BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics | Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

Archive for the ‘BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics’ Category

Systems Biology Analysis of Transcription Networks, Artificial Intelligence, and High-End Computing Coming to Fruition in Personalized Oncology

Posted in Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Artificial Intelligence in Health Care - Tools & Innovations, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Applications in Therapeutics, Big Data, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biological Networks, Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Cancer - General, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Genomics, Cell Biology, Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits, Clinical & Translational, Clinical Genomics, Genomic Expression, Intelligent Information Systems, tagged activation of transcription factors, Artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence & Clinical Trials, Biological Networks, Columbia University Medical Center, DarwinHealth, mutational analysis, RNA-Seq, transcription control on July 14, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Systems Biology analysis of Transcription Networks, Artificial Intelligence, and High-End Computing Coming to Fruition in Personalized Oncology

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

In the June 2020 issue of the journal Science, writer Roxanne Khamsi has an interesting article “Computing Cancer’s Weak Spots; An algorithm to unmask tumors’ molecular linchpins is tested in patients”[1], describing some early successes in the incorporation of cancer genome sequencing in conjunction with artificial intelligence algorithms toward a personalized clinical treatment decision for various tumor types. In 2016, oncologists Amy Tiersten collaborated with systems biologist Andrea Califano and cell biologist Jose Silva at Mount Sinai Hospital to develop a systems biology approach to determine that the drug ruxolitinib, a STAT3 inhibitor, would be effective for one of her patient’s aggressively recurring, Herceptin-resistant breast tumor. Dr. Califano, instead of defining networks of driver mutations, focused on identifying a few transcription factors that act as ‘linchpins’ or master controllers of transcriptional networks withing tumor cells, and in doing so hoping to, in essence, ‘bottleneck’ the transcriptional machinery of potential oncogenic products. As Dr. Castilano states

“targeting those master regulators and you will stop cancer in its tracks, no matter what mutation initially caused it.”

It is important to note that this approach also relies on the ability to sequence tumors by RNA-seq to determine the underlying mutations which alter which master regulators are pertinent in any one tumor. And given the wide tumor heterogeneity in tumor samples, this sequencing effort may have to involve multiple biopsies (as discussed in earlier posts on tumor heterogeneity in renal cancer).

As stated in the article, Califano co-founded a company called Darwin-Health in 2015 to guide doctors by identifying the key transcription factors in a patient’s tumor and suggesting personalized therapeutics to those identified molecular targets (OncoTarget™). He had collaborated with the Jackson Laboratory and most recently Columbia University to conduct a $15 million 3000 patient clinical trial. This was a bit of a stretch from his initial training as a physicist and, in 1986, IBM hired him for some artificial intelligence projects. He then landed in 2003 at Columbia and has been working on identifying these transcriptional nodes that govern cancer survival and tumorigenicity. Dr. Califano had figured that the number of genetic mutations which potentially could be drivers were too vast:

A 2018 study which analyzed more than 9000 tumor samples reported over 1.5 million mutations[2]

and impossible to develop therapeutics against. He reasoned that you would just have to identify the common connections between these pathways or transcriptional nodes and termed them master regulators.

A Pan-Cancer Analysis of Enhancer Expression in Nearly 9000 Patient Samples

Chen H, Li C, Peng X, et al. Cell. 2018;173(2):386-399.e12.

Abstract

The role of enhancers, a key class of non-coding regulatory DNA elements, in cancer development has increasingly been appreciated. Here, we present the detection and characterization of a large number of expressed enhancers in a genome-wide analysis of 8928 tumor samples across 33 cancer types using TCGA RNA-seq data. Compared with matched normal tissues, global enhancer activation was observed in most cancers. Across cancer types, global enhancer activity was positively associated with aneuploidy, but not mutation load, suggesting a hypothesis centered on “chromatin-state” to explain their interplay. Integrating eQTL, mRNA co-expression, and Hi-C data analysis, we developed a computational method to infer causal enhancer-gene interactions, revealing enhancers of clinically actionable genes. Having identified an enhancer ∼140 kb downstream of PD-L1, a major immunotherapy target, we validated it experimentally. This study provides a systematic view of enhancer activity in diverse tumor contexts and suggests the clinical implications of enhancers.

A diagram of how concentrating on these transcriptional linchpins or nodes may be more therapeutically advantageous as only one pharmacologic agent is needed versus multiple agents to inhibit the various upstream pathways:

From: Khamsi R: Computing cancer’s weak spots. Science 2020, 368(6496):1174-1177.

VIPER Algorithm (Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon Analysis)

The algorithm that Califano and DarwinHealth developed is a systems biology approach using a tumor’s RNASeq data to determine controlling nodes of transcription. They have recently used the VIPER algorithm to look at RNA-Seq data from more than 10,000 tumor samples from TCGA and identified 407 transcription factor genes that acted as these linchpins across all tumor types. Only 20 to 25 of them were implicated in just one tumor type so these potential nodes are common in many forms of cancer.

Other institutions like the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories have been using VIPER in their patient tumor analysis. Linchpins for other tumor types have been found. For instance, VIPER identified transcription factors IKZF1 and IKF3 as linchpins in multiple myeloma. But currently approved therapeutics are hard to come by for targets with are transcription factors, as most pharma has concentrated on inhibiting an easier target like kinases and their associated activity. In general, developing transcription factor inhibitors in more difficult an undertaking for multiple reasons.

Network-based inference of protein activity helps functionalize the genetic landscape of cancer. Alvarez MJ, Shen Y, Giorgi FM, Lachmann A, Ding BB, Ye BH, Califano A:. Nature genetics 2016, 48(8):838-847 [3]

Abstract

Identifying the multiple dysregulated oncoproteins that contribute to tumorigenesis in a given patient is crucial for developing personalized treatment plans. However, accurate inference of aberrant protein activity in biological samples is still challenging as genetic alterations are only partially predictive and direct measurements of protein activity are generally not feasible. To address this problem we introduce and experimentally validate a new algorithm, VIPER (Virtual Inference of Protein-activity by Enriched Regulon analysis), for the accurate assessment of protein activity from gene expression data. We use VIPER to evaluate the functional relevance of genetic alterations in regulatory proteins across all TCGA samples. In addition to accurately inferring aberrant protein activity induced by established mutations, we also identify a significant fraction of tumors with aberrant activity of druggable oncoproteins—despite a lack of mutations, and vice-versa. In vitro assays confirmed that VIPER-inferred protein activity outperforms mutational analysis in predicting sensitivity to targeted inhibitors.

Figure 1

Schematic overview of the VIPER algorithm From: Alvarez MJ, Shen Y, Giorgi FM, Lachmann A, Ding BB, Ye BH, Califano A: Functional characterization of somatic mutations in cancer using network-based inference of protein activity. Nature genetics 2016, 48(8):838-847.

(a) Molecular layers profiled by different technologies. Transcriptomics measures steady-state mRNA levels; Proteomics quantifies protein levels, including some defined post-translational isoforms; VIPER infers protein activity based on the protein’s regulon, reflecting the abundance of the active protein isoform, including post-translational modifications, proper subcellular localization and interaction with co-factors. (b) Representation of VIPER workflow. A regulatory model is generated from ARACNe-inferred context-specific interactome and Mode of Regulation computed from the correlation between regulator and target genes. Single-sample gene expression signatures are computed from genome-wide expression data, and transformed into regulatory protein activity profiles by the aREA algorithm. (c) Three possible scenarios for the aREA analysis, including increased, decreased or no change in protein activity. The gene expression signature and its absolute value (|GES|) are indicated by color scale bars, induced and repressed target genes according to the regulatory model are indicated by blue and red vertical lines. (d) Pleiotropy Correction is performed by evaluating whether the enrichment of a given regulon (R₄) is driven by genes co-regulated by a second regulator (R₄∩R₁). (e) Benchmark results for VIPER analysis based on multiple-samples gene expression signatures (msVIPER) and single-sample gene expression signatures (VIPER). Boxplots show the accuracy (relative rank for the silenced protein), and the specificity (fraction of proteins inferred as differentially active at p < 0.05) for the 6 benchmark experiments (see Table 2). Different colors indicate different implementations of the aREA algorithm, including 2-tail (2T) and 3-tail (3T), Interaction Confidence (IC) and Pleiotropy Correction (PC).

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Evaluating Cancer Genomics from Normal Tissues Through Metastatic Disease 3:50 PM

Posted in BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biological Networks, Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Cancer - General, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Genomics, Cancer Screening, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Genetics & Innovations in Treatment, Genome Biology, Genomic Expression, Genomic Testing: Methodology for Diagnosis, interventional oncology, Variation in human protein-coding regions, tagged AACR, American Association for Cancer Research, breast cancer, Cancer Genomics, cancer genomics and therapy, cancer metastasis, Clonal evolution, Curation, curation communities, Glioma, gliomas, mutational burden, mutational spectrum, myeloid dysplatic syndrome, myeloma, spliceosome, tumor heterogeneity on April 28, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Evaluating Cancer Genomics from Normal Tissues Through Metastatic Disease 3:50 PM

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Minisymposium: Evaluating Cancer Genomics from Normal Tissues through Evolution to Metastatic Disease

Oncologic therapy shapes the fitness landscape of clonal hematopoiesis

April 28, 2020, 4:10 PM – 4:20 PM

Presenter/Authors
Kelly L. Bolton, Ryan N. Ptashkin, Teng Gao, Lior Braunstein, Sean M. Devlin, Minal Patel, Antonin Berthon, Aijazuddin Syed, Mariko Yabe, Catherine Coombs, Nicole M. Caltabellotta, Mike Walsh, Ken Offit, Zsofia Stadler, Choonsik Lee, Paul Pharoah, Konrad H. Stopsack, Barbara Spitzer, Simon Mantha, James Fagin, Laura Boucai, Christopher J. Gibson, Benjamin Ebert, Andrew L. Young, Todd Druley, Koichi Takahashi, Nancy Gillis, Markus Ball, Eric Padron, David Hyman, Jose Baselga, Larry Norton, Stuart Gardos, Virginia Klimek, Howard Scher, Dean Bajorin, Eder Paraiso, Ryma Benayed, Maria Arcilla, Marc Ladanyi, David Solit, Michael Berger, Martin Tallman, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Luis Diaz, Ross Levine, Lindsay Morton, Ahmet Zehir, Elli Papaemmanuil. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Washington University, St Louis, MO, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD

Abstract
Recent studies among healthy individuals show evidence of somatic mutations in leukemia-associated genes, referred to as clonal hematopoiesis (CH). To determine the relationship between CH and oncologic therapy we collected sequential blood samples from 525 cancer patients (median sampling interval time = 23 months, range: 6-53 months) of whom 61% received cytotoxic therapy or external beam radiation therapy and 39% received either targeted/immunotherapy or were untreated. Samples were sequenced using deep targeted capture-based platforms. To determine whether CH mutational features were associated with tMN risk, we performed Cox proportional hazards regression on 9,549 cancer patients exposed to oncologic therapy of whom 75 cases developed tMN (median time to transformation=26 months). To further compare the genetic and clonal relationships between tMN and the proceeding CH, we analyzed 35 cases for which paired samples were available. We compared the growth rate of the variant allele fraction (VAF) of CH clones across treatment modalities and in untreated patients. A significant increase in the growth rate of CH mutations was seen in DDR genes among those receiving cytotoxic (p=0.03) or radiation therapy (p=0.02) during the follow-up period compared to patients who did not receive therapy. Similar growth rates among treated and untreated patients were seen for non-DDR CH genes such as DNMT3A. Increasing cumulative exposure to cytotoxic therapy (p=0.01) and external beam radiation therapy (2×10-8) resulted in higher growth rates for DDR CH mutations. Among 34 subjects with at least two CH mutations in which one mutation was in a DDR gene and one in a non-DDR gene, we studied competing clonal dynamics for multiple gene mutations within the same patient. The risk of tMN was positively associated with CH in a known myeloid neoplasm driver mutation (HR=6.9, p<10-6), and increased with the total number of mutations and clone size. The strongest associations were observed for mutations in TP53 and for CH with mutations in spliceosome genes (SRSF2, U2AF1 and SF3B1). Lower hemoglobin, lower platelet counts, lower neutrophil counts, higher red cell distribution width and higher mean corpuscular volume were all positively associated with increased tMN risk. Among 35 cases for which paired samples were available, in 19 patients (59%), we found evidence of at least one of these mutations at the time of pre-tMN sequencing and in 13 (41%), we identified two or more in the pre-tMN sample. In all cases the dominant clone at tMN transformation was defined by a mutation seen at CH Our serial sampling data provide clear evidence that oncologic therapy strongly selects for clones with mutations in the DDR genes and that these clones have limited competitive fitness, in the absence of cytotoxic or radiation therapy. We further validate the relevance of CH as a predictor and precursor of tMN in cancer patients. We show that CH mutations detected prior to tMN diagnosis were consistently part of the dominant clone at tMN diagnosis and demonstrate that oncologic therapy directly promotes clones with mutations in genes associated with chemo-resistant disease such as TP53.

therapy resulted also in clonal evolution and saw changes in splice variants and spliceosome
therapy promotes current DDR mutations
clonal hematopoeisis due to selective pressures
mutations, variants number all predictive of myeloid disease
deferring adjuvant therapy for breast cancer patients with patients in highest MDS risk group based on biomarkers, greatly reduced their risk for MDS

5704 – Pan-cancer genomic characterization of patient-matched primary, extracranial, and brain metastases

Presenter/AuthorsOlivia W. Lee, Akash Mitra, Won-Chul Lee, Kazutaka Fukumura, Hannah Beird, Miles Andrews, Grant Fischer, John N. Weinstein, Michael A. Davies, Jason Huse, P. Andrew Futreal. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute and School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, AustraliaDisclosures O.W. Lee: None. A. Mitra: None. W. Lee: None. K. Fukumura: None. H. Beird: None. M. Andrews: ; Merck Sharp and Dohme. G. Fischer: None. J.N. Weinstein: None. M.A. Davies: ; Bristol-Myers Squibb. ; Novartis. ; Array BioPharma. ; Roche and Genentech. ; GlaxoSmithKline. ; Sanofi-Aventis. ; AstraZeneca. ; Myriad Genetics. ; Oncothyreon. J. Huse: None. P. Futreal: None.

Abstract: Brain metastases (BM) occur in 10-30% of patients with cancer. Approximately 200,000 new cases of brain metastases are diagnosed in the United States annually, with median survival after diagnosis ranging from 3 to 27 months. Recently, studies have identified significant genetic differences between BM and their corresponding primary tumors. It has been shown that BM harbor clinically actionable mutations that are distinct from those in the primary tumor samples. Additional genomic profiling of BM will provide deeper understanding of the pathogenesis of BM and suggest new therapeutic approaches.
We performed whole-exome sequencing of BM and matched tumors from 41 patients collected from renal cell carcinoma (RCC), breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, which are known to be more likely to develop BM. We profiled total 126 fresh-frozen tumor samples and performed subsequent analyses of BM in comparison to paired primary tumor and extracranial metastases (ECM). We found that lung cancer shared the largest number of mutations between BM and matched tumors (83%), followed by melanoma (74%), RCC (51%), and Breast (26%), indicating that cancer type with high tumor mutational burden share more mutations with BM. Mutational signatures displayed limited differences, suggesting a lack of mutagenic processes specific to BM. However, point-mutation heterogeneity revealed that BM evolve separately into different subclones from their paired tumors regardless of cancer type, and some cancer driver genes were found in BM-specific subclones. These models and findings suggest that these driver genes may drive prometastatic subclones that lead to BM. 32 curated cancer gene mutations were detected and 71% of them were shared between BM and primary tumors or ECM. 29% of mutations were specific to BM, implying that BM often accumulate additional cancer gene mutations that are not present in primary tumors or ECM. Co-mutation analysis revealed a high frequency of TP53 nonsense mutation in BM, mostly in the DNA binding domain, suggesting TP53 nonsense mutation as a possible prerequisite for the development of BM. Copy number alteration analysis showed statistically significant differences between BM and their paired tumor samples in each cancer type (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.0385 for all). Both copy number gains and losses were consistently higher in BM for breast cancer (Wilcoxon test, p =1.307e-5) and lung cancer (Wilcoxon test, p =1.942e-5), implying greater genomic instability during the evolution of BM.
Our findings highlight that there are more unique mutations in BM, with significantly higher copy number alterations and tumor mutational burden. These genomic analyses could provide an opportunity for more reliable diagnostic decision-making, and these findings will be further tested with additional transcriptomic and epigenetic profiling for better characterization of BM-specific tumor microenvironments.

are there genomic signatures different in brain mets versus non metastatic or normal?
32 genes from curated databases were different between brain mets and primary tumor
frequent nonsense mutations in TP53
divergent clonal evolution of drivers in BMets from primary
they were able to match BM with other mutational signatures like smokers and lung cancer signatures

5707 – A standard operating procedure for the interpretation of oncogenicity/pathogenicity of somatic mutations

Presenter/AuthorsPeter Horak, Malachi Griffith, Arpad Danos, Beth A. Pitel, Subha Madhavan, Xuelu Liu, Jennifer Lee, Gordana Raca, Shirley Li, Alex H. Wagner, Shashikant Kulkarni, Obi L. Griffith, Debyani Chakravarty, Dmitriy Sonkin. National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Rockville, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Sunquest, Boston, MA, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MDDisclosures P. Horak: None. M. Griffith: None. A. Danos: None. B.A. Pitel: None. S. Madhavan: ; Perthera Inc. X. Liu: None. J. Lee: None. G. Raca: None. S. Li: ; Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. A.H. Wagner: None. S. Kulkarni: ; Baylor Genetics. O.L. Griffith: None. D. Chakravarty: None. D. Sonkin: None.AbstractSomatic variants in cancer-relevant genes are interpreted from multiple partially overlapping perspectives. When considered in discovery and translational research endeavors, it is important to determine if a particular variant observed in a gene of interest is oncogenic/pathogenic or not, as such knowledge provides the foundation on which targeted cancer treatment research is based. In contrast, clinical applications are dominated by diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic interpretations which in part also depends on underlying variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity. The Association for Molecular Pathology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the College of American Pathologists (AMP/ASCO/CAP) have published structured somatic variant clinical interpretation guidelines which specifically address diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. These guidelines have been well-received by the oncology community. Many variant knowledgebases, clinical laboratories/centers have adopted or are in the process of adopting these guidelines. The AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines also describe different data types which are used to determine oncogenicity/pathogenicity of a variant, such as: population frequency, functional data, computational predictions, segregation, and somatic frequency. A second collaborative effort created the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets to provide a harmonized vocabulary that provides an evidence-based ranking system of molecular targets that supports their value as clinical targets. However, neither of these clinical guideline systems provide systematic and comprehensive procedures for aggregating population frequency, functional data, computational predictions, segregation, and somatic frequency to consistently interpret variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity, as has been published in the ACMG/AMP guidelines for interpretation of pathogenicity of germline variants. In order to address this unmet need for somatic variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity interpretation procedures, the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC, a GA4GH driver project) Knowledge Curation and Interpretation Standards (KCIS) working group (WG) has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with contributions from members of ClinGen Somatic Clinical Domain WG, and ClinGen Somatic/Germline variant curation WG using an approach similar to the ACMG/AMP germline pathogenicity guidelines to categorize evidence of oncogenicity/pathogenicity as very strong, strong, moderate or supporting. This SOP enables consistent and comprehensive assessment of oncogenicity/pathogenicity of somatic variants and latest version of an SOP can be found at https://cancervariants.org/wg/kcis/.

best to use this SOP for somatic mutations and not rearangements
variants based on oncogenicity as strong to weak
useful variant knowledge on pathogenicity curated from known databases
the recommendations would provide some guideline on curating unknown somatic variants versus known variants of hereditary diseases
they have not curated RB1 mutations or variants (or for other RBs like RB2? p130?)

Follow on Twitter at:

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Early Detection and ctDNA 1:35 – 3:55 PM

Posted in BioBanking, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Breast Cancer - impalpable breast lesions, Cancer - General, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Genomics, Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC), Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics, interventional oncology, Liquid Biopsy Chip detects an array of metastatic cancer cell markers in blood, Scientific & Biotech Conferences: Press Coverage, tagged AACR, American Association for Cancer Research, breast cancer screening, Cancer screening, Clinical trial, Conference Coverage with Social Media, ctDNA, ctDNA Liquid Biopsy, liquid biopsy, real time conference coverage, TRACERx on April 28, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Early Detection and ctDNA 1:35 – 3:55 PM

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Introduction
Alberto Bardelli

circulating tumor DNA has been around but with NGS now we can have more specificity in analyzing ctDNA
interest lately in using liquid biopsy to gain insight on tumor heterogeneity versus single needle biopsy of the solid tumor
these talks will however be on ctDNA as a diagnostic and therapeutic monitoring modality

Prediction of cancer and tissue of origin in individuals with suspicion of cancer using a cell-free DNA multi-cancer early detection test
David Thiel

@MayoClinic

test has a specificity over 90% and intended to used along with guideline
The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study (clinical trial NCT02889978) (CCGA) study divided into three substudies: highest performing assay, refining assay, validation of assays
methylation based assays worked better than sequencing (bisulfite sequencing)
used a machine learning algorithm to help refine assay
prediction was >90%; subgroup for high clinical suspicion of cancer
HCS sensitivity was 100% and specificity very high; but sensitivity on training set was 40% and results may have been confounded by including kidney cancer
TOO tissue of origin was predicted in greater than 99% in both training and validation sets

A first-of-its-kind prospective study of a multi-cancer blood test to screen and manage 10,000 women with no history of cancer

DETECT-A study: prospective interventional study; can multi blood test be used prospectively and can lead to a personalized care; can the screen be used to complement current therapy?
10,000 women aged 65-75; these women could not have previous cancer and conducted through Geisinger Health Network; multi test detects DNA and protein and standard of care screening
the study focused on safety so a committee was consulted on each case, and used a diagnostic PET-CT
blood test alone not good but combined with protein and CT scans much higher (5 fold increase) detection for breast cancer

Nickolas Papadopoulos

@HopkinsMedicine

Discussant
David Huntsman

there are mutiple opportunities yet at same time there are still challenges to utilize these cell free tests in therapeutic monitoring, diagnostic, and screening however sensitivities for some cancers are still too low to use in large scale screening however can supplement current screening guidelines
we have to ask about false positive rate and need to concentrate on prospective studies
we must consider how tests will be used, population health studies will need to show improved survival

Phylogenetic tracking and minimal residual disease detection using ctDNA in early-stage NSCLC: A lung TRACERx study
Chris Abbosh @ucl

TRACERx study in collaboration with Charles Swanton.
multiplex PCR to track 200 SNVs: correlate tumor tissue biopsy with ctDNA
spike in assay shows very good sensitivity and specificity for SNVs variants tracked, did over 400 TRACERx libraries
sensitivity increases when tracking more variants but specificity does go down a bit
tracking variants can show evidence of subclonal dynamics and evolution and copy number deletion events; they also show neoantigen editing or changing of their neoantigens
this assay can detect low variants in a reproducible manner

The TRACERx (TRAcking Cancer Evolution through therapy (Rx)) lung study is a multi-million pound research project taking place over nine years, which will transform our understanding of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and take a practical step towards an era of precision medicine. The study will uncover mechanisms of cancer evolution by analysing the intratumour heterogeneity in lung tumours from approximately 850 patients and tracking its evolutionary trajectory from diagnosis through to relapse. At £14 million, it’s the biggest single investment in lung cancer research by Cancer Research UK, and the start of a strategic UK-wide focus on the disease, aimed at making real progress for patients.

Led by Professor Charles Swanton at UCL, the study will bring together a network of experts from different disciplines to help integrate clinical and genomic data and identify patients who could benefit from trials of new, targeted treatments. In addition, it will use a whole suite of cutting edge analytical techniques on these patients’ tumour samples, giving unprecedented insight into the genomic landscape of primary and metastatic tumours and the impact of treatment upon this landscape.

In future, TRACERx will enable us to define how intratumour heterogeneity impacts upon cancer immunity throughout tumour evolution and therapy. Such studies will help define how the clinical evaluation of intratumour heterogeneity can inform patient stratification and the development of combinatorial therapies incorporating conventional, targeted and immune based therapeutics.

Intratumour heterogeneity is increasingly recognised as a major hurdle to achieve improvements in therapeutic outcome and biomarker validation. Intratumour genetic diversity provides a substrate for tumour adaptation and evolution. However, the evolutionary genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and how it changes through the disease course has not been studied in detail. TRACERx is a prospective observational study with the following objectives:

Primary Objectives

Define the relationship between intratumour heterogeneity and clinical outcome following surgery and adjuvant therapy (including relationships between intratumour heterogeneity and clinical disease stage and histological subtypes of NSCLC).
Establish the impact of adjuvant platinum-containing regimens upon intratumour heterogeneity in relapsed disease compared to primary resected tumour.

Key Secondary Objectives

Develop and validate an intratumour heterogeneity (ITH) ratio index as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in relation to disease-free survival and overall survival.
Infer a complete picture of NSCLC evolutionary dynamics – define drivers of genomic instability, metastatic progression and drug resistance by identifying and tracking the dynamics of somatic mutational heterogeneity, and chromosomal structural and numerical instability present in the primary tumour and at metastatic sites. Individual tumour phylogenetic tree analysis will:
- Establish the order of somatic events in relation to genomic instability onset and metastatic progression
- Decipher genetic “bottlenecking” events following metastasis and drug therapy
- Establish dynamics of tumour evolution during the disease course from early to late stage NSCLC.
Initiate a longitudinal biobank of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and circulating-free tumour DNA (cfDNA) to develop analytical methods for the early detection and monitoring of tumour evolution over time.
Develop a longitudinal tissue resource to serve as a platform to assess the relationship between genetic intratumour heterogeneity and the host immune response.
Define relationships between intratumour heterogeneity and targeted/cytotoxic therapeutic outcome.
Use a lung cancer specific gene panel in a certified Good Clinical Practice (GCP) laboratory environment to define clonally dominant disease drivers to address the role of clonal driver dominance in targeted therapeutic response and to guide stratification of lung cancer treatment and future clinical study inclusion (paired primary-metastatic site comparisons in at least 270 patients with relapsed disease).

Utility of longitudinal circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) modeling to predict RECIST-defined progression in first-line patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Martin Johnson

Impact of the EML4-ALK fusion variant on the efficacy of lorlatinib in patients (pts) with ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Todd Bauer

From an interview with Dr. Bauer at https://www.lungcancernews.org/2019/08/14/making-headway-with-lorlatinib/

Lorlatinib, a smallmolecule inhibitor of ALK and ROS1, was granted accelerated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in November 2018 for patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed on crizotinib and at least one other ALK inhibitor or whose disease has progressed on alectinib or ceritinib as the first ALK inhibitor therapy for metastatic disease. Todd M. Bauer, MD, a medical oncologist and senior investigator at Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, PLLC, in Nashville, has been very involved with the development of lorlatinib since the beginning. In the following interview, Dr. Bauer discusses some of lorlatinib’s unique toxicities, as well as his first-hand experiences with the drug.

For further reading: Solomon B, Besse B, Bauer T, et al. Lorlatinib in Patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a global phase 2 study. Lancet. 2018;19(12):P1654-1667.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation inhibitor of ALK and ROS1 tyrosine kinases with broad coverage of ALK mutations. In a phase 1 study, activity was seen in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, most of whom had CNS metastases and progression after ALK-directed therapy. We aimed to analyse the overall and intracranial antitumour activity of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS: In this phase 2 study, patients with histologically or cytologically ALK-positive or ROS1-positive, advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Patients were enrolled into six different expansion cohorts (EXP1-6) on the basis of ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and were given lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response by independent central review, assessed in pooled subgroups of ALK-positive patients. Analyses of activity and safety were based on the safety analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib) as assessed by independent central review. Patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline by independent central review were included in the intracranial activity analyses. In this report, we present lorlatinib activity data for the ALK-positive patients (EXP1-5 only), and safety data for all treated patients (EXP1-6). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865.

FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2015, and Oct 3, 2016, 276 patients were enrolled: 30 who were ALK positive and treatment naive (EXP1); 59 who were ALK positive and received previous crizotinib without (n=27; EXP2) or with (n=32; EXP3A) previous chemotherapy; 28 who were ALK positive and received one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy (EXP3B); 112 who were ALK positive with two (n=66; EXP4) or three (n=46; EXP5) previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with or without chemotherapy; and 47 who were ROS1 positive with any previous treatment (EXP6). One patient in EXP4 died before receiving lorlatinib and was excluded from the safety analysis set. In treatment-naive patients (EXP1), an objective response was achieved in 27 (90·0%; 95% CI 73·5-97·9) of 30 patients. Three patients in EXP1 had measurable baseline CNS lesions per independent central review, and objective intracranial responses were observed in two (66·7%; 95% CI 9·4-99·2). In ALK-positive patients with at least one previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP2-5), objective responses were achieved in 93 (47·0%; 39·9-54·2) of 198 patients and objective intracranial response in those with measurable baseline CNS lesions in 51 (63·0%; 51·5-73·4) of 81 patients. Objective response was achieved in 41 (69·5%; 95% CI 56·1-80·8) of 59 patients who had only received previous crizotinib (EXP2-3A), nine (32·1%; 15·9-52·4) of 28 patients with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 43 (38·7%; 29·6-48·5) of 111 patients with two or more previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EXP4-5). Objective intracranial response was achieved in 20 (87·0%; 95% CI 66·4-97·2) of 23 patients with measurable baseline CNS lesions in EXP2-3A, five (55·6%; 21·2-86·3) of nine patients in EXP3B, and 26 (53·1%; 38·3-67·5) of 49 patients in EXP4-5. The most common treatment-related adverse events across all patients were hypercholesterolaemia (224 [81%] of 275 patients overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4) and hypertriglyceridaemia (166 [60%] overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (7%) of 275 patients and seven patients (3%) permanently discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Consistent with its broad ALK mutational coverage and CNS penetration, lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity both in treatment-naive patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and in those who had progressed on crizotinib, second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or after up to three previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Thus, lorlatinib could represent an effective treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in first-line or subsequent therapy.

loratinib could be used for crizotanib resistant tumors based on EML4-ALK variants present in ctDNA

Reference:
1. Updated efficacy and safety data from the global phase III ALEX study of alectinib (ALC) vs crizotinib (CZ) in untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC. J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl; abstr 9043).

Discussion

Corey Langer

Follow on Twitter at:

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 27, 2020 Minisymposium on AACR Project Genie & Bioinformatics 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Posted in Big Data, BioBanking, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Informatics, Conference Coverage with Social Media, REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter's Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session, tagged AACR, American Association for Cancer Research, bioinformatic methodogies, bioinformatic tools, cancer conference, Cancer Genomics, Cancer research, Conference Coverage with Social Media, real time conference coverage, Transcriptomics, Twitter on April 27, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 27, 2020 Minisymposium on AACR Project Genie & Bioinformatics 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM

SESSION VMS.MD01.01 – Advancing Cancer Research through an International Cancer Registry: AACR Project GENIE Use Cases

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

April 27, 2020, 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Virtual Meeting: All Session Times Are U.S. EDT

Session Type
Virtual Minisymposium
Track(s)
Bioinformatics and Systems Biology
17 Presentations
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
– Chairperson Gregory J. Riely. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

4:00 PM – 4:01 PM
– Introduction Gregory J. Riely. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Precision medicine requires an end-to-end learning healthcare system, wherein the treatment decisions for patients are informed by the prior experiences of similar patients. Oncology is currently leading the way in precision medicine because the genomic and other molecular characteristics of patients and their tumors are routinely collected at scale. A major challenge to realizing the promise of precision medicine is that no single institution is able to sequence and treat sufficient numbers of patients to improve clinical-decision making independently. To overcome this challenge, the AACR launched Project GENIE (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange).

AACR Project GENIE is a publicly accessible international cancer registry of real-world data assembled through data sharing between 19 of the leading cancer centers in the world. Through the efforts of strategic partners Sage Bionetworks (https://sagebionetworks.org) and cBioPortal (www.cbioportal.org), the registry aggregates, harmonizes, and links clinical-grade, next-generation cancer genomic sequencing data with clinical outcomes obtained during routine medical practice from cancer patients treated at these institutions. The consortium and its activities are driven by openness, transparency, and inclusion, ensuring that the project output remains accessible to the global cancer research community for the benefit of all patients.AACR Project GENIE fulfills an unmet need in oncology by providing the statistical power necessary to improve clinical decision-making, particularly in the case of rare cancers and rare variants in common cancers. Additionally, the registry can power novel clinical and translational research.

Because we collect data from nearly every patient sequenced at participating institutions and have committed to sharing only clinical-grade data, the GENIE registry contains enough high-quality data to power decision making on rare cancers or rare variants in common cancers. We see the GENIE data providing another knowledge turn in the virtuous cycle of research, accelerating the pace of drug discovery, improving the clinical trial design, and ultimately benefiting cancer patients globally.

The first set of cancer genomic data aggregated through AACR Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) was available to the global community in January 2017. The seventh data set, GENIE 7.0-public, was released in January 2020 adding more than 9,000 records to the database. The combined data set now includes nearly 80,000 de-identified genomic records collected from patients who were treated at each of the consortium’s participating institutions, making it among the largest fully public cancer genomic data sets released to date. These data will be released to the public every six months. The public release of the eighth data set, GENIE 8.0-public, will take place in July 2020.

The combined data set now includes data for over 80 major cancer types, including data from greater than 12,500 patients with lung cancer, nearly 11,000 patients with breast cancer, and nearly 8,000 patients with colorectal cancer.

For more details about the data, analyses, and summaries of the data attributes from this release, GENIE 7.0-public, consult the data guide.

Users can access the data directly via cbioportal, or download the data directly from Sage Bionetworks. Users will need to create an account for either site and agree to the terms of access.

For frequently asked questions, visit our FAQ page.

In fall of 2019 AACR announced the Bio Collaborative which collected pan cancer data in conjuction and collaboration and support by a host of big pharma and biotech companies
they have a goal to expand to more than 6 cancer types and more than 50,000 records including smoking habits, lifestyle data etc
They have started with NSCLC have have done mutational analysis on these
included is tumor mutational burden and using cbioportal able to explore genomic data even further
treatment data is included as well
need to collect highly CURATED data with PRISM backbone to get more than outcome data, like progression data
they might look to incorporate digital pathology but they are not there yet; will need good artificial intelligence systems

4:01 PM – 4:15 PM
– Invited Speaker Gregory J. Riely. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

4:15 PM – 4:20 PM
– Discussion

4:20 PM – 4:30 PM
1092 – A systematic analysis of BRAF mutations and their sensitivity to different BRAF inhibitors: Zohar Barbash, Dikla Haham, Liat Hafzadi, Ron Zipor, Shaul Barth, Arie Aizenman, Lior Zimmerman, Gabi Tarcic. Novellusdx, Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract: The MAPK-ERK signaling cascade is among the most frequently mutated pathways in human cancer, with the BRAF V600 mutation being the most common alteration. FDA-approved BRAF inhibitors as well as combination therapies of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are available and provide survival benefits to patients with a BRAF V600 mutation in several indications. Yet non-V600 BRAF mutations are found in many cancers and are even more prevalent than V600 mutations in certain tumor types. As the use of NGS profiling in precision oncology is becoming more common, novel alterations in BRAF are being uncovered. This has led to the classification of BRAF mutations, which is dependent on its biochemical properties and affects it sensitivity to inhibitors. Therefore, annotation of these novel variants is crucial for assigning correct treatment. Using a high throughput method for functional annotation of MAPK activity, we profiled 151 different BRAF mutations identified in the AACR Project GENIE dataset, and their response to 4 different BRAF inhibitors- vemurafenib and 3 different exploratory 2^nd generation inhibitors. The system is based on rapid synthesis of the mutations and expression of the mutated protein together with fluorescently labeled reporters in a cell-based assay. Our results show that from the 151 different BRAF mutations, ~25% were found to activate the MAPK pathway. All of the class 1 and 2 mutations tested were found to be active, providing positive validation for the method. Additionally, many novel activating mutations were identified, some outside of the known domains. When testing the response of the active mutations to different classes of BRAF inhibitors, we show that while vemurafenib efficiently inhibited V600 mutations, other types of mutations and specifically BRAF fusions were not inhibited by this drug. Alternatively, the second-generation experimental inhibitors were effective against both V600 as well as non-V600 mutations. Using this large-scale approach to characterize BRAF mutations, we were able to functionally annotate the largest number of BRAF mutations to date. Our results show that the number of activating variants is large and that they possess differential sensitivity to different types of direct inhibitors. This data can serve as a basis for rational drug design as well as more accurate treatment options for patients.

Molecular profiling is becoming imperative for successful targeted therapies
500 unique mutations in BRAF so need to use bioinformatic pipeline; start with NGS panels then cluster according to different subtypes or class specific patterns
certain mutation like V600E mutations have distinct clustering in tumor types
25% of mutations occur with other mutations; mutations may not be functional; they used highthruput system to analyze other V600 braf mutations to determine if functional
active yet uncharacterized BRAF mutations seen in a major proportion of human tumors
using genomic drug data found that many inhibitors like verafanib are specific to a specific mutation but other inhibitors that are not specific to a cleft can inhibit other BRAF mutants
40% of 135 mutants were functionally active
USE of Functional Profiling instead of just genomic profiling
Q?: They have already used this platform and analysis for RTKs and other genes as well successfully
Q? how do you deal with co reccuring mutations: platform is able to do RTK plus signaling protiens

4:30 PM – 4:35 PM
– Discussion

4:35 PM – 4:45 PM
1093 – Calibration Tool for Genomic Aggregates (CTGA): A deep learning framework for calibrating somatic mutation profiling data from conventional gene panel data. Jordan Anaya, Craig Cummings, Jocelyn Lee, Alexander Baras. Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, MD, Genentech, Inc., CA, AACR, Philadelphia, PA

Abstract: It has been suggested that aggregate genomic measures such as mutational burden can be associated with response to immunotherapy. Arguably, the gold standard for deriving such aggregate genomic measures (AGMs) would be from exome level sequencing. While many clinical trials run exome level sequencing, the vast majority of routine genomic testing performed today, as seen in AACR Project GENIE, is targeted / gene-panel based sequencing.
Despite the smaller size of these gene panels focused on clinically targetable alterations, it has been shown they can estimate, to some degree, exomic mutational burden; usually by normalizing mutation count by the relevant size of the panels. These smaller gene panels exhibit significant variability both in terms of accuracy relative to exomic measures and in comparison to other gene panels. While many genes are common to the panels in AACR Project GENIE, hundreds are not. These differences in extent of coverage and genomic loci examined can result in biases that may negatively impact panel to panel comparability.
To address these issues we developed a deep learning framework to model exomic AGMs, such as mutational burden, from gene panel data as seen in AACR Project GENIE. This framework can leverage any available sample and variant level information, in which variants are featurized to effectively re-weight their importance when estimating a given AGM, such as mutational burden, through the use of multiple instance learning techniques in this form of weakly supervised data.
Using TCGA data in conjunction with AACR Project GENIE gene panel definitions, as a proof of concept, we first applied this framework to learn expected variant features such as codons and genomic position from mutational data (greater than 99.9% accuracy observed). Having established the validity of the approach, we then applied this framework to somatic mutation profiling data in which we show that data from gene panels can be calibrated to exomic TMB and thereby improve panel to panel compatibility. We observed approximately 25% improvements in mean squared error and R-squared metrics when using our framework over conventional approaches to estimate TMB from gene panel data across the 9 tumors types examined (spanning melanoma, lung cancer, colon cancer, and others). This work highlights the application of sophisticated machine learning approaches towards the development of needed calibration techniques across seemingly disparate gene panel assays used clinically today.

4:45 PM – 4:50 PM
– Discussion

4:50 PM – 5:00 PM
1094 – Genetic determinants of EGFR-driven lung cancer growth and therapeutic response in vivoGiorgia Foggetti, Chuan Li, Hongchen Cai, Wen-Yang Lin, Deborah Ayeni, Katherine Hastings, Laura Andrejka, Dylan Maghini, Robert Homer, Dmitri A. Petrov, Monte M. Winslow, Katerina Politi. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

5:00 PM – 5:05 PM
– Discussion

5:05 PM – 5:15 PM
1095 – Comprehensive pan-cancer analyses of RAS genomic diversityRobert Scharpf, Gregory Riely, Mark Awad, Michele Lenoue-Newton, Biagio Ricciuti, Julia Rudolph, Leon Raskin, Andrew Park, Jocelyn Lee, Christine Lovly, Valsamo Anagnostou. Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, AACR, Philadelphia, PA

5:15 PM – 5:20 PM
– Discussion

5:20 PM – 5:30 PM
1096 – Harmonization standards from the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium. Alex H. Wagner, Reece K. Hart, Larry Babb, Robert R. Freimuth, Adam Coffman, Yonghao Liang, Beth Pitel, Angshumoy Roy, Matthew Brush, Jennifer Lee, Anna Lu, Thomas Coard, Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Brian Walsh, Susan Mockus, Peter Horak, Ian King, Dmitriy Sonkin, Subha Madhavan, Gordana Raca, Debyani Chakravarty, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith. Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, Reece Hart Consulting, CA, Broad Institute, Boston, MA, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Abstract: The use of clinical gene sequencing is now commonplace, and genome analysts and molecular pathologists are often tasked with the labor-intensive process of interpreting the clinical significance of large numbers of tumor variants. Numerous independent knowledge bases have been constructed to alleviate this manual burden, however these knowledgebases are non-interoperable. As a result, the analyst is left with a difficult tradeoff: for each knowledgebase used the analyst must understand the nuances particular to that resource and integrate its evidence accordingly when generating the clinical report, but for each knowledgebase omitted there is increased potential for missed findings of clinical significance.The Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC; cancervariants.org) was formed as a driver project of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH; ga4gh.org) to address this concern. VICC members include representatives from several major somatic interpretation knowledgebases including CIViC, OncoKB, Jax-CKB, the Weill Cornell PMKB, the IRB-Barcelona Cancer Biomarkers Database, and others. Previously, the VICC built and reported on a harmonized meta-knowledgebase of 19,551 biomarker associations of harmonized variants, diseases, drugs, and evidence across the constituent resources.In that study, we analyzed the frequency with which the tumor samples from the AACR Project GENIE cohort would match to harmonized associations. Variant matches increased dramatically from 57% to 86% when broader matching to regions describing categorical variants were allowed. Unlike precise sequence variants with specified alternate alleles, categorical variants describe a collection of potential variants with a common feature, such as “V600” (non-valine alleles at the 600 residue), “Exon 20 mutations” (all non-silent mutations in exon 20), or “Gain-of-function” (hypermorphic alterations that activate or amplify gene activity). However, matching observed sequence variants to categorical variants is challenging, as the latter are typically only described as unstructured text. Here we describe the expressive and computational GA4GH Variation Representation specification (vr-spec.readthedocs.io), which we co-developed as members of the GA4GH Genomic Knowledge Standards work stream. This specification provides a schema for common, precise forms of variation (e.g. SNVs and Indels) and the method for computing identifiers from these objects. We highlight key aspects of the specification and our work to apply it to the characterization of categorical variation, showcasing the variant terminology and classification tools developed by the VICC to support this effort. These standards and tools are free, open-source, and extensible, overcoming barriers to standardized variant knowledge sharing and search.

https://cancervariants.org/

store information from different databases by curating them and classifying them then harmonizing them into values
harmonize each variant across their knowledgebase; at any level of evidence
had 29% of patients variants that matched when compare across many knowledgebase databases versus only 13% when using individual databases
they are also trying to curate the database so a variant will have one code instead of various refseq codes or protein codes
VIC is an open consortium

5:30 PM – 5:35 PM
– Discussion

5:35 PM – 5:45 PM
1097 – FGFR2 in-frame indels: A novel targetable alteration in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Yvonne Y. Li, James M. Cleary, Srivatsan Raghavan, Liam F. Spurr, Qibiao Wu, Lei Shi, Lauren K. Brais, Maureen Loftus, Lipika Goyal, Anuj K. Patel, Atul B. Shinagare, Thomas E. Clancy, Geoffrey Shapiro, Ethan Cerami, William R. Sellers, William C. Hahn, Matthew Meyerson, Nabeel Bardeesy, Andrew D. Cherniack, Brian M. Wolpin. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

5:45 PM – 5:50 PM
– Discussion

5:50 PM – 6:00 PM
– Closing RemarksGregory J. Riely. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Follow on Twitter at:

#AACR2020

#curecancernow

#pharmanews

Read Full Post »

Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer: Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Posted in and Bioethics, Big Data, Bio-Ethics, BioBanking, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, Breast Cancer - impalpable breast lesions, Cancer - General, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs, Cancer Screening, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research, Health Care System by Country, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Health Law & Patient Safety, HealthCare IT, Healthcare Reform, interventional oncology, TP53 - Germline mutations, Women Health, tagged #endcancer, African diaspora, breast cancer, Cancer, cancer disparities, clinical genomics, diagnostic genomics, health disparities, men's health, ovarian cancer, sub Saharan, womens' health on April 19, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer: Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

In a Science Perspectives article by Timothy Rebbeck, health disparities, specifically cancer disparities existing in the sub-Saharan African (SSA) nations, highlighting the cancer incidence disparities which exist compared with cancer incidence in high income areas of the world [1]. The sub-Saharan African nations display a much higher incidence of prostate, breast, and cervix cancer and these cancers are predicted to double within the next twenty years, according to IARC[2]. Most importantly,

the histopathologic and demographic features of these tumors differ from those in high-income countries

meaning that the differences seen in incidence may reflect a true health disparity as increases rates in these cancers are not seen in high income countries (HIC).

Most frequent male cancers in SSA include prostate, lung, liver, leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Kaposi’s sarcoma (a cancer frequently seen in HIV infected patients [3]). In SSA women, breast and cervical cancer are the most common and these display higher rates than seen in high income countries. In fact, liver cancer is seen in SSA females at twice the rate, and in SSA males almost three times the rate as in high income countries.

Reasons for cancer disparity in SSA

Patients with cancer are often diagnosed at a late stage in SSA countries. This contrasts with patients from high income countries, which have their cancers usually diagnosed at an earlier stage, and with many cancers, like breast[4], ovarian[5, 6], and colon, detecting the tumor in the early stages is critical for a favorable outcome and prognosis[7-10]. In addition, late diagnosis also limits many therapeutic options for the cancer patient and diseases at later stages are much harder to manage, especially with respect to unresponsiveness and/or resistance of many therapies. In addition, treatments have to be performed in low-resource settings in SSA, and availability of clinical lab work and imaging technologies may be limited.

Molecular differences in SSA versus HIC cancers which may account for disparities

Emerging evidence suggests that there are distinct molecular signatures with SSA tumors with respect to histotype and pathology. For example Dr. Rebbeck mentions that Nigerian breast cancers were defined by increased mutational signatures associated with deficiency of the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway, pervasive mutations in the tumor suppressor gene TP53, mutations in GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3), and greater mutational burden, compared with breast tumors from African Americans or Caucasians[11]. However more research will be required to understand the etiology and causal factors related to this molecular distinction in mutational spectra.

It is believed that there is a higher rate of hereditary cancers in SSA. And many SSA cancers exhibit the more aggressive phenotype than in other parts of the world. For example breast tumors in SSA black cases are twice as likely than SSA Caucasian cases to be of the triple negative phenotype, which is generally more aggressive and tougher to detect and treat, as triple negative cancers are HER2 negative and therefore are not a candidate for Herceptin. Also BRCA1/2 mutations are more frequent in black SSA cases than in Caucasian SSA cases [12, 13].

Initiatives to Combat Health Disparities in SSA

Multiple initiatives are being proposed or in action to bring personalized medicine to the sub-Saharan African nations. These include:

The Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) consortium

H3Africa empowers African researchers to be competitive in genomic sciences, establishes and nurtures effective collaborations among African researchers on the African continent, and generates unique data that could be used to improve both African and global health.

There is currently a global effort to apply genomic science and associated technologies to further the understanding of health and disease in diverse populations. These efforts work to identify individuals and populations who are at risk for developing specific diseases, and to better understand underlying genetic and environmental contributions to that risk. Given the large amount of genetic diversity on the African continent, there exists an enormous opportunity to utilize such approaches to benefit African populations and to inform global health.

The Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) consortium facilitates fundamental research into diseases on the African continent while also developing infrastructure, resources, training, and ethical guidelines to support a sustainable African research enterprise – led by African scientists, for the African people. The initiative consists of 51 African projects that include population-based genomic studies of common, non-communicable disorders such as heart and renal disease, as well as communicable diseases such as tuberculosis. These studies are led by African scientists and use genetic, clinical, and epidemiologic methods to identify hereditary and environmental contributions to health and disease. To establish a foundation for African scientists to continue this essential work into the future work, the consortium also supports many crucial capacity building elements, such as: ethical, legal, and social implications research; training and capacity building for bioinformatics; capacity for biobanking; and coordination and networking.

The World Economic Forum’s Leapfrogging with Precision Medicine project

This project is part of the World Economic Forum’s Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare Platform

The Challenge

Advancing precision medicine in a way that is equitable and beneficial to society means ensuring that healthcare systems can adopt the most scientifically and technologically appropriate approaches to a more targeted and personalized way of diagnosing and treating disease. In certain instances, countries or institutions may be able to bypass, or “leapfrog”, legacy systems or approaches that prevail in developed country contexts.

The World Economic Forum’s Leapfrogging with Precision Medicine project will develop a set of tools and case studies demonstrating how a precision medicine approach in countries with greenfield policy spaces can potentially transform their healthcare delivery and outcomes. Policies and governance mechanisms that enable leapfrogging will be iterated and scaled up to other projects.

Successes in personalized genomic research in SSA

As Dr. Rebbeck states:

Because of the underlying genetic and genomic relationships between Africans and members of the African diaspora (primarily in North America and Europe), knowledge gained from research in SSA can be used to address health disparities that are prevalent in members of the African diaspora.

For example members of the West African heritage and genomic ancestry has been reported to confer the highest genomic risk for prostate cancer in any worldwide population [14].

PERSPECTIVEGLOBAL HEALTH

Cancer in sub-Saharan Africa

Timothy R. Rebbeck

See all authors and affiliations

Science 03 Jan 2020:
Vol. 367, Issue 6473, pp. 27-28
DOI: 10.1126/science.aay474

Summary/Abstract

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. This is especially the case in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); high rates of cancer—particularly of the prostate, breast, and cervix—characterize cancer in most countries in SSA. The number of these cancers in SSA is predicted to more than double in the next 20 years (1). Both the explanations for these increasing rates and the solutions to address this cancer epidemic require SSA-specific data and approaches. The histopathologic and demographic features of these tumors differ from those in high-income countries (HICs). Basic knowledge of the epidemiology, clinical features, and molecular characteristics of cancers in SSA is needed to build prevention and treatment tools that will address the future cancer burden. The distinct distribution and determinants of cancer in SSA provide an opportunity to generate knowledge about cancer risk factors, genomics, and opportunities for prevention and treatment globally, not only in Africa.

References

Rebbeck TR: Cancer in sub-Saharan Africa. Science 2020, 367(6473):27-28.
Parkin DM, Ferlay J, Jemal A, Borok M, Manraj S, N’Da G, Ogunbiyi F, Liu B, Bray F: Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018.
Chinula L, Moses A, Gopal S: HIV-associated malignancies in sub-Saharan Africa: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Current opinion in HIV and AIDS 2017, 12(1):89-95.
Colditz GA: Epidemiology of breast cancer. Findings from the nurses’ health study. Cancer 1993, 71(4 Suppl):1480-1489.
Hamilton TC, Penault-Llorca F, Dauplat J: [Natural history of ovarian adenocarcinomas: from epidemiology to experimentation]. Contracept Fertil Sex 1998, 26(11):800-804.
Garner EI: Advances in the early detection of ovarian carcinoma. J Reprod Med 2005, 50(6):447-453.
Brockbank EC, Harry V, Kolomainen D, Mukhopadhyay D, Sohaib A, Bridges JE, Nobbenhuis MA, Shepherd JH, Ind TE, Barton DP: Laparoscopic staging for apparent early stage ovarian or fallopian tube cancer. First case series from a UK cancer centre and systematic literature review. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 2013, 39(8):912-917.
Kolligs FT: Diagnostics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer. Visceral medicine 2016, 32(3):158-164.
Rocken C, Neumann U, Ebert MP: [New approaches to early detection, estimation of prognosis and therapy for malignant tumours of the gastrointestinal tract]. Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie 2008, 46(2):216-222.
Srivastava S, Verma M, Henson DE: Biomarkers for early detection of colon cancer. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2001, 7(5):1118-1126.
Pitt JJ, Riester M, Zheng Y, Yoshimatsu TF, Sanni A, Oluwasola O, Veloso A, Labrot E, Wang S, Odetunde A et al: Characterization of Nigerian breast cancer reveals prevalent homologous recombination deficiency and aggressive molecular features. Nature communications 2018, 9(1):4181.
Zheng Y, Walsh T, Gulsuner S, Casadei S, Lee MK, Ogundiran TO, Ademola A, Falusi AG, Adebamowo CA, Oluwasola AO et al: Inherited Breast Cancer in Nigerian Women. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2018, 36(28):2820-2825.
Rebbeck TR, Friebel TM, Friedman E, Hamann U, Huo D, Kwong A, Olah E, Olopade OI, Solano AR, Teo SH et al: Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29,700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Human mutation 2018, 39(5):593-620.
Lachance J, Berens AJ, Hansen MEB, Teng AK, Tishkoff SA, Rebbeck TR: Genetic Hitchhiking and Population Bottlenecks Contribute to Prostate Cancer Disparities in Men of African Descent. Cancer research 2018, 78(9):2432-2443.

Structure-guided Drug Discovery: (1) The Coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) enzyme (main protease) essential for proteolytic maturation of the virus and (2) viral protease, the RNA polymerase, the viral spike protein, a viral RNA as promising two targets for discovery of cleavage inhibitors of the viral spike polyprotein preventing the Coronavirus Virion the spread of infection

Posted in Antibody Responses Predict Antigen Exposure, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, COVID-19, Immunodiagnostics, Immunology, Innovation in Immunology Diagnostics, MHC Repertoires for Antigen Prediction, Population Health Management, Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical, Viral diseases, Virology - Vector-borne DIsease, tagged BioIT: BioInformatics, Biological Engineering, Biological Networks, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, Cancer Informatics, Clinical & Translational, clinical genomics, Commercialization, COVID-19, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Genetics & Pharmaceutical, Immunotherapy, Innovation in Immunology Diagnostics, Innovations, Intellectual property, Investment in Technological Breakthrough, NGS, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Population Health Management, Proteomics, SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, Universal Immune Cell Therapies (uICT), Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV | Tagged COVID-19 on March 12, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Structure-guided Drug Discovery: (1) The Coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) enzyme (main protease) essential for proteolytic maturation of the virus and (2) viral protease, the RNA polymerase, the viral spike protein, a viral RNA as promising two targets for discovery of cleavage inhibitors of the viral spike polyprotein preventing the Coronavirus Virion the spread of infection

Curators and Reporters: Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Therapeutical options to coronavirus (2019-nCoV) include consideration of the following:

(a) Monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies

(b) Vaccines

(c) Small molecule treatments (e.g., chloroquinolone and derivatives), including compounds already approved for other indications

(d) Immuno-therapies derived from human or other sources

Structure of the nCoV trimeric spike

The World Health Organization has declared the outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to be a public health emergency of international concern. The virus binds to host cells through its trimeric spike glycoprotein, making this protein a key target for potential therapies and diagnostics. Wrapp et al. determined a 3.5-angstrom-resolution structure of the 2019-nCoV trimeric spike protein by cryo–electron microscopy. Using biophysical assays, the authors show that this protein binds at least 10 times more tightly than the corresponding spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)–CoV to their common host cell receptor. They also tested three antibodies known to bind to the SARS-CoV spike protein but did not detect binding to the 2019-nCoV spike protein. These studies provide valuable information to guide the development of medical counter-measures for 2019-nCoV. [Bold Face Added by ALA]

Science, this issue p. 1260

Abstract

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) represents a pandemic threat that has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. The CoV spike (S) glycoprotein is a key target for vaccines, therapeutic antibodies, and diagnostics. To facilitate medical countermeasure development, we determined a 3.5-angstrom-resolution cryo–electron microscopy structure of the 2019-nCoV S trimer in the prefusion conformation. The predominant state of the trimer has one of the three receptor-binding domains (RBDs) rotated up in a receptor-accessible conformation. We also provide biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV S protein binds angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with higher affinity than does severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV S. Additionally, we tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies and found that they do not have appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV S, suggesting that antibody cross-reactivity may be limited between the two RBDs. The structure of 2019-nCoV S should enable the rapid development and evaluation of medical countermeasures to address the ongoing public health crisis.

Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation

Daniel Wrapp¹,*,
Nianshuang Wang¹,*,
Kizzmekia S. Corbett²,
Jory A. Goldsmith¹,
Ching-Lin Hsieh¹,
Olubukola Abiona²,
Barney S. Graham²,
Jason S. McLellan ¹,†

Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
²Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

↵†Corresponding author. Email: jmclellan@austin.utexas.edu

↵* These authors contributed equally to this work.

Science 13 Mar 2020:
Vol. 367, Issue 6483, pp. 1260-1263
DOI: 10.1126/science.abb2507

02/04/2020

New Coronavirus Protease Structure Available

PDB data provide a starting point for structure-guided drug discovery

A high-resolution crystal structure of COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) has been determined by Zihe Rao and Haitao Yang’s research team at ShanghaiTech University. Rapid public release of this structure of the main protease of the virus (PDB 6lu7) will enable research on this newly-recognized human pathogen.

Recent emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus has resulted in a WHO-declared public health emergency of international concern. Research efforts around the world are working towards establishing a greater understanding of this particular virus and developing treatments and vaccines to prevent further spread.

https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb6lu7/pdb

While PDB entry 6lu7 is currently the only public-domain 3D structure from this specific coronavirus, the PDB contains structures of the corresponding enzyme from other coronaviruses. The 2003 outbreak of the closely-related Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS) led to the first 3D structures, and today there are more than 200 PDB structures of SARS proteins. Structural information from these related proteins could be vital in furthering our understanding of coronaviruses and in discovery and development of new treatments and vaccines to contain the current outbreak.

The coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) enzyme, also known as the main protease, is essential for proteolytic maturation of the virus. It is thought to be a promising target for discovery of small-molecule drugs that would inhibit cleavage of the viral polyprotein and prevent spread of the infection.

Comparison of the protein sequence of the COVID-19 coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) against the PDB archive identified 95 PDB proteins with at least 90% sequence identity. Furthermore, these related protein structures contain approximately 30 distinct small molecule inhibitors, which could guide discovery of new drugs. Of particular significance for drug discovery is the very high amino acid sequence identity (96%) between the COVID-19 coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) and the SARS virus main protease (PDB 1q2w). Summary data about these closely-related PDB structures are available (CSV) to help researchers more easily find this information. In addition, the PDB houses 3D structure data for more than 20 unique SARS proteins represented in more than 200 PDB structures, including a second viral protease, the RNA polymerase, the viral spike protein, a viral RNA, and other proteins (CSV).

Public release of the COVID-19 coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro), at a time when this information can prove most vital and valuable, highlights the importance of open and timely availability of scientific data. The wwPDB strives to ensure that 3D biological structure data remain freely accessible for all, while maintaining as comprehensive and accurate an archive as possible. We hope that this new structure, and those from related viruses, will help researchers and clinicians address the COVID-19 coronavirus global public health emergency.

Update: Released COVID-19-related PDB structures include

PDB structure 6lu7 (X. Liu, B. Zhang, Z. Jin, H. Yang, Z. Rao Crystal structure of COVID-19 main protease in complex with an inhibitor N3 doi: 10.2210/pdb6lu7/pdb) Released 2020-02-05

PDB structure 6vsb (D. Wrapp, N. Wang, K.S. Corbett, J.A. Goldsmith, C.-L. Hsieh, O. Abiona, B.S. Graham, J.S. McLellan (2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation Science doi: 10.1126/science.abb2507) Released 2020-02-26

PDB structure 6lxt (Y. Zhu, F. Sun Structure of post fusion core of 2019-nCoV S2 subunit doi: 10.2210/pdb6lxt/pdb) Released 2020-02-26

PDB structure 6lvn (Y. Zhu, F. Sun Structure of the 2019-nCoV HR2 Domain doi: 10.2210/pdb6lvn/pdb) Released 2020-02-26

PDB structure 6vw1
J. Shang, G. Ye, K. Shi, Y.S. Wan, H. Aihara, F. Li Structural basis for receptor recognition by the novel coronavirus from Wuhan doi: 10.2210/pdb6vw1/pdb
Released 2020-03-04

PDB structure 6vww
Y. Kim, R. Jedrzejczak, N. Maltseva, M. Endres, A. Godzik, K. Michalska, A. Joachimiak, Center for Structural Genomics of Infectious Diseases Crystal Structure of NSP15 Endoribonuclease from SARS CoV-2 doi: 10.2210/pdb6vww/pdb
Released 2020-03-04

PDB structure 6y2e
L. Zhang, X. Sun, R. Hilgenfeld Crystal structure of the free enzyme of the SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) main protease doi: 10.2210/pdb6y2e/pdb
Released 2020-03-04

PDB structure 6y2f
L. Zhang, X. Sun, R. Hilgenfeld Crystal structure (monoclinic form) of the complex resulting from the reaction between SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) main protease and tert-butyl (1-((S)-1-(((S)-4-(benzylamino)-3,4-dioxo-1-((S)-2-oxopyrrolidin-3-yl)butan-2-yl)amino)-3-cyclopropyl-1-oxopropan-2-yl)-2-oxo-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl)carbamate (alpha-ketoamide 13b) doi: 10.2210/pdb6y2f/pdb
Released 2020-03-04

PDB structure 6y2g
L. Zhang, X. Sun, R. Hilgenfeld Crystal structure (orthorhombic form) of the complex resulting from the reaction between SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) main protease and tert-butyl (1-((S)-1-(((S)-4-(benzylamino)-3,4-dioxo-1-((S)-2-oxopyrrolidin-3-yl)butan-2-yl)amino)-3-cyclopropyl-1-oxopropan-2-yl)-2-oxo-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl)carbamate (alpha-ketoamide 13b) doi: 10.2210/pdb6y2g/pdb
Released 2020-03-04

SOURCE – 02/04/2020

https://www.wwpdb.org/news/news?year=2020&fbclid=IwAR0mFKQD7KX29hkJcnV0MxeAe_1themx7KuBDo8txaMiYHJ08JvNN0cisug#5e39e03fa5007a04a313edc3

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Cardiovascular Disease

Kevin J. Clerkin , Justin A. Fried, Jayant Raikhelkar, Gabriel Sayer, Jan M. Griffin, Amirali Masoumi, Sneha S. Jain, Daniel Burkhoff, Deepa Kumaraiah, LeRoy Rabbani, Allan Schwartz

and

Nir Uriel

Originally published 21 Mar 2020 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941 Circulation. ;0:null

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic impacting nearly 170 countries/regions and more than 285,000 patients worldwide. COVID-19 is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which invades cells through the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Among those with COVID-19, there is a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and more than 7% of patients suffer myocardial injury from the infection (22% of the critically ill). Despite ACE2 serving as the portal for infection, the role of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers requires further investigation. COVID-19 poses a challenge for heart transplantation, impacting donor selection, immunosuppression, and post-transplant management. Thankfully there are a number of promising therapies under active investigation to both treat and prevent COVID-19. Key Words: COVID-19; myocardial injury; pandemic; heart transplant

SOURCE

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

ACE2

Towler P, Staker B, Prasad SG, Menon S, Tang J, Parsons T, Ryan D, Fisher M, Williams D, Dales NA, Patane MA, Pantoliano MW (Apr 2004). “ACE2 X-ray structures reveal a large hinge-bending motion important for inhibitor binding and catalysis”. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 279 (17): 17996–8007. doi:10.1074/jbc.M311191200. PMID 14754895.

Turner AJ, Tipnis SR, Guy JL, Rice G, Hooper NM (Apr 2002). “ACEH/ACE2 is a novel mammalian metallocarboxypeptidase and a homologue of angiotensin-converting enzyme insensitive to ACE inhibitors”. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology. 80 (4): 346–53. doi:10.1139/y02-021. PMID 12025971.

Zhang, Haibo; Penninger, Josef M.; Li, Yimin; Zhong, Nanshan; Slutsky, Arthur S. (3 March 2020). “Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target”. Intensive Care Medicine. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9. ISSN 0342-4642. PMID 32125455.

^ Gurwitz, David (2020). “Angiotensin receptor blockers as tentative SARS‐CoV‐2 therapeutics”. Drug Development Research. doi:10.1002/ddr.21656. PMID 32129518.

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)

is an exopeptidase that catalyses the conversion of angiotensin I to the nonapeptide angiotensin[1-9]^[5] or the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin 1-7.^[6]^[7] ACE2 has direct effects on cardiac function^a and is expressed predominantly in vascular endothelial cells of the heart and the kidneys.^[8] ACE2 is not sensitive to the ACE inhibitor drugs used to treat hypertension.^[9]

ACE2 receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for some coronaviruses, including the SARS virus.^[10] A number of studies have identified that the entry point is the same for SARS-CoV-2,^[11] the virus that causes COVID-19.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]

Some have suggested that a decrease in ACE2 could be protective against Covid-19 disease^[16], but others have suggested the opposite, that Angiotensin II receptor blocker drugs could be protective against Covid-19 disease via increasing ACE2, and that these hypotheses need to be tested by datamining of clinical patient records.^[17]

REFERENCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2

FOLDING@HOME TAKES UP THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID-19 / 2019-NCOV

February 27, 2020

by Greg Bowman

We need your help! Folding@home is joining researchers around the world working to better understand the 2019 Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to accelerate the open science effort to develop new life-saving therapies. By downloading Folding@Home, you can donate your unused computational resources to the Folding@home Consortium, where researchers working to advance our understanding of the structures of potential drug targets for 2019-nCoV that could aid in the design of new therapies. The data you help us generate will be quickly and openly disseminated as part of an open science collaboration of multiple laboratories around the world, giving researchers new tools that may unlock new opportunities for developing lifesaving drugs.

2019-nCoV is a close cousin to SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), and acts in a similar way. For both coronaviruses, the first step of infection occurs in the lungs, when a protein on the surface of the virus binds to a receptor protein on a lung cell. This viral protein is called the spike protein, depicted in red in the image below, and the receptor is known as ACE2. A therapeutic antibody is a type of protein that can block the viral protein from binding to its receptor, therefore preventing the virus from infecting the lung cell. A therapeutic antibody has already been developed for SARS-CoV, but to develop therapeutic antibodies or small molecules for 2019-nCoV, scientists need to better understand the structure of the viral spike protein and how it binds to the human ACE2 receptor required for viral entry into human cells.

Proteins are not stagnant—they wiggle and fold and unfold to take on numerous shapes. We need to study not only one shape of the viral spike protein, but all the ways the protein wiggles and folds into alternative shapes in order to best understand how it interacts with the ACE2 receptor, so that an antibody can be designed. Low-resolution structures of the SARS-CoV spike protein exist and we know the mutations that differ between SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV. Given this information, we are uniquely positioned to help model the structure of the 2019-nCoV spike protein and identify sites that can be targeted by a therapeutic antibody. We can build computational models that accomplish this goal, but it takes a lot of computing power.

This is where you come in! With many computers working towards the same goal, we aim to help develop a therapeutic remedy as quickly as possible. By downloading Folding@home here [LINK] and selecting to contribute to “Any Disease”, you can help provide us with the computational power required to tackle this problem. One protein from 2019-nCoV, a protease encoded by the viral RNA, has already been crystallized. Although the 2019-nCoV spike protein of interest has not yet been resolved bound to ACE2, our objective is to use the homologous structure of the SARS-CoV spike protein to identify therapeutic antibody targets.

This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. Note the spikes that adorn the outer surface of the virus, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically. A novel coronavirus virus was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China in 2019.

Image and Caption Credit: Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM available at https://phil.cdc.gov/Details.aspx?pid=23311

Structures of the closely related SARS-CoV spike protein bound by therapeutic antibodies may help rapidly design better therapies. The three monomers of the SARS-CoV spike protein are shown in different shades of red; the antibody is depicted in green. [PDB: 6NB7 https://www.rcsb.org/structure/6nb7]

(post authored by Ariana Brenner Clerkin)

References:

PDB 6lu7 structure summary ‹ Protein Data Bank in Europe (PDBe) ‹ EMBL-EBI https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/6lu7 (accessed Feb 5, 2020).

Tian, X.; Li, C.; Huang, A.; Xia, S.; Lu, S.; Shi, Z.; Lu, L.; Jiang, S.; Yang, Z.; Wu, Y.; et al. Potent Binding of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Spike Protein by a SARS Coronavirus-Specific Human Monoclonal Antibody; preprint; Microbiology, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.28.923011.

Walls, A. C.; Xiong, X.; Park, Y. J.; Tortorici, M. A.; Snijder, J.; Quispe, J.; Cameroni, E.; Gopal, R.; Dai, M.; Lanzavecchia, A.; et al. Unexpected Receptor Functional Mimicry Elucidates Activation of Coronavirus Fusion. Cell 2019, 176, 1026-1039.e15. https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb6nb7/pdb.

SOURCE

https://foldingathome.org/2020/02/27/foldinghome-takes-up-the-fight-against-covid-19-2019-ncov/

UPDATED 3/13/2020

I am reposting the following Science blog post from Derrick Lowe as is and ask people go browse through the comments on his Science blog In the Pipeline because, as Dr. Lowe states that in this current crisis it is important to disseminate good information as quickly as possible so wanted the readers here to have the ability to read his great posting on this matter of Covid-19. Also i would like to direct readers to the journal Science opinion letter concerning how important it is to rebuild the trust in good science and the scientific process. The full link for the following In the Pipeline post is: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/06/covid-19-small-molecule-therapies-reviewed

A Summary of current potential repurposed therapeutics for COVID-19 Infection from In The Pipeline: A Science blog from Derick Lowe

Covid-19 Small Molecule Therapies Reviewed

By Derek Lowe 6 March, 2020

Let’s take inventory on the therapies that are being developed for the coronavirus epidemic. Here is a very thorough list of at Biocentury, and I should note that (like Stat and several other organizations) they’re making all their Covid-19 content free to all readers during this crisis. I’d like to zoom in today on the potential small-molecule therapies, since some of these have the most immediate prospects for use in the real world.

The ones at the front of the line are repurposed drugs that are already approved for human use, for a lot of obvious reasons. The Biocentury list doesn’t cover these, but here’s an article at Nature Biotechnology that goes into detail. Clinical trials are a huge time sink – they sort of have to be, in most cases, if they’re going to be any good – and if you’ve already done all that stuff it’s a huge leg up, even if the drug itself is not exactly a perfect fit for the disease. So what do we have? The compound that is most advanced is probably remdesivir from Gilead, at right. This has been in development for a few years as an RNA virus therapy – it was originally developed for Ebola, and has been tried out against a whole list of single-strand RNA viruses. That includes the related coronaviruses SARS and MERS, so Covid-19 was an obvious fit.

The compound is a prodrug – that phosphoramide gets cleaved off completely, leaving the active 5-OH compound GS-44-1524. It mechanism of action is to get incorporated into viral RNA, since it’s taken up by RNA polymerase and it largely seems to evade proofreading. This causes RNA termination trouble later on, since that alpha-nitrile C-nucleoside is not exactly what the virus is expecting in its genome at that point, and thus viral replication is inhibited.

There are five clinical trials underway (here’s an overview at Biocentury). The NIH has an adaptive-design Phase II trial that has already started in Nebraska, with doses to be changed according to Bayesian readouts along the way. There are two Phase III trials underway at China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Hubei, double-blinded and placebo-controlled (since placebo is, as far as drug therapy goes, the current standard of care). And Gilead themselves are starting two open-label trials, one with no control arm and one with an (unblinded) standard-of-care comparison arm. Those might read out first, depending on when they get off the ground, but will be only rough readouts due to the fast-and-loose trial design. The two Hubei trials and the NIH one will add some rigor to the process, but I’m not sure when they’re going to report. My personal opinion is that I like the chances of this drug more than anything else on this list, but it’s still unlikely to be a game-changer.

There’s an RNA polymerase inhibitor (favipiravir) from Toyama, at right, that’s in a trial in China. It’s a thought – a broad-spectrum agent of this sort would be the sort of thing to try. But unfortunately, from what I can see, it has already turned up as ineffective in in vitro tests. The human trial that’s underway is honestly the sort of thing that would only happen under circumstances like the present: a developing epidemic with a new pathogen and no real standard of care. I hold out little hope for this one, but given that there’s nothing else at present, it probably should be tried. As you’ll see, this is far from the only situation like this.

One of the screens of known drugs in China that also flagged remdesivir noted that the old antimalarial drug chloroquine seemed to be effective in vitro. It had been reported some years back as a possible antiviral, working through more than one mechanism, probably both at viral entry and intracellularly thereafter. That part shouldn’t be surprising – chloroquine’s actual mode(s) of action against malaria parasites are still not completely worked out, either, and some of what people thought they knew about it has turned out to be wrong. There are several trials underway with it at Chinese facilities, some in combination with other agents like remdesivir. Chloroquine has of course been taken for many decades as an antimalarial, but it has a number of liabilities, including seizures, hearing damage, retinopathy and sudden effects on blood glucose. So it’s going to be important to establish just how effective it is and what doses will be needed. Just as with vaccine candidates, it’s possible to do more harm with a rushed treatment than the disease is doing itself

There are several other known antiviral drugs are being tried in China, but I don’t have too much hope for those, either. The neuraminidase inhibitors such as oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu) were tried against SARS and were ineffective; there is no reason to expect anything versus Covid-19 although these drugs are a component of some drug cocktail trials. The HIV protease therapies such as darunavir and the combination therapy Kaletra are in trials, but that’s also a rather desperate long shot, since there’s no particular reason to think that they will have any such protease inhibition against what this new virus has to offer (and indeed, such agents weren’t much help against SARS in the end, either). The classic interferon/ribavirin combination seems to have had some activity against SARS and MERS, and is in two trials from what I can see. That’s not an awful idea by any means, but it’s not a great one, either: if your viral disease has interferon/ribavirin as a front line therapy, it generally means that there’s nothing really good available. No, unless we get really lucky none of these ideas are going to slow the disease down much.

There are a few other repurposed-protease-inhibitors ideas out there, such as this one. (Edit: I had seen this paper but couldn’t track it down, so thanks to those who sent it along). This paper suggests that the TMPRSS2 protease is important for viral entry on the human-cell-side of the process, a pathway that has been noted for other coronaviruses. And it points out that there is a an approved inhibitor (in Japan) for this enzyme (camostat), so that would definitely seem to be worth a trial, probably in combination with remdesivir.

That’s about it for the existing small molecules, from what I can see. What about new ones? Don’t hold your breath, is all I can say. A drug discovery program from scratch against a new pathogen is, as many readers here well know, not a trivial exercise. As this Bloomberg article details, many such efforts in the past (small molecules and vaccines alike) have come to grief because by the time they had anything to deliver the epidemic itself had passed. Indeed, Gilead’s remdesivir had already been dropped as a potential Ebola therapy.

You will either need to have a target in mind up front or go phenotypic. For the former, what you’d see are better characterizations of the viral protease and more extensive screens against it. Two other big target areas are viral entry (which involves the “spike” proteins on the virus surface and the ACE2 protein on human cells) and viral replication. To the former, it’s worth quickly noting that ACE2 is so much unlike the more familiar ACE protein that none of the cardiovascular ACE inhibitors do anything to it at all. And targeting the latter mechanisms is how remdesivir was developed as a possible Ebola agent, but as you can see, that took time, too. Phenotypic screens are perfectly reasonable against viral pathogens as well, but you’ll need to put time and effort into that assay up front, just as with any phenotypic effort, because as anyone who does that sort of work will tell you, a bad phenotypic screen is a complete waste of everyone’s time.

One of the key steps for either route is identifying an animal model. While animal models of infectious disease can be extremely well translated to human therapy, that doesn’t happen by accident: you need to choose the right animal. Viruses in general (and coronaviruses are no exception) vary widely in their effects in different species, and not just across the gaps of bird/reptile/human and the like. No, you’ll run into things where even the usual set of small mammals are acting differently from each other, with some of them not even getting sick at all. This current virus may well have gone through a couple of other mammalian species before landing on us, but you’ll note that dogs (to pick one) don’t seem to have any problem with it.

All this means that any new-target new-chemical-matter effort against Covid-19 (or any new pathogen) is going to take years, and there is just no way around that. Update: see here for just such an effort to start finding fragment hits for the viral protease. This puts small molecules in a very bimodal distribution: you have the existing drugs that might be repurposed, and are presumably available right now. Nothing else is! At the other end, for completely new therapies you have the usual prospects of drug discovery: years from now, lots of money, low success rate, good luck to all of us. The gap between these two could in theory be filled by vaccines and antibody therapies (if everything goes really, really well) but those are very much their own area and will be dealt with in a separate post.

Either way, the odds are that we (and I mean “we as a species” here) are going to be fighting this epidemic without any particularly amazing pharmacological weapons. Eventually we’ll have some, but I would advise people, pundits, and politicians not to get all excited about the prospects for some new therapies to come riding up over the hill to help us out. The odds of that happening in time to do anything about the current outbreak are very small. We will be going for months, years, with the therapeutic options we have right now. Look around you: what we have today is what we have to work with.

Predicting the Protein Structure of Coronavirus: Inhibition of Nsp15 can slow viral replication and Cryo-EM – spike protein structure (experimentally verified) vs AI-predicted protein structures (not experimentally verified) of DeepMind (Parent: Google) aka AlphaFold

Posted in BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biological Engineering, Biological Networks, Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, COVID-19, Immunotherapy, Innovation in Immunology Diagnostics, Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough, Population Health Management, Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical, Proteomics, SARS-CoV-2, Universal Immune Cell Therapies (uICT), Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV, tagged COVID-19, SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 on March 8, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Predicting the Protein Structure of Coronavirus: Inhibition of Nsp15 can slow viral replication and Cryo-EM – Spike protein structure (experimentally verified) vs AI-predicted protein structures (not experimentally verified) of DeepMind (Parent: Google) aka AlphaFold

Curators: Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. Note the spikes that adorn the outer surface of the virus, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically. A novel coronavirus virus was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China in 2019.

Image and Caption Credit: Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM available at https://phil.cdc.gov/Details.aspx?pid=23311

UPDATED on 8/9/2020

Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv

bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136. this version posted February 14, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.

Structural genomics and interactomics of 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, indicate evolutionary conserved functional regions of viral proteins

Authors: Hongzhu Cui1,, Ziyang Gao1, Ming Liu1, Senbao Lu1, Sun Mo1, Winnie Mkandawire1, Oleksandr Narykov2, Suhas Srinivasan3, and Dmitry Korkin1,2,3,*

Affiliations

1Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA

01609

2Computer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609

3Data Science Program, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609

*Corresponding author. E-mail: korkin@korkinlab.org

$The authors would like to note that the first eight authors are listed alphabetically.

Abstract

During its first month, the recently emerged 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has already infected many thousands of people in mainland China and worldwide and took hundreds of lives. However, the swiftly spreading virus also caused an unprecedentedly rapid response from the research community facing the unknown health challenge of potentially enormous proportions. Unfortunately, the experimental research to understand the molecular mechanisms behind the viral infection and to design a vaccine or antivirals is costly and takes months to develop. To expedite the advancement of our knowledge we leverage the data about the related coronaviruses that is readily available in public databases, and integrate these data into a single computational pipeline. As a result, we provide a comprehensive structural genomics and interactomics road-maps of 2019-nCoV and use these information to infer the possible functional differences and similarities with the related SARS coronavirus. All data are made publicly available to the research community at http://korkinlab.org/wuhan

Figure 2. Structurally characterized non-structural proteins of 2019-nCoV. Highlighted in pink are mutations found when aligning the proteins against their homologs from the closest related coronaviruses: 2019-nCoV and human SARS, bat coronavirus, and another bat betacoronavirus BtRf-BetaCoV. The structurally resolved part of wNsp7 is sequentially identical to its homolog.

See Figure 2 in https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136

Figure 3. Structurally characterized structural proteins and an ORF of 2019-nCoV. Highlighted in pink are mutations found when aligning the proteins against their homologs from the closest related coronaviruses: 2019-nCoV and human SARS, bat coronavirus, and another bat betacoronavirus BtRf-BetaCoV. Highlighted in yellow are novel protein inserts found in wS.

See Figure 3 in https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136

Figure 4. Structurally characterized intra-viral and host-viral protein-protein interaction complexes of 2019-nCoV. Human proteins (colored in orange) are identified through their gene names. For each intra-viral structure, the number of subunits involved in the interaction is specified.

See Figure 4 in https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136

Figure 5. Evolutionary conservation of functional sites in 2019-nCoV proteins. A. Fully conserved protein binding sites (PBS, light orange) of wNsp12 in its interaction with wNsp7 and wNsp8 while other parts of the protein surface shows mutations (magenta); B. Both major monoclonal antibody binding site (light orange) and ACE2 receptor binding site (dark green) of wS are heavily mutated (binding site mutations are shown in red) compared to the same binding sites in other coronaviruses; mutations not located on the two binding sites are shown in magenta; C. Nearly intact protein binding site (light orange) of wNsp (papain-like protease PLpro domain) for its putative interaction with human ubiquitin-aldehyde (binding site mutations for the only two residues are shown in red, non-binding site mutations are shown in magenta); D. Fully conserved inhibitor ligand binding site (LBS, green) for wNsp5; non-binding site mutations are shown in magenta.

See Figure 5 in https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136

SOURCE

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.942136v1

UPDATED on 3/11/2020

Coronaviruses

According to the World Health Organization, coronaviruses make up a large family of viruses named for the crown-like spikes found on their surface (Figure 1). They carry their genetic material in single strands of RNA and cause respiratory problems and fever. Like HIV, coronaviruses can be transmitted between animals and humans. Coronaviruses have been responsible for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic in the early 2000s and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in South Korea in 2015. While the most recent coronavirus, COVID-19, has caused international concern, accessible and inexpensive sequencing is helping us understand COVID-19 and respond to the outbreak quickly.

Figure 1. Coronaviruses with the characteristic spikes as seen under a microscope.

First studies that explore genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 are now being published. The first results indicate that COVID-19 infects cells using the ACE2 cell-surface receptor. Genetic variants in the ACE2 receptor gene are thus likely to influence how effectively COVID-19 can enter the cells in our bodies. Researchers hope to discover genetic variants that confer resistance to a COVID-19 infection, similar to how some variants in the CCR5 receptor gene make people immune to HIV. At Nebula Genomics, we are monitoring the latest COVID-19 research and will add any relevant discoveries to the Nebula Research Library in a timely manner.

The Role of Genomics in Responding to COVID-19

Scientists in China sequenced COVID-19’s genome just a few weeks after the first case was reported in Wuhan. This stands in contrast to SARS, which was discovered in late 2002 but was not sequenced until April of 2003. It is through inexpensive genome-sequencing that many scientists across the globe are learning and sharing information about COVID-19, allowing us to track the evolution of COVID-19 in real-time. Ultimately, sequencing can help remove the fear of the unknown and allow scientists and health professionals to prepare to combat the spread of COVID-19.

Next-generation DNA sequencing technology has enabled us to understand COVID-19 is ~30,000 bases long. Moreover, researchers in China determined that COVID-19 is also almost identical to a coronavirus found in bats and is very similar to SARS. These insights have been critical in aiding in the development of diagnostics and vaccines. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a diagnostic test to detect COVID-19 RNA from nose or mouth swabs.

Moreover, a number of different government agencies and pharmaceutical companies are in the process of developing COVID-19 vaccines to stop the COVID-19 from infecting more people. To protect humans from infection inactivated virus particles or parts of the virus (e.g. viral proteins) can be injected into humans. The immune system will recognize the inactivated virus as foreign, priming the body to build immunity against possible future infection. Of note, Moderna Inc., the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations identified a COVID-19 vaccine candidate in a record 42 days. This vaccine will be tested in human clinical trials starting in April.

For more information about COVID-19, please refer to the World Health Organization website.

SOURCE

https://blog.nebula.org/role-of-genomics-coronavirus-covid-19/?utm_source=Nebula%20Genomics&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=COVID-19

Aviva Lev-Ari

13.3K Tweets

Aviva Lev-Ari

@AVIVA1950

My BIO lnkd.in/eEyn69r MediaPharma ex-SRI ex-MITRE ex-McGraw-Hill Followed by

Boston, MA pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

1,702 Following

487 Followers

Aviva Lev-Ari

@AVIVA1950

Predicting the #ProteinStructure of #Coronavirus: #Inhibition of #Nsp15 #Cryo-EM – #spike #protein structure (#experimentally verified) vs #AI-predicted protein structures (not verified) of

(

Quote Tweet

Eric Topol

@EricTopol

· 2h

The problem w/ visionaries is that we don’t recognize them in a timely manner (too late) Ralph Baric @UNCpublichealth and Vineet Menachery deserve recognition for being 5 yrs ahead of #COVID19 nature.com/articles/nm.39 @NatureMedicine pnas.org/content/113/11 @PNASNews via @hoondy

Senior, A.W., Evans, R., Jumper, J. et al. Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature 577, 706–710 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7

Abstract

Protein structure prediction can be used to determine the three-dimensional shape of a protein from its amino acid sequence¹. This problem is of fundamental importance as the structure of a protein largely determines its function²; however, protein structures can be difficult to determine experimentally. Considerable progress has recently been made by leveraging genetic information. It is possible to infer which amino acid residues are in contact by analysing covariation in homologous sequences, which aids in the prediction of protein structures³. Here we show that we can train a neural network to make accurate predictions of the distances between pairs of residues, which convey more information about the structure than contact predictions. Using this information, we construct a potential of mean force⁴ that can accurately describe the shape of a protein. We find that the resulting potential can be optimized by a simple gradient descent algorithm to generate structures without complex sampling procedures. The resulting system, named AlphaFold, achieves high accuracy, even for sequences with fewer homologous sequences. In the recent Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction⁵ (CASP13)—a blind assessment of the state of the field—AlphaFold created high-accuracy structures (with template modelling (TM) scores⁶ of 0.7 or higher) for 24 out of 43 free modelling domains, whereas the next best method, which used sampling and contact information, achieved such accuracy for only 14 out of 43 domains. AlphaFold represents a considerable advance in protein-structure prediction. We expect this increased accuracy to enable insights into the function and malfunction of proteins, especially in cases for which no structures for homologous proteins have been experimentally determined⁷. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7

[ALA added bold face]

COVID-19 outbreak

The scientific community has galvanised in response to the recent COVID-19 outbreak, building on decades of basic research characterising this virus family. Labs at the forefront of the outbreak response shared genomes of the virus in open access databases, which enabled researchers to rapidly develop tests for this novel pathogen. Other labs have shared experimentally-determined and computationally-predicted structures of some of the viral proteins, and still others have shared epidemiological data. We hope to contribute to the scientific effort using the latest version of our AlphaFold system by releasing structure predictions of several under-studied proteins associated with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. We emphasise that these structure predictions have not been experimentally verified, but hope they may contribute to the scientific community’s interrogation of how the virus functions, and serve as a hypothesis generation platform for future experimental work in developing therapeutics. We’re indebted to the work of many other labs: this work wouldn’t be possible without the efforts of researchers across the globe who have responded to the COVID-19 outbreak with incredible agility.

Knowing a protein’s structure provides an important resource for understanding how it functions, but experiments to determine the structure can take months or longer, and some prove to be intractable. For this reason, researchers have been developing computational methods to predict protein structure from the amino acid sequence. In cases where the structure of a similar protein has already been experimentally determined, algorithms based on “template modelling” are able to provide accurate predictions of the protein structure. AlphaFold, our recently published deep learning system, focuses on predicting protein structure accurately when no structures of similar proteins are available, called “free modelling”. We’ve continued to improve these methods since that publication and want to provide the most useful predictions, so we’re sharing predicted structures for some of the proteins in SARS-CoV-2 generated using our newly-developed methods.

It’s important to note that our structure prediction system is still in development and we can’t be certain of the accuracy of the structures we are providing, although we are confident that the system is more accurate than our earlier CASP13 system. We confirmed that our system provided an accurate prediction for the experimentally determined SARS-CoV-2 spike protein structure shared in the Protein Data Bank, and this gave us confidence that our model predictions on other proteins may be useful. We recently shared our results with several colleagues at the Francis Crick Institute in the UK, including structural biologists and virologists, who encouraged us to release our structures to the general scientific community now. Our models include per-residue confidence scores to help indicate which parts of the structure are more likely to be correct. We have only provided predictions for proteins which lack suitable templates or are otherwise difficult for template modeling. While these understudied proteins are not the main focus of current therapeutic efforts, they may add to researchers’ understanding of SARS-CoV-2.

Normally we’d wait to publish this work until it had been peer-reviewed for an academic journal. However, given the potential seriousness and time-sensitivity of the situation, we’re releasing the predicted structures as we have them now, under an open license so that anyone can make use of them.

Interested researchers can download the structures here, and can read more technical details about these predictions in a document included with the data. The protein structure predictions we’re releasing are for SARS-CoV-2 membrane protein, protein 3a, Nsp2, Nsp4, Nsp6, and Papain-like proteinase (C terminal domain). To emphasise, these are predicted structures which have not been experimentally verified. Work on the system continues for us, and we hope to share more about it in due course.

Citation: John Jumper, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Pushmeet Kohli, Demis Hassabis, and the AlphaFold Team, “Computational predictions of protein structures associated with COVID-19”, DeepMind website, 5 March 2020, https://deepmind.com/research/open-source/computational-predictions-of-protein-structures-associated-with-COVID-19

SARS-COV-2 MEMBRANE PROTEIN: A RENDERING OF ONE OF OUR PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTIONS

SOURCES

Computational predictions of protein structures associated with COVID-19

https://deepmind.com/research/open-source/computational-predictions-of-protein-structures-associated-with-COVID-19

15 JAN 2020

AlphaFold: Using AI for scientific discovery

https://deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaFold-Using-AI-for-scientific-discovery

DeepMind has shared its results with researchers at the Francis Crick Institute, a biomedical research lab in the UK, as well as offering it for download from its website.

“Normally we’d wait to publish this work until it had been peer-reviewed for an academic journal. However, given the potential seriousness and time-sensitivity of the situation, we’re releasing the predicted structures as we have them now, under an open license so that anyone can make use of them,” it said. [ALA added bold face]

There are 93,090 cases of COVID-19, and 3,198 deaths, spread across 76 countries, according to the latest report from the World Health Organization at time of writing. ®

SOURCE

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/06/deepmind_covid19_outbreak/

MHC content – The spike protein is thought to be the key to binding to cells via the angiotensin II receptor, the major mechanism the immune system uses to distinguish self from non-self

Preliminary Identification of Potential Vaccine Targets for the COVID-19 Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Based on SARS-CoV Immunological Studies

Syed Faraz Ahmed 1,† , Ahmed A. Quadeer 1, *,† and Matthew R. McKay 1,2, *

1 Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, Hong Kong, China; sfahmed@connect.ust.hk

2 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, Hong Kong, China

* Correspondence: eeaaquadeer@ust.hk.com (A.A.Q.); m.mckay@ust.hk (M.R.M.)

† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received: 9 February 2020; Accepted: 24 February 2020; Published: 25 February 2020

Abstract:

The beginning of 2020 has seen the emergence of COVID-19 outbreak caused by a novel coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There is an imminent need to better understand this new virus and to develop ways to control its spread. In this study, we sought to gain insights for vaccine design against SARS-CoV-2 by considering the high genetic similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, which caused the outbreak in 2003, and leveraging existing immunological studies of SARS-CoV. By screening the experimentally determined SARS-CoV-derived B cell and T cell epitopes in the immunogenic structural proteins of SARS-CoV, we identified a set of B cell and T cell epitopes derived from the spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins that map identically to SARS-CoV-2 proteins. As no mutation has been observed in these identified epitopes among the 120 available SARS-CoV-2 sequences (as of 21 February 2020), immune targeting of these epitopes may potentially offer protection against this novel virus. For the T cell epitopes, we performed a population coverage analysis of the associated MHC alleles and proposed a set of epitopes that is estimated to provide broad coverage globally, as well as in China. Our findings provide a screened set of epitopes that can help guide experimental efforts towards the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.

Keywords: Coronavirus; 2019-nCoV; 2019 novel coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; SARS-CoV; MERS-CoV; T cell epitopes; B cell epitopes; vaccine [ALA added bold face]

SOURCE

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/12/3/254/pdf

Selected Online COMMENTS to

https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2020/03/06/deepmind_covid19_outbreak/

Muscleguy

Re: Protein structure prediction has been done for ages…

Not quite, Natural Selection does not measure methods, it measures outputs, usually at the organism level.

Sure correct folding is necessary for much protein function and we have prions and chaperone proteins to get it wrong and right.

The only way NS measures methods and mechanisms is if they are very energetically wasteful. But there are some very wasteful ones out there. Beta-Catenin at the end of point of Wnt signalling comes particularly to mind.

Chemist

Re: Does not matter at all

“Determining the structure of the virus proteins might also help in developing a molecule that disrupts the operation of just those proteins, and not anything else in the human body.”

Well it might, but predicting whether a ‘drug’ will NOT interact with any other of the 20000+ protein in complex organisms is well beyond current science. If we could do that we could predict/avoid toxicity and other non-mechanism related side-effects & mostly we can’t.

rob miller

Title

There are 480 structures on PDBe resulting from a search on ‘coronavirus,’ the top hits from MERS and SARS. PR stunt or not, they did win the most recent CASP ‘competition’, so arguably it’s probably our best shot right now – and I am certainly not satisfied that they have been sufficiently open in explaining their algorithms though I have not checked in the last few months. No one is betting anyone’s health on this, and it is not like making one wrong turn in a series of car directions. Latest prediction algorithms incorporate contact map predictions, so it’s not like a wrong dihedral angle sends the chain off in the wrong direction. A decent model would give something to run docking algorithms against with a series of already approved drugs, then we take that shortlist into the lab. A confirmed hit could be an instantly available treatment, no two year wait as currently estimated. [ALA added bold face]

jelabarre59

Re: these structure predictions have not been experimentally verified

Naaaah. Can’t possibly be a stupid marketing stunt.

Well yes, a good possibility. But it can also be trying to build on the open-source model of putting it out there for others to build and improve upon. Essentially opening that “peer review” to a larger audience quicker. [ALA added bold face]

We shall see.

Anonymous Coward

What bothers me, besides the obvious PR stunt, is that they say this prediction is licensed. How can a prediction from software be protected by, I presume, patents? And if this can be protected without even verifying which predictions actually work, what’s to stop someone spitting out millions of random, untested predictions just in case they can claim ownership later when one of them is proven to work? [ALA added bold face]

SOURCES

Computational predictions of protein structures associated with COVID-19 https://deepmind.com/research/open-source/computational-predictions-of-protein-structures-associated-with-COVID-19

AI-predicted protein structures could unlock vaccine for Wuhan coronavirus… if correct… after clinical trials It’s not quite DeepMind’s ‘Come with me if you want to live’ moment, but it’s close, maybe

By Katyanna Quach 6 Mar 2020 at 05:24

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/06/deepmind_covid19_outbreak/

Experimentally derived Protein Structures

Experimentally derived by a group of scientists at the University of Texas at Austin and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an agency under the US National Institute of Health. They both feature a “Spike protein structure.”

Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation

Daniel Wrapp¹,*,
Nianshuang Wang¹,*,
Kizzmekia S. Corbett²,
Jory A. Goldsmith¹,
Ching-Lin Hsieh¹,
Olubukola Abiona²,
Barney S. Graham²,
Jason S. McLellan¹,†

See all authors and affiliations

Science 19 Feb 2020:
eabb2507
DOI: 10.1126/science.abb2507

New coronavirus protein reveals drug target
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/new-coronavirus-protein-reveals-drug-target

Israeli scientists: We have developed a coronavirus vaccine

https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/health/coronavirus-vaccine-israel-migal-research-institute-david-zigdon

Group of Researchers @ University of California, Riverside, the University of Chicago, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, and Northwestern University solve COVID-19 Structure and Map Potential Therapeutics

Posted in Advanced Computing Platform, Bioengineering & reverse engineering design, BioIT: BioInformatics, Biological Engineering, Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics, tagged antiviral vaccine, Argonne Laboratories, coronavirus, COVID-19, University of California, University of Chicago, virus on March 6, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Group of Researchers @ University of California, Riverside, the University of Chicago, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, and Northwestern University solve COVID-19 Structure and Map Potential Therapeutics

Reporters: Stephen J Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

New coronavirus protein reveals drug target

UC Riverside

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Image of newly mapped coronavirus protein, called Nsp15, which helps the virus replicate.

Image Credit: Northwestern University

Image of newly mapped coronavirus protein, called Nsp15, which helps the virus replicate.

How UC is responding to the coronavirus (COVID-19)

The University of California is vigilantly monitoring and responding to new information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has been declared a global health emergency.

Get UC news and updates on this evolving situation.

The 3-D structure of a potential drug target in a newly mapped protein of COVID-19, or coronavirus, has been solved by a team of researchers from the University of California, Riverside, the University of Chicago, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, and Northwestern University.

The scientists said their findings suggest drugs previously developed to treat the earlier SARS outbreak could now be developed as effective drugs against COVID-19.

The initial genome analysis and design of constructs for protein synthesis were performed by the bioinformatic group of Adam Godzik, a professor of biomedical sciences at the UC Riverside School of Medicine.

The protein Nsp15 from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2, is 89% identical to the protein from the earlier outbreak of SARS-CoV. SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the current outbreak of COVID-19. Studies published in 2010 on SARS-CoV revealed inhibition of Nsp15 can slow viral replication. This suggests drugs designed to target Nsp15 could be developed as effective drugs against COVID-19.

Adam Godzik, UC Riverside professor of biomedical sciences
Credit: Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute

“While the SARS-CoV-19 virus is very similar to the SARS virus that caused epidemics in 2003, new structures shed light on the small, but potentially important differences between the two viruses that contribute to the different patterns in the spread and severity of the diseases they cause,” Godzik said.

The structure of Nsp15, which will be released to the scientific community on March 4, was solved by the group of Andrzej Joachimiak, a distinguished fellow at the Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago Professor, and Director of the Structural Biology Center at Argonne’s Advanced Photon Source, a Department of Energy Office of Science user facility.

“Nsp15 is conserved among coronaviruses and is essential in their lifecycle and virulence,” Joachimiak said. “Initially, Nsp15 was thought to directly participate in viral replication, but more recently, it was proposed to help the virus replicate possibly by interfering with the host’s immune response.”

Mapping a 3D protein structure of the virus, also called solving the structure, allows scientists to figure out how to interfere in the pathogen’s replication in human cells.

“The Nsp15 protein has been investigated in SARS as a novel target for new drug development, but that never went very far because the SARS epidemic went away, and all new drug development ended,” said Karla Satchell, a professor of microbiology-immunology at Northwestern, who leads the international team of scientists investigating the structure of the SARS CoV-2 virus to understand how to stop it from replicating. “Some inhibitors were identified but never developed into drugs. The inhibitors that were developed for SARS now could be tested against this protein.”

Rapid upsurge and proliferation of SARS-CoV-2 raised questions about how this virus could become so much more transmissible as compared to the SARS and MERS coronaviruses. The scientists are mapping the proteins to address this issue.

Over the past two months, COVID-19 infected more than 80,000 people and caused at least 2,700 deaths. Although currently mainly concentrated in China, the virus is spreading worldwide and has been found in 46 countries. Millions of people are being quarantined, and the epidemic has impacted the world economy. There is no existing drug for this disease, but various treatment options, such as utilizing medicines effective in other viral ailments, are being attempted.

Godzik, Satchell, and Joachimiak — along with the entire center team — will map the structure of some of the 28 proteins in the virus in order to see where drugs can throw a chemical monkey wrench into its machinery. The proteins are folded globular structures with precisely defined functions and their “active sites” can be targeted with chemical compounds.
The first step is to clone and express the genes of the virus proteins and grow them as protein crystals in miniature ice cube-like trays. The consortium includes nine labs across eight institutions that will participate in this effort.

Above is a modified version of the Northwestern University news release written by Marla Paul.

Read Full Post »

Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

Posted in and Bioethics, Bio-Ethics, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Cancer Genomics, Childhood cancer, Genome Biology, Population genetics, Population Health Management, tagged AAAS, Cancer Genomics, health disparities, pediatric cancer, Population genetics, precision medicine on December 22, 2019| Leave a Comment »

Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

From the POLICY FORUM ETHICS AND DIVERSITY Section of Science

Ethics of inclusion: Cultivate trust in precision medicine

Sandra Soo-Jin Lee1,
Stephanie M. Fullerton2,
Aliya Saperstein3,
Janet K. Shim4

See all authors and affiliations

Science 07 Jun 2019:
Vol. 364, Issue 6444, pp. 941-942
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw8299

Precision medicine is at a crossroads. Progress toward its central goal, to address persistent health inequities, will depend on enrolling populations in research that have been historically underrepresented, thus eliminating longstanding exclusions from such research (1). Yet the history of ethical violations related to protocols for inclusion in biomedical research, as well as the continued misuse of research results (such as white nationalists looking to genetic ancestry to support claims of racial superiority), continue to engender mistrust among these populations (2). For precision medicine research (PMR) to achieve its goal, all people must believe that there is value in providing information about themselves and their families, and that their participation will translate into equitable distribution of benefits. This requires an ethics of inclusion that considers what constitutes inclusive practices in PMR, what goals and values are being furthered through efforts to enhance diversity, and who participates in adjudicating these questions. The early stages of PMR offer a critical window in which to intervene before research practices and their consequences become locked in (3).

Initiatives such as the All of Us program have set out to collect and analyze health information and biological samples from millions of people (1). At the same time, questions of trust in biomedical research persist. For example, although the recent assertions of white nationalists were eventually denounced by the American Society of Human Genetics (4), the misuse of ancestry testing may have already undermined public trust in genetic research.

There are also infamous failures in research that included historically underrepresented groups, including practices of deceit, as in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, or the misuse of samples, as with the Havasupai tribe (5). Many people who are being asked to give their data and samples for PMR must not only reconcile such past research abuses, but also weigh future risks of potential misuse of their data.

To help assuage these concerns, ongoing PMR studies should open themselves up to research, conducted by social scientists and ethicists, that examines how their approaches enhance diversity and inclusion. Empirical studies are needed to account for how diversity is conceptualized and how goals of inclusion are operationalized throughout the life course of PMR studies. This is not limited to selection and recruitment of populations but extends to efforts to engage participants and communities, through data collection and measurement, and interpretations and applications of study findings. A commitment to transparency is an important step toward cultivating public trust in PMR’s mission and practices.

From Inclusion to Inclusive

The lack of diverse representation in precision medicine and other biomedical research is a well-known problem. For example, rare genetic variants may be overlooked—or their association with common, complex diseases can be misinterpreted—as a result of sampling bias in genetics research (6). Concentrating research efforts on samples with largely European ancestry has limited the ability of scientists to make generalizable inferences about the relationships among genes, lifestyle, environmental exposures, and disease risks, and thereby threatens the equitable translation of PMR for broad public health benefit (7).

However, recruiting for diverse research participation alone is not enough. As with any push for “diversity,” related questions arise about how to describe, define, measure, compare, and explain inferred similarities and differences among individuals and groups (8). In the face of ambivalence about how to represent population variation, there is ample evidence that researchers resort to using definitions of diversity that are heterogeneous, inconsistent, and sometimes competing (9). Varying approaches are not inherently problematic; depending on the scientific question, some measures may be more theoretically justified than others and, in many cases, a combination of measures can be leveraged to offer greater insight (10). For example, studies have shown that American adults who do not self-identify as white report better mental and physical health if they think others perceive them as white (11, 12).

The benefit of using multiple measures of race and ancestry also extends to genetic studies. In a study of hypertension in Puerto Rico, not only did classifications based on skin color and socioeconomic status better predict blood pressure than genetic ancestry, the inclusion of these sociocultural measures also revealed an association between a genetic polymorphism and hypertension that was otherwise hidden (13). Thus, practices that allow for a diversity of measurement approaches, when accompanied by a commitment to transparency about the rationales for chosen approaches, are likely to benefit PMR research more than striving for a single gold standard that would apply across all studies. These definitional and measurement issues are not merely semantic. They also are socially consequential to broader perceptions of PMR research and the potential to achieve its goals of inclusion.

Study Practices, Improve Outcomes

Given the uncertainty and complexities of the current, early phase of PMR, the time is ripe for empirical studies that enable assessment and modulation of research practices and scientific priorities in light of their social and ethical implications. Studying ongoing scientific practices in real time can help to anticipate unintended consequences that would limit researchers’ ability to meet diversity recruitment goals, address both social and biological causes of health disparities, and distribute the benefits of PMR equitably. We suggest at least two areas for empirical attention and potential intervention.

First, we need to understand how “upstream” decisions about how to characterize study populations and exposures influence “downstream” research findings of what are deemed causal factors. For example, when precision medicine researchers rely on self-identification with U.S. Census categories to characterize race and ethnicity, this tends to circumscribe their investigation of potential gene-environment interactions that may affect health. The convenience and routine nature of Census categories seemed to lead scientists to infer that the reasons for differences among groups were self-evident and required no additional exploration (9). The ripple effects of initial study design decisions go beyond issues of recruitment to shape other facets of research across the life course of a project, from community engagement and the return of results to the interpretation of study findings for human health.

Second, PMR studies are situated within an ecosystem of funding agencies, regulatory bodies, disciplines, and other scholars. This partly explains the use of varied terminology, different conceptual understandings and interpretations of research questions, and heterogeneous goals for inclusion. It also makes it important to explore how expectations related to funding and regulation influence research definitions of diversity and benchmarks for inclusion.

For example, who defines a diverse study population, and how might those definitions vary across different institutional actors? Who determines the metrics that constitute successful inclusion, and why? Within a research consortium, how are expectations for data sharing and harmonization reconciled with individual studies’ goals for recruitment and analysis? In complex research fields that include multiple investigators, organizations, and agendas, how are heterogeneous, perhaps even competing, priorities negotiated? To date, no studies have addressed these questions or investigated how decisions facilitate, or compromise, goals of diversity and inclusion.

The life course of individual studies and the ecosystems in which they reside cannot be easily separated and therefore must be studied in parallel to understand how meanings of diversity are shaped and how goals of inclusion are pursued. Empirically “studying the studies” will also be instrumental in creating mechanisms for transparency about how PMR is conducted and how trade-offs among competing goals are resolved. Establishing open lines of inquiry that study upstream practices may allow researchers to anticipate and address downstream decisions about how results can be interpreted and should be communicated, with a particular eye toward the consequences for communities recruited to augment diversity. Understanding how scientists negotiate the challenges and barriers to achieving diversity that go beyond fulfilling recruitment numbers is a critical step toward promoting meaningful inclusion in PMR.

Transparent Reflection, Cultivation of Trust

Emerging research on public perceptions of PMR suggests that although there is general support, questions of trust loom large. What we learn from studies that examine on-the-ground approaches aimed at enhancing diversity and inclusion, and how the research community reflects and responds with improvements in practices as needed, will play a key role in building a culture of openness that is critical for cultivating public trust.

Cultivating long-term, trusting relationships with participants underrepresented in biomedical research has been linked to a broad range of research practices. Some of these include the willingness of researchers to (i) address the effect of history and experience on marginalized groups’ trust in researchers and clinicians; (ii) engage concerns about potential group harms and risks of stigmatization and discrimination; (iii) develop relationships with participants and communities that are characterized by transparency, clear communication, and mutual commitment; and (iv) integrate participants’ values and expectations of responsible oversight beyond initial informed consent (14). These findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary teams that include social scientists, ethicists, and policy-makers, who can identify and help to implement practices that respect the histories and concerns of diverse publics.

A commitment to an ethics of inclusion begins with a recognition that risks from the misuse of genetic and biomedical research are unevenly distributed. History makes plain that a multitude of research practices ranging from unnecessarily limited study populations and taken-for-granted data collection procedures to analytic and interpretive missteps can unintentionally bolster claims of racial superiority or inferiority and provoke group harm (15). Sustained commitment to transparency about the goals, limits, and potential uses of research is key to further cultivating trust and building long-term research relationships with populations underrepresented in biomedical studies.

As calls for increasing diversity and inclusion in PMR grow, funding and organizational pathways must be developed that integrate empirical studies of scientific practices and their rationales to determine how goals of inclusion and equity are being addressed and to identify where reform is required. In-depth, multidisciplinary empirical investigations of how diversity is defined, operationalized, and implemented can provide important insights and lessons learned for guiding emerging science, and in so doing, meet our ethical obligations to ensure transparency and meaningful inclusion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse

This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.

References and Notes

↵
1. L. A. Hindorff,
2. V. L. Bonham,
3. L. Ohno-Machado
, Per. Med. 15, 403 (2018).
Google Scholar
↵
1. A. Harmon
, “Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed).” New York Times, 17 October 2018.
Google Scholar
↵
1. D. MacKenzie,
2. J. Wajcman
, The Social Shaping of Technology (Open University Press, 1999).
Google Scholar
↵

“ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy.” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 636(2018).

Google Scholar
↵
1. S. M. Reverby
, Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009).
Google Scholar
↵
1. S. M. Fullerton
, The Input-Output Problem: Whose DNA Do We Study, and Why Does It Matter (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Google Scholar
↵
1. A. B. Popejoy,
2. S. M. Fullerton
, Nature 538, 161 (2016).
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
↵
1. S. S. Lee,
2. D. A. Bolnick,
3. T. Duster,
4. P. Ossorio,
5. K. Tallbear
, Science 325, 38 (2009).
Abstract/FREE Full Text Google Scholar
↵
1. J. K. Shim,
2. S. L. Ackerman,
3. K. W. Darling,
4. R. A. Hiatt,
5. S. S.-J. Lee
, J. Health Soc. Behav. 55, 504 (2014).
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
↵
1. A. Saperstein,
2. J. M. Kizer,
3. A. M. Penner
, Am. Behav. Sci. 60, 519 (2016).
CrossRef Google Scholar
↵
1. I. Stepanikova
, Adv. Group Process. 27, 159 (2010).
Google Scholar
C. P. Jones et al Ethn. Dis. 18, 496 (2008).

PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
C. C. Gravlee, A. L. Non, C. J. Mulligan

PLOS ONE 4, e6821 (2009).

CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
S. A. Kraft et al Am. J. Bioeth. 18, 3 (2018).

Google Scholar
A. E. Shields et al Am. Psychol. 60, 77 (2005).
CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar

Read Full Post »

Medicine in 2045 – Perspectives by World Thought Leaders in the Life Sciences & Medicine

Posted in Advanced Computing Platform, AI, Big Data, BioBanking, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, CAST - Alternative to CRISPR/Cas9, Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics, CRISPR/Cas9 & Gene Editing, Diagnostic Immunology, Digital HealthCare – biotech & internet joint ventures, Disease Biology, DNA repair, Drug Delivery Platform Technology, Gene Editing Impact on Longevity, Genetics & Innovations in Treatment, Genome Biology, Genomic Testing: Methodology for Diagnosis, Health Care System by Country, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, HealthCare IT, Human Immune System in Health and in Disease, Immuno-Oncology & Genomics, Immunodiagnostics, Liquid Biopsy: Circulating Tumor Cells in Urine and Blood, Microfuidics, Single Cell Genomics, Variation in human protein-coding regions on December 9, 2019| Leave a Comment »

Medicine in 2045 – Perspectives by World Thought Leaders in the Life Sciences & Medicine

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

This report is based on an article in Nature Medicine | VOL 25 | December 2019 | 1800–1809 | http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine

Looking forward 25 years: the future of medicine.

Nat Med 25, 1804–1807 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0693-y

Aviv Regev, PhD

Core member and chair of the faculty, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; director, Klarman Cell Observatory, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; professor of biology, MIT; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; founding co-chair, Human Cell Atlas.

millions of genome variants, tens of thousands of disease-associated genes, thousands of cell types and an almost unimaginable number of ways they can combine, we had to approximate a best starting point—choose one target, guess the cell, simplify the experiment.
In 2020, advances in polygenic risk scores, in understanding the cell and modules of action of genes through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and in predicting the impact of combinations of interventions.
we need algorithms to make better computational predictions of experiments we have never performed in the lab or in clinical trials.
Human Cell Atlas and the International Common Disease Alliance—and in new experimental platforms: data platforms and algorithms. But we also need a broader ecosystem of partnerships in medicine that engages interaction between clinical experts and mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers

Feng Zhang, PhD

investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; core member, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT.

fundamental shift in medicine away from treating symptoms of disease and toward treating disease at its genetic roots.
Gene therapy with clinical feasibility, improved delivery methods and the development of robust molecular technologies for gene editing in human cells, affordable genome sequencing has accelerated our ability to identify the genetic causes of disease.
1,000 clinical trials testing gene therapies are ongoing, and the pace of clinical development is likely to accelerate.
refine molecular technologies for gene editing, to push our understanding of gene function in health and disease forward, and to engage with all members of society

Elizabeth Jaffee, PhD

Dana and Albert “Cubby” Broccoli Professor of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; deputy director, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins.

a single blood test could inform individuals of the diseases they are at risk of (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.) and that safe interventions will be available.
developing cancer vaccines. Vaccines targeting the causative agents of cervical and hepatocellular cancers have already proven to be effective. With these technologies and the wealth of data that will become available as precision medicine becomes more routine, new discoveries identifying the earliest genetic and inflammatory changes occurring within a cell as it transitions into a pre-cancer can be expected. With these discoveries, the opportunities to develop vaccine approaches preventing cancers development will grow.

Jeremy Farrar, OBE FRCP FRS FMedSci

Director, Wellcome Trust.

shape how the culture of research will develop over the next 25 years, a culture that cares more about what is achieved than how it is achieved.
building a creative, inclusive and open research culture will unleash greater discoveries with greater impact.

John Nkengasong, PhD

Director, Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

To meet its health challenges by 2050, the continent will have to be innovative in order to leapfrog toward solutions in public health.
Precision medicine will need to take center stage in a new public health order— whereby a more precise and targeted approach to screening, diagnosis, treatment and, potentially, cure is based on each patient’s unique genetic and biologic make-up.

Eric Topol, MD

Executive vice-president, Scripps Research Institute; founder and director, Scripps Research Translational Institute.

In 2045, a planetary health infrastructure based on deep, longitudinal, multimodal human data, ideally collected from and accessible to as many as possible of the 9+ billion people projected to then inhabit the Earth.
enhanced capabilities to perform functions that are not feasible now.
AI machines’ ability to ingest and process biomedical text at scale—such as the corpus of the up-to-date medical literature—will be used routinely by physicians and patients.
the concept of a learning health system will be redefined by AI.

Linda Partridge, PhD

Professor, Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing.

Geroprotective drugs, which target the underlying molecular mechanisms of ageing, are coming over the scientific and clinical horizons, and may help to prevent the most intractable age-related disease, dementia.

Trevor Mundel, MD

President of Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

finding new ways to share clinical data that are as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
moving beyond drug donations toward a new era of corporate social responsibility that encourages biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to offer their best minds and their most promising platforms.
working with governments and multilateral organizations much earlier in the product life cycle to finance the introduction of new interventions and to ensure the sustainable development of the health systems that will deliver them.
deliver on the promise of global health equity.

Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD

Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO); president, European Society for Medical Oncology (2018–2019).

genomic-driven analysis will continue to broaden the impact of personalized medicine in healthcare globally.
Precision medicine will continue to deliver its new paradigm in cancer care and reach more patients.
Immunotherapy will deliver on its promise to dismantle cancer’s armory across tumor types.
AI will help guide the development of individually matched
genetic patient screenings
the promise of liquid biopsy policing of disease?

Pardis Sabeti, PhD

Professor, Harvard University & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

the development and integration of tools into an early-warning system embedded into healthcare systems around the world could revolutionize infectious disease detection and response.
But this will only happen with a commitment from the global community.

Els Toreele, PhD

Executive director, Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign

we need a paradigm shift such that medicines are no longer lucrative market commodities but are global public health goods—available to all those who need them.
This will require members of the scientific community to go beyond their role as researchers and actively engage in R&D policy reform mandating health research in the public interest and ensuring that the results of their work benefit many more people.
The global research community can lead the way toward public-interest driven health innovation, by undertaking collaborative open science and piloting not-for-profit R&D strategies that positively impact people’s lives globally.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com

Archive for the ‘BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics’ Category

Systems Biology analysis of Transcription Networks, Artificial Intelligence, and High-End Computing Coming to Fruition in Personalized Oncology

Other articles from Andrea Califano on VIPER algorithm in cancer include:

Other articles of Note on this Open Access Online Journal Include:

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Evaluating Cancer Genomics from Normal Tissues Through Metastatic Disease 3:50 PM

Minisymposium: Evaluating Cancer Genomics from Normal Tissues through Evolution to Metastatic Disease

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on Early Detection and ctDNA 1:35 – 3:55 PM

Primary Objectives

Key Secondary Objectives

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 27, 2020 Minisymposium on AACR Project Genie & Bioinformatics 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer: Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

PERSPECTIVEGLOBAL HEALTH

Other articles on Cancer Health Disparities and Genomics on this Online Open Access Journal Include:

Structure of the nCoV trimeric spike

Abstract

New Coronavirus Protease Structure Available

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Cardiovascular Disease

ACE2

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)

A Summary of current potential repurposed therapeutics for COVID-19 Infection from In The Pipeline: A Science blog from Derick Lowe

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Predicting the Protein Structure of Coronavirus: Inhibition of Nsp15 can slow viral replication and Cryo-EM – Spike protein structure (experimentally verified) vs AI-predicted protein structures (not experimentally verified) of DeepMind (Parent: Google) aka AlphaFold

Structural genomics and interactomics of 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, indicate evolutionary conserved functional regions of viral proteins

Coronaviruses

The Role of Genomics in Responding to COVID-19

Selected Online COMMENTS to

Re: Protein structure prediction has been done for ages…

Re: Does not matter at all

Re: these structure predictions have not been experimentally verified

Experimentally derived Protein Structures

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Group of Researchers @ University of California, Riverside, the University of Chicago, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, and Northwestern University solve COVID-19 Structure and Map Potential Therapeutics

How UC is responding to the coronavirus (COVID-19)

Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

From Inclusion to Inclusive

Study Practices, Improve Outcomes

Transparent Reflection, Cultivation of Trust

References and Notes

Medicine in 2045 – Perspectives by World Thought Leaders in the Life Sciences & Medicine

Looking forward 25 years: the future of medicine.

Aviv Regev, PhD

Feng Zhang, PhD

Elizabeth Jaffee, PhD

Jeremy Farrar, OBE FRCP FRS FMedSci

John Nkengasong, PhD

Eric Topol, MD

Linda Partridge, PhD

Trevor Mundel, MD

Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD

Pardis Sabeti, PhD

Els Toreele, PhD

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta