected,' 'expects,' 'anticipates,' 'forecasts,' 'plans,' 'intends,' 'believes,' 'seeks,' 'may,' 'will,' 'should,' 'future,' 'propose' and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside FibroBiologics' management's control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements, including those set forth under the caption 'Risk Factors' and elsewhere in FibroBiologics' annual, quarterly and current reports (i.e., Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K) as filed or furnished with the SEC and any subsequent public filings. Copies are available on the SEC's website, www.sec.gov. These risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors include, but are not limited to: (a) expectations regarding the initiation, progress and expected results of our R&D efforts and preclinical studies; (b) the unpredictable relationship between R&D and preclinical results and clinical study results; (c) risks related to FibroBiologics' liquidity and its ability to maintain capital resources sufficient to conduct its business, and (d) the ability of FibroBiologics to successfully prosecute its patent applications. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and FibroBiologics assumes no obligation and, except as required by law, does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. FibroBiologics gives no assurance that it will achieve its expectations.
About FibroBiologics
Based in Houston, FibroBiologics is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of treatments and seeking potential cures for chronic diseases using fibroblast cells and fibroblast-derived materials. FibroBiologics holds 240+ US and internationally issued patents/patents pending across various clinical pathways, including wound healing, multiple sclerosis, disc degeneration, psoriasis, orthopedics, human longevity, and cancer. FibroBiologics represents the next generation of medical advancement in cell therapy and tissue regeneration. For more information, visit www.FibroBiologics.com.
General Inquiries:
[email protected]
Investor Relations:
Nic Johnson
Russo Partners
(212) 845-4242
[email protected]
Media Contact:
Liz Phillips
Russo Partners
(347) 956-7697
[email protected]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Academic Publishers Sign AI Deals as Trump Cuts Research Funding
Academic publishers are rushing to sign licensing deals with artificial intelligence companies, carving out a new revenue stream as US research funding cuts dim their outlook. Informa Plc 's Taylor & Francis signed a $10 million deal with Microsoft Corp. last year to provide the tech giant access to part of its library to train large language models, or LLMs. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc is looking to 'monetize academic content through AI deals,' it said in its latest set of results, while John Wiley & Sons Inc. announced partnerships with Amazon Web Services and Perplexity earlier this year.
Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Minnesota Legislature during special session passes next state budget to avert government shutdown
The Minnesota Legislature approved the remaining pieces of the next state budget on Monday during a special session, after lawmakers failed to complete their work last month. The House adjourned around 10:40 p.m., and the Senate was on track to do the same around midnight or early on Tuesday. They had 14 bills on their to-do list; most of them were spending plans that made up the roughly $66 billion budget for the next two years. The political make-up of the Capitol is unique, with a tied House for only the second time in state history, and is as closely divided as a Legislature can be in Minnesota, with 100 Republicans and 101 Democrats. That made negotiations challenging and forced compromise. "The tie forced us to work together, and I think that's something that people outside of the bubble here in St. Paul are looking for people to do," said House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring. "They want representation in the state that can work together and do the best things for our state." A delayed start in the House, after DFL lawmakers boycotted the first few weeks over a power dispute, ended in overtime. But a divided Legislature is not unique in Minnesota. Four of the last five budget-writing sessions, including this one, have ended with special sessions because they didn't finish the budget on time when Republicans and Democrats shared power. "We prevented a duly elected member of the Minnesota House from being kicked out for no reason whatsoever other than political expediency. And I think in the end, fighting for that equal shared power made this a better session," said former DFL House Speaker Melissa Hortman. "And I think the way that today unfolded was about cooperation and collaboration, we could have had that from the word go. I'm really happy that we did finally get there." Finishing their work on Monday prevented nearly 30,000 state workers from getting layoff notices on Tuesday in advance of a partial government shutdown on July 1 if they failed to approve a budget. As of 11:30 p.m. Monday, the Senate had to pass a tax bill and a bonding proposal funding infrastructure projects before they adjourned, but had approved the budget bills. The legislation made significant cuts to stave off a projected $6 billion deficit in future years. Most of the day was smooth sailing after lawmakers in the House began by passing the most contentious bill of the year that will remove undocumented immigrant adults from MinnesotaCare, a state health care coverage program, by the year's end. The debate in that chamber lasted for four hours and at times was emotional. The change was a top priority for Republicans who are concerned that growing enrollment would balloon costs in an unsustainable way. Democrats in both chambers are deeply opposed to the measure, which will preserve coverage for children despite the rollback for adults. Through tears, Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said approving it, which she agreed to in a larger budget compromise among legislative leaders, was among the most "painful" votes she ever had to take. She and three other Democrats supported it in the Senate. Hortman was the sole DFL vote alongside Republicans in the House. Hortman was similarly emotional when reflecting on that moment. "What I worry about is the people who will lose their health insurance. I know that people will be hurt by that vote," she said. "We worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldn't include that provision, and we tried any other way we could to come to a budget agreement with Republicans, and they wouldn't have it. So I did what leaders do, I stepped up and I got the job done for the people of Minnesota."
