Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy’ Category


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

A mutated gene called RAS gives rise to a signalling protein Ral which is involved in tumour growth in the bladder. Many researchers tried and failed to target and stop this wayward gene. Signalling proteins such as Ral usually shift between active and inactive states.

 

So, researchers next tried to stop Ral to get into active state. In inacvtive state Ral exposes a pocket which gets closed when active. After five years, the researchers found a small molecule dubbed BQU57 that can wedge itself into the pocket to prevent Ral from closing and becoming active. Now, BQU57 has been licensed for further development.

 

Researchers have a growing genetic data on bladder cancer, some of which threaten to overturn the supposed causes of bladder cancer. Genetics has also allowed bladder cancer to be reclassified from two categories into five distinct subtypes, each with different characteristics and weak spots. All these advances bode well for drug development and for improved diagnosis and prognosis.

 

Among the groups studying the genetics of bladder cancer are two large international teams: Uromol (named for urology and molecular biology), which is based at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), based at institutions in Texas and Boston. Each team tackled a different type of cancer, based on the traditional classification of whether or not a tumour has grown into the muscle wall of the bladder. Uromol worked on the more common, earlier form, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, whereas TCGA is looking at muscle-invasive bladder cancer, which has a lower survival rate.

 

The Uromol team sought to identify people whose non-invasive tumours might return after treatment, becoming invasive or even metastatic. Bladder cancer has a high risk of recurrence, so people whose non-invasive cancer has been treated need to be monitored for many years, undergoing cystoscopy every few months. They looked for predictive genetic footprints in the transcriptome of the cancer, which contains all of a cell’s RNA and can tell researchers which genes are turned on or off.

 

They found three subgroups with distinct basal and luminal features, as proposed by other groups, each with different clinical outcomes in early-stage bladder cancer. These features sort bladder cancer into genetic categories that can help predict whether the cancer will return. The researchers also identified mutations that are linked to tumour progression. Mutations in the so-called APOBEC genes, which code for enzymes that modify RNA or DNA molecules. This effect could lead to cancer and cause it to be aggressive.

 

The second major research group, TCGA, led by the National Cancer Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute, that involves thousands of researchers across USA. The project has already mapped genomic changes in 33 cancer types, including breast, skin and lung cancers. The TCGA researchers, who study muscle-invasive bladder cancer, have looked at tumours that were already identified as fast-growing and invasive.

 

The work by Uromol, TCGA and other labs has provided a clearer view of the genetic landscape of early- and late-stage bladder cancer. There are five subtypes for the muscle-invasive form: luminal, luminal–papillary, luminal–infiltrated, basal–squamous, and neuronal, each of which is genetically distinct and might require different therapeutic approaches.

 

Bladder cancer has the third-highest mutation rate of any cancer, behind only lung cancer and melanoma. The TCGA team has confirmed Uromol research showing that most bladder-cancer mutations occur in the APOBEC genes. It is not yet clear why APOBEC mutations are so common in bladder cancer, but studies of the mutations have yielded one startling implication. The APOBEC enzyme causes mutations early during the development of bladder cancer, and independent of cigarette smoke or other known exposures.

 

The TCGA researchers found a subset of bladder-cancer patients, those with the greatest number of APOBEC mutations, had an extremely high five-year survival rate of about 75%. Other patients with fewer APOBEC mutations fared less well which is pretty surprising.

 

This detailed knowledge of bladder-cancer genetics may help to pinpoint the specific vulnerabilities of cancer cells in different people. Over the past decade, Broad Institute researchers have identified more than 760 genes that cancer needs to grow and survive. Their genetic map might take another ten years to finish, but it will list every genetic vulnerability that can be exploited. The goal of cancer precision medicine is to take the patient’s tumour and decode the genetics, so the clinician can make a decision based on that information.

 

References:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29117162

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27321955

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583312

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476821

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988769

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28753430

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Tweets by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 for #PMConf  at The 13th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

 

All TWEETS from LPBI’s Twitter.com handles at #PMConf 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

  1. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Gary An

    nice comment

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  2. Narrative plan unsupported by facts

  3. Robert C. Green, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Genomes2People Research Program, Professor of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School pharmacogenomics can harm if odds are so low adherence will be lower

  4. Michael Snyder, Ph.D., Stanford W. Ascherman Professor, Chair, Department of Genetics, Director, Center of GenomiPersonalized Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine Personal sequencing for multiple etiologies rich people are sequenced

  5. Tom Miller, M.S., Founder, Managing Partner, GreyBird Ventures LLC duty to call up therapies that will not work, balance addressed by PM – diagnostics in PM clinical utility from patient selection for the therapy the patient will respond to

  6. Sandro Galea, M.D., School of Public Health, Boston University US expense on Health care the highest in the World comes on the expense of housings, mental health, education – curative vs preventive care MDs are insentiviced to keep patients sick

  7. Robert C. Green, M.D., Broad Institute and HMS Platinum vs gold standard 59 genes will identify 80,000 will get the disease and 47,000 will never get the disease, is the technology the reason for investment vs Family history?

  8. Bryce Olson, Global Marketing Director, Health and Life Sciences Group, Intel Corporation Genome sequencing found his Pi3K Pathway – PIK3CA p.E54 – Anti Inhibitor for Pi3K = Precision Medicine

  9. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA 21st Century – metastatic solid tumors – 900 patients: accommodated plan Lab developed Tests: new approach Efficiency, transparency

  10. innovation INFORMS at NIH Center of Excellence – data collection and analysis of multiple data types Biometric sensors collecting data on cancer patients collaboration with Academia, single arm vs randomized decentralized devices are collecting data

  11. FDA considers N of One, small samples, EGFR drug was approved in 2 1/2 years since Phase 1 of NDA New trial designs: reduce bias and alternative end points narrow criteria for participation, more personalized and more patient-centered innovation

  12. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA Advances of technology of biomarkers, disease indication Accelerated approval by FDA a collaborative of speeding the process companion diagnosis assays

  13. Unmet need, commitment is there, innovation and connectivity drive access, collaboration not competition – helps Precision medicine in emerging nations. Access to PM anywhere in the world suggested Kristin Pothier, MS, Global Head, Life Sciences EY

  14. Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D., President, CEO, Aravive Biologics; Board Chairman, PMC Laxo – A molecular target to be found by diagnostics TEST — as a basis to develop a drug Pricing and value – dimensions of Value to society How PM is done today?

  15. Marc S. Williams, MD Geisinger Clinical Genomics vs Physician specialist (i.e.,hypercholestoralemia), both in same place – paper and EMR Outcomes – tracking patients over decades – systems in place to capture the data Virtual Cycle Clinical data

  16. Timothy Cannon, M.D., Inova Molecular Tumor Board, 5 hospital in VA, Precision Genomics Cancer Therapy Poor understanding of molecular results by MDs, Refractory Patients no Forum to discuss other options 220 patients presented beyond InovaOncologi

  17. Scott A. Beck, Mayo Clinic, MN, AZ PM, Genomics sequencing, BioEthics, IT, Translational Perspective in Epi-genomics, Discovery to Translation Applicattions Pharmacy- Formulary – EMR – Champions from Disease areas to practice environment Testing

  18. payment dominates delivery of care, future PM from Genomics cost to patients Transform acceptability of PM suggested Ronald A. Paulus, M.D., M.B.A., President, CEO, Mission Health, NC, ex-Geisinger, CIO

  19. Genomics based PM to be turned into Wellness Strategy – the path not yet knows said Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

  20. Millianlian Diabetics NOT on Medicare, Analytics: iPhone telling patient dishes to order since SYSTEM KNOWS BLOOD SUGER 24×7 – target care by Analytics Genomics paid by NIH PM Analytics is built at Vanderbilt University MC, Jeffrey R. Balser, CEO

  21. Survival of patient with mutation and targeted drug LIVE LONGER David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., Simon Flexner Professor Chair, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania

  22. Lotte Steuten, Ph.D., School of Pharmacy at University of Washington, Seattle aggregate big data , models as evidence, has value to clinical, the model under development NGS Profile of Patient vs current standard of care.

  23. David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., UPenn Director, Penn Center for Precision Medicine 5000 patients underwent genome sequencing Interpretation is the issue that is hard Health IT are still in silos: Pharmacy data, financial data, EMR

  24. Michael Pellini, M.D., M.B.A., Chairman, Board of Directors, Foundation Medicine; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition, we know there is value in PM we need to work together on the challenges — to prove the value in PM

  25. Andrea Stern Ferris, M.B.A., President, Chairman of the Board, LUNGevity Foundation – PATIENT to be included in the conversation patient after successful treatment have hope work pay taxes pay to health plans continue family life

  26. Molecular Era, NEJM, 2017, 377, 1813-1823, BRAF in Melanoma – 80% do not need additional therapy vs 20% benefitted in the Non-Molecular Era, data by Dane J. Dickson, CureOne (formerly MED-C); Oregon Health and Science University

  27. CURES – CAR-T are they cures??? A teen-ager’s Value-based Price: $475,000 x years lived suggests  Steven D. Pearson, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

  28. Of 134 drugs in development – 42 have the potential to become Personalized medicine therapies, said Stephen J. Ubl, President, CEO, PhRMA

  29. Transplantation vs enhancement – resistance to senescence and pathogens to be achieved by gene editing suggests George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics

  30. Regulatory oversight on engineering embrios is coming, metric of success in recruitment of patients said Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York Univ

  31. CRISPR does not handle all mutation many require a different editing tool said George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics, Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology

  32. understand well enough  the gentic application where CRISPR will assist medicine: Retinal degeneration, two aspects one worked in Japan said Katrine Bosley, CEO, Editas Medicine

  33. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Aviva Lev-Ari

    Amazing Power in hands of informed patients

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  34. Patients input and sophistication increased – IRB is not aware of the engagement of Patients and their challenging feedback say Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H, Dana Farber

  35. Physicians needs interfaces, dashboard information delivered to MDs, data sits unused, new tools are needed for the data display by relevance to the MDs – clinicians needs decision support in their office

  36. Standards: Toxicity criteria – library of 882 symptoms, Patient reported outcomes by Patients, Resist criteria applied to imaging data criteria for brain tumors said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber

  37. drafting document on Verify data integrity in clinical trials, detect discrepancies compromise the integrity of the data – audits by FDA said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  38. pre-existing autoimmune disease – not indicated for them Immunotherapy even though patients wish to try said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  39. Drug approved for one indication, provide new data for supplemental indications said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  40. Eric G. Klein, Pharm.D, Eli Lilly Aggregate burden of disease, existence of co-morbidities Genomics: WHY is explained – precise tools data vs intelligence – interoperability Past clinical trial, replicate studies retrospective data

  41. linkages vs computational techniques we do not have consistent data, data structured Vital sign or WBC count – we have data standardization is evolving said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  42. use data sets prospective vs retrospective studies asked Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, Flatiron Health; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  43. Clinical sense vs research context, FDA is more comfortable with other than oncology products beyond drugs, namely diagnostics, diagnostics company seeking partnership with many drug areas Thermo FIscher and Novartis partnership

  44. Cost of CT Scan vs an NGS Test – Genomic testing is much cheaper yet volume is still low said Jacob S. Van Naarden, Chief Business Officer, Loxo Oncology

  45. NGS – time results come back what the mutation mean? NOW results come in few days, data analysis assist the said Joydeep Goswami, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.S., President, Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing, Oncology, Thermo Fisher Scientifi

  46. 3D BioPrinting of Drugs and the innovation storm of agents — are both benefits, value based pricing, elasticities, is that price sufficient to support R&D, dynamic environment said Joshua Ofman, SVP, Global Value, Access, Amgen

  47. Awardee of Leadership in PM, Illumina, HC system not yet ready for Precision Medicine

  48. Amgen and Harvard Pilgrims interpretation of Values related to partnerships: Novartis

  49. at Illimina – Consumer Advocacy added to Technology breakthroughs in genome sequencing said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  50. National Genomic Service – Sequencing becoming STANDARD of Care, phynotypes, $10 million to be spent NIH said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  51. 13th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award AWARDEE | Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  52. 13th Annual Leadership in PM Award to Jay T Flatlet, Illumina

Read Full Post »


Image Source:Koch Institute

LIVE – OCTOBER 17 – DAY 2- Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium 2017, MIT, Kresge Auditorium

Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium 2017

http://kochinstituteevents.cvent.com/events/koch-institute-immune-engineering-symposium-2017/agenda-64e5d3f55b964ff2a0643bd320b8e60d.aspx

Image Source: Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN will be in attendance covering the event in REAL TIME

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

#IESYMPOSIUM

@KOCHINSTITUTE

  • The Immune System, Stress Signaling, Infectious Diseases and Therapeutic Implications: VOLUME 2: Infectious Diseases and Therapeutics and VOLUME 3: The Immune System and Therapeutics (Series D: BioMedicine & Immunology) Kindle Edition – on Amazon.com since September 4, 2017

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075CXHY1B

SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE

OCTOBER 17 – DAY 2

8:30 – 9:45 Session V
Moderator: Stefani Spranger | MIT, Koch Institute

K. Christopher Garcia – Stanford University
Exploiting T Cell and Cytokine Receptor Structure and Mechanism to Develop New Immunotherapeutic Strategies

  • T Cell Receptor, peptide-MHC, 10 to the power of 10 is combinatorics – Library for selection to determine enrichment possibilities
  • Ligand identification for orphan TCRs
  1. Industrializing process
  2. use pMHC
  • IL-2 – Receptor Signaling Complex
  • Effector cells (NK, T)
  • Engineered  T Cell – Tunable expansion, ligand-Receptor interface
  • Randomize IL-2RBeta interface: Orthogonal receptor vs wild type
  • In Vivo adoptive transfer model: to quantify orthogonality ratio
  • CD4, CD8, Treg,C57BL/6J
  • Ligand discovery
  • Orthogonal IL-2

Stefani Spranger – MIT, Koch Institute
Batf3-DC as Mediators of the T Cell-Inflamed Tumor Microenvironment

  • Melanoma – solid cancer and other types, Immune inhibitory regulatory pathway patient with Immune response present
  • T cell-inflamed Tumor vs Non-T cell-inflamed Tumor
  • identify oncogenic pathways differentially activated between T cell-inflamed and non-Tcell-inflamed infiltration
  • If on Tumor:
  1. Braf/PTEN
  2. Braf/CAT
  3. Braf/PTEN/CAT
  • The role of T cell priming – lack of initial
  • Beta-catenin-expressing tumors fail to prime 2C TCR-transgenic T cells
  • Deficiency in number of CD8+ and CD103+ dendritic cells
  • CD103+ DC are essential for T cell Priming and T cell-inflammation #StefaniSpranger
  • Adoptive transfer of effector 2C T cells fails to control Beta-catenin+ tumors
  • Vaccination induced anti-gen specific T cell memory fails to control Beta-catenin+ tumors
  • What cell type in tumor microenvironment effect monilization of T cell
  • CD103+ Dendritic cellsare source chymokine
  • Recruitment of effector T cells: Reconstitution od Beta-catenin-expressing SIY+
  • Are Batf3-DC within the tumor required for the recruitment of effector T cells?
  • Tumor-residing Batf3-drive CD103+ DC are required for the recruitment of effector T cells
  • Gene spore for correlation with recturment of effector cells
  • T cell Priming – CD103+ DC are essential for effector T cells

George Georgiou – University of Texas at Austin
The Human Circulating Antibody Repertoire in Infection, Vaccination or Cancer

  • Serological Antibody Repertoire: in blood or in secretions
  • Antibody in serum – is difficult sequence identity
  • Serum IgG – 7-17 mg/ml if less immune deficient if more hyper globular
  • antibodies produced in long lived plasma cells in the bone marrow — experimentally inaccessible
  • Discovery of antibodies from the serological repertoire – not B cells
  • BM-PCs
  • Serum antibodies function via Fc effector mechanism – complement activation
  • Ig-SEQ – BCR-SEQ
  • Repertoire-wide computational modelling of antibody structures
  • En masse analysis & Mining of the Human Native Antibody Repertoire
  • hypervariable – High-Throughput Single B Cell VH:VL (or TCRalpha, beta) sequencing
  • EBOV Vaccinee Peak ASCs (day 8) mining: Neutralization
  • Features of the Serum Antibody Repertoire to Vaccine ANtigens:The Serum IgG Repertoire is Highly Polarized
  • Each bar represents a distinct antibody lineage
  • Serum IgG Repertoire becomes increasingly polarized with AGE >50 – may be predictive of tumor development process
  • Human Norovirus – explosive Diarreha, chromically infected – HuNoV BNAb Discovery – Takeda 214 bivalent Vaccine – Binding antibodies binding to avccine antigen VLP
  • HuNoV causes 800 death in the US per year of immune deficient
  • Influenza Trivalent Vaccine: Antibodies to hemaggiutinin: H1, H3, and B COmponenet
  • Abundant H1 +H3 Serum IgGs do not neutralize but confer Protection toInfluenza challenge with Live Virus #GeorgeGeorgiou
  • Non-Neutralizing Antibodies: The role of Complement in Protection

9:45 – 10:15 Break

10:15 – 11:30 Session VI
Moderator: K. Dane Wittrup | MIT, Koch Institute

Harvey Lodish – Whitehead Institute and Koch Institute
Engineered Erythrocytes Covalently Linked to Antigenic Peptides Can Protect Against Autoimmune Disease

  • Modified Red blood cells are microparticles for introducing therapeutics & diagnostics into the human body
  • Bool transfusion is widely used therapeutics
  • Covalently linking unique functional modalities to mouse or human red cells produced in cell culture:
  • PRODUCTION OF HUMAN RED BLOD CELLS EXPRESSING A FOREIN PROTEIN: CD34+ stem/progenitor cells that generates normal enucleated RBC.
  • PPAR-alpha and glucocorticoticoid receptor
  • Norman morphology: Sortase A is a bactrial transpeptidase that covalently links a “donor”
  • Engineering Normal Human RBC biotin-LPETG
  • Covelantely – Glycophorin A with camelid VHHs specific for Botulinum toxin A or B
  • Generation of immuno tolerance: SOruggable Mature RBCs: CRISPR mice expressing Kell-LPETG
  • Ovalbumin as Model Antigens:
  1. OBI B,
  2. OTI CD8 T cells
  3. OTII CD4 T cells
  4. OT-1
  5. OT-2
  • RBC induced peptides challenged and experiences apoptosis
  • Type I Diabetes in NOD mice
  • RBCs bearing InsB9-23 – prevented development of diabetes

Multiple sclerosis

  • MOG – Myelin Oligodend

Sai Reddy – ETH Zurich
Molecular Convergence Patterns in Antibody Responses Predict Antigen Exposure

  • Clonal diversity – estimating the size of antibody repertoire: 10 to power of 18 or 10 to 13
  • Clonal selection in antibody repertoire
  • Convergent selection in antibody repertoire
  • Convergent selection in TCR repertoire complex have restriction with MCH interactions
  • How molecular abundance of convergence predicts antigen exposure identify antigen-associated clusters #SaiReddy
  • molecular convergence 0 gene expression analysis, immunization scheme molecular bar coding to correct errors
  • Recoding antibody repertoire sequence space: Cross correlation reveals different clusters
  • Building a classifier model based on cluster frequency: Clones from immunized mice
  • epitope specificity is driving antibody repertoire response
  • deep learning,

K. Dane Wittrup – MIT, Koch Institute
Temporal Programming of Synergistic Innate and Adaptive Immunotherapy

  • Innate effector functions of anti-tumor antibodies
  • Innate & adaptive Immunotherapy
  • Innate mAb –>> tumor cell; adaptive CD8+ T cells
  • Chemokines Antigens
  • Cytokines Chemokines – back and forth innate Adaptive –> <— neutrophils impact
  • AIPV vaccine:
  • How anti-TAA mAbs helping T cell Immune response
  • Anti-TAA mAbs drive vaccinal T cell responses: NK cells
  • antibody drives T cells responses: alpha-TAA mAbs potentiate T cell therapies: ACT +MSA-IL-2 vs alphaPD-1 + vaccine
  • CD8+ T cells required for alpha TAA mAb efficacy- In absence of T cells Treatment does not work
  • Anti-TAA mAb +Fc/IL-2 induces intramural cytokine storm #KDaneWittrup
  • How to simplify and improve AIPV? Hypothesis: ALign dose schedule
  • Immune response to infection follwos a temporal progression: Innate … Adaptive
  • Antigenic material kill cells: Chemo, cell death Antigen presentation, T cell priming, T cell recirculation, Lymphocyte tumor infiltrate, TCR
  • IFN alpha 2 dys after mAb +Il-2: Curative: days post tumor injection
  • Necessary components: CD8+ T cells & DC, Macrophages,
  • Optimal IFNalpha coincides with max innate response vs Mature DCs after antigen loading #KDaneWittrup
  • Optimal timing od agent administration effect on Therapy Outcome: IL-2, IFNalpha, TAAmAb
  • Cytkine timing can be better than protein engineering #KDaneWittrup

11:30 – 1:00 Lunch Break

1:00 – 2:15 Session VII
Moderator: Michael Birnbaum | MIT, Koch Institute

Kai Wucherpfennig – Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Discovery of Novel Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy

  • POSITIVE STRESS SIGNAL during malignant Transformation
  • NKG2G=D Receptor: MICA/B Results in Immune escape – Proteolytic cleavage  shedding of MICA/B present in serum, indication of tumor progression
  • Shed MICA vs Surface MICA/B – restore NK cell cytotoxicity and IFNgamma Production
  • Human NK cells express NKG2D and Fc Receptors
  • Synergistic NKG2D and CD16 signaling enhances NK cell cytootxicity: Control IgG vs Anti NKG2D
  • MICA Antibody induces Immunity Against Lung Metastases
  • NK cells are required to inhibit Growth of metastases: Anti-CD8beta,
  • Contribution to Therapeutic Efficacy: NKG2D and CD16 Receptors #KaiWucherpfennig
  • Strategy to analyze Pulmonary NK cells: Activation and expression
  • Single cell RNA-seq of lung NK cells Revealed higher infiltration of activated NK cells: Isotype vs 7C6-migG2a
  • Cytokines and Chemokines produce NK cells
  • MICA/B increaces NK
  •  Induction of Tumor cell Apoptosis
  • Xenotransplant Model with Human Melanoma Cel Line A2058
  • Lung metastasis, liver metastasis
  • Inhibition of human melanoma Metastases in NSG Mice Reconstitute with Human NK
  • Liver metastases are controlled by Myeloid Cells that include Kupffer cells

Michael Birnbaum – MIT, Koch Institute
An Unbiased Determination of pMHC Repertoires for Better Antigen Prediction

  • Vaccines TCR gene therapy adoptive T cel therapy
  • Tumor genone – Tumor pMHC repertoire = Tumor TCR repertoire T cell repertoire
  • Neoantigen vaccines as a personalized anti-cancer therapy
  • Tumor procurement – Target selection – personal vaccine production – vaccine administration
  • Prediction of neoantigen-MHC Binding due to polimorphism affecting recognition, rare in MHC Allells #Michael Birnbaum
  • Antigenicity – Chaperones HLA-DM sculp the peptide binding repertoire of MHC
  • Identification of loaded peptide ligands: pMHC mass spectroscopy of tissue
  • TCR recognition, pMHC yeast display: Cleave peptide-MHC linker, catalyze peptide exchange
  • HLA-DR4 library design and selection to enrich HLA-DM: Amino Acid vs Peptide position: Depleted vs Enriched – relative to expected for NNK codon
  •  6852 _ predicted to bind vs 220 Non-binding peptides
  • HLA polymorphism: repertoire differences caused by
  • Antigen – T cell-driven antigen discovery: engaging Innate and Adaptive Immune response
  • Sorting TIL and select: FOcus of T cell-driven antigen discovery
  • T cell-driven antigen discovery: TCR

Jennifer R. Cochran – Stanford University
Innate and Adaptive Integrin-targeted Combination Immunotherapy

  • alpa-TAA
  • Targeting Integrin = universal target involved in binding to several receptors: brest, lung, pancreatic, brain tumors arising by mutations – used as a handle for binding to agents
  • NOD201 Peptide-Fc Fusion: A Psudo Ab
  • Handle the therapeutics: NOD201 + alphaPD1
  • NOD201 effectively combines with alphaPD-L1, alphaCTLA-4, and alpha4-1BB/CD137
  • Corresponding monotherapies vs ComboTherapy invoking Innate and Adaptive Immune System
  • Microphages, CD8+ are critical vs CD4+ Neutrophils, NK cells, B cells #JenniferR. Cochran
  • Macrophages activation is critical – Day 4, 4 and 5
  • NOD201 + alphaPD1 combo increases M1 macrophages
  • Who are the best responders to PD1 – genes that are differentially expressed
  • NOD201 deives T cells reaponses through a “vaccinal” effect
  • CAncer Immune CYcle
  • Integrin – localization
  • Prelim NOD201 toxicity studies: no significant effects
  • Targeting multiple integrins vs antibodies RJ9 – minimal effect
  • NOD201 – manufacturability – NEW AGENT in Preclinical stage

2:15 – 2:45 Break

2:45 – 3:35 Session VIII
Moderator: Jianzhu Chen | MIT, Koch Institute

Jennifer Wargo – MD Anderson Cancer Center
Understanding Responses to Cancer Therapy: The Tissue is the Issue, but the Scoop is in the Poop

  • Optimize Targeted Treatment response
  • Translational research in patients on targeted therapy revealed molecular and immune mechanisms of response and resistance
  • Molecular mechanisms – T cell infiltrate after one week of therapy
  • Role of tumor stroma in mediating resistance to targeted therapy
  • Tumor microenvironment
  • Intra-tumoral bacteria identified in patients with Pancreatic Cancer
  • Translational research in patients on immune checkpoint blockade revealed molecualr and immune mechanism of response and resistance
  • Biomarkers not found
  • SYstemic Immunity and environment (temperature) on response to checkpoint blockade – what is the role?
  • Role of mIcrobiome in shaping response to checkpoint blockade in Melanoma
  • Microbime and GI Cancer
  • Diversity of the gut microbiome is associated with differential outcomes in the setting of stem cell transplant in AML
  • Oral and gut fecal microbiome in large cohort patient with metastatic melanoma undergoing systemic therapy
  • Repeat oral & gut AFTER chemo
  • WGSeq – Diversity of microbiome and response (responders vs non-responders to anti PD-1 – High diversity of microbiome have prolonged survival to PD-1 blockade
  • Anti tumor Immunity and composition of gut microbiome in patient on anti-PD-1 favorable AND higher survival #JenniferWargo
  • Enhance therapeutic responses in lang and renal carcinoma: If on antibiotic – poorer survival
  • sharing data important across institutions

Jianzhu Chen – MIT, Koch Institute
Modulating Macrophages in Cancer Immunotherapy

  • Humanized mouth vs de novo human cancer
  • B cell hyperplasia
  • double hit lymphoma
  • AML
  • Overexpression of Bcl-2 & Myc in B cells leads to double-hit lymphoma
  • antiCD52 – CLL
  • Spleen, Bone marrow, Brain
  • Microphages are required to kill Ab-bound lymphoma cells in vivo #JianzhuChen
  • COmbinatorial chemo-Immunotherapy works for solid tumors: treating breast cancer in humanized mice
  • Infiltration of monocytic cells in the bone marrow
  • Cyclophosphophamide-antibody synergy extending to solid tumor and different antibodies #JianzhuChen
  • Polarization of macrophages it is dosage-dependent M1 and M2
  • Antibiotic induces expression of M1 polarizing supresses development and function of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM)
  • Antibiotic inhibits melanoma growth by activating macrophages in vivo #JianzhuChen

 

Read Full Post »


Image Source:Koch Institute

 

LIVE – OCTOBER 16 – DAY 1- Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium 2017, MIT, Kresge Auditorium

Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium 2017

http://kochinstituteevents.cvent.com/events/koch-institute-immune-engineering-symposium-2017/agenda-64e5d3f55b964ff2a0643bd320b8e60d.aspx

 

#IESYMPOSIUM

 

Image Source: Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN will be in attendance covering the event in REAL TIME

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

#IESYMPOSIUM

@KOCHINSTITUTE

  • The Immune System, Stress Signaling, Infectious Diseases and Therapeutic Implications: VOLUME 2: Infectious Diseases and Therapeutics and VOLUME 3: The Immune System and Therapeutics (Series D: BioMedicine & Immunology) Kindle Edition – on Amazon.com since September 4, 2017

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075CXHY1B

SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE

OCTOBER 16 – DAY 1

7:00 – 8:15 Registration

8:15 – 8:30Introductory Remarks
Darrell Irvine | MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI

  • Stimulating the Immune system not only sustaining it for therapies

K. Dane Wittrup | MIT, Koch Institute

8:30 – 9:45Session I
Moderator: Douglas Lauffenburger | MIT, Biological Engineering and Koch Institute

Garry P. Nolan – Stanford University School of Medicine
Pathology from the Molecular Scale on Up

  • Intracellular molecules,
  • how molecules are organized to create tissue
  • Meaning from data Heterogeneity is an illusion: Order in Data ?? Cancer is heterogeneous, Cells in suspension – number of molecules
  • System-wide changes during Immune Response (IR)
  • Untreated, Ineffective therapy, effective therapy
  • Days 3-8 Tumor, Lymph node…
  • Variation is a Feature – not a bug: Effective therapy vs Ineffective – intercellular modules – virtual neighborhoods
  • ordered by connectivity: very high – CD4 T-cells, CD8 T-cels, moderate, not connected
  • Landmark nodes, Increase in responders
  • CODEX: Multiples epitome detection
  • Adaptable to proteins & mRNA
  • Rendering antibody staining via removal to neighborhood mapping
  • Human tonsil – 42 parameters: CD7, CD45, CD86,
  • Automated Annotations of tissues: F, P, V,
  • Normal BALBs
  • Marker expression defined by the niche: B220 vs CD79
  • Marker expression defines the niche
  • Learn neighborhoods and Trees
  • Improving Tissue Classification and staining – Ce3D – Tissue and Immune Cells in 3D
  • Molecular level cancer imaging
  • Proteomic Profiles: multi slice combine
  • Theory is formed to explain 3D nuclear images of cells – Composite Ion Image, DNA replication
  • Replication loci visualization on DNA backbone – nascent transcriptome – bar code of isotopes – 3D  600 slices
  • use CRISPR Cas9 for Epigenetics

Susan Napier Thomas – Georgia Institute of Technology
Transport Barriers in the Tumor Microenvironment: Drug Carrier Design for Therapeutic Delivery to Sentinel Lymph Nodes

  • Lymph Nodes important therapeutics target tissue
  • Lymphatic flow support passive and active antigen transport to lymph nodes
  • clearance of biomolecules and drug formulations: Interstitial transport barriers influence clearance: Arteriole to Venule –
  • Molecular tracers to analyze in vivo clearance mechanisms and vascular transport function
  • quantifying molecular clearance and biodistribution
  • Lymphatic transport increases tracer concentrations within dLN by orders of magnitude
  • Melanoma growth results in remodeled tumor vasculature
  • passive transport via lymphatic to dLN sustained in advanced tumors despite abrogated cell trafficking
  • Engineered biomaterial drug carriers to enhance sentinel lymph node-drug delivery: facilitated by exploiting lymphatic transport
  • TLR9 ligand therapeutic tumor in situ vaccination – Lymphatic-draining CpG-NP enhanced
  • Sturcutral and Cellular barriers: transport of particles is restriced by
  • Current drug delivery technology: lymph-node are undrugable
  • Multistage delivery platform to overcome barriers to lymphatic uptake and LN targeting
  • nano particles – OND – Oxanorbornade OND Time sensitive Linker synthesized large cargo – NP improve payload
  • OND release rate from nanoparticles changes retention in lymph nodes – Axilliary-Brachial delivery
  • Two-stage OND-NP delivery and release system dramatically – OND acumulate in lymphocyte
  •  delivers payload to previously undraggable lymphe tissue
  • improved drug bioactivity  – OND-NP eliminate LN LYMPHOMAS
  • Engineered Biomaterials

Douglas Lauffenburger – MIT, Biological Engineering and Koch Institute
Integrative Multi-Omic Analysis of Tissue Microenvironment in Inflammatory Pathophysiology

  • How to intervene, in predictive manner, in immunesystem-associated complex diseases
  • Understand cell communication beteen immune cells and other cells, i.e., tumor cells
  • Multi-Variate in Vivo – System Approach: Integrative Experiment & COmputational Analysis
  • Cell COmmunication & Signaling in CHronic inflammation – T-cell transfer model for colitis
  • COmparison of diffrential Regulation (Tcell transfer-elicited vs control) anong data types – relying solely on mRNA can be misleading
  • Diparities in differential responses to T cell transfer across data types yield insights concerning broader multi-organ interactions
  • T cell transfer can be ascertained and validated by successful experimental test
  • Cell COmmunication in Tumor MIcro-Environment — integration of single-cell transcriptomic data and protein interaction
  • Standard Cluster Elucidation – Classification of cell population on Full gene expression Profiles using Training sets: Decision Tree for Cell Classification
  • Wuantification of Pairwise Cell-Cell Receptor/Ligand Interactions: Cell type Pairs vs Receptor/Ligand Interaction
  • Pairwise Cell-Cell Receptor/Ligand Interactions
  • Calculate strength of interaction and its statistical significance
  • How the interaction is related to Phenotypic Behaviors – tumor growth rate, MDSC levels,
  • Correlated the Interactions translated to Phynotypic behavior for Therapeutic interventions (AXL via macrophage and fibroblasts)
  • Mouth model translation to Humans – New machine learning approach
  • Pathways, false negative, tumor negative expression
  • Molecular vs Phynotypical expression
  • Categories of inter-species translation
  • Semi-supervised Learning ALgorithms on Transcriptomic Data can ascertain Key Pathways/Processes in Human IBD from mapping mouse IBD

9:45 – 10:15 Break

10:15 – 11:30Session II
Moderator: Tyler Jacks | MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI

Tyler Jacks – MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI
Using Genetically Engineered Mouse Models to Probe Cancer-Immune Interactions

  • Utility of genetically-engineered mouse models of Cancer:
  1. Immune Response (IR),
  2. Tumor0immune microenvironment
  • Lung adenocarcinoma – KRAS mutation: Genetically-engineered model, applications: CRISPR, genetic interactions
  • Minimal Immune response to KP lung tumors: H&E, T cells (CD3), Bcells (B220) for Lenti-x 8 weeks
  • Exosome sequencing : Modeling loss-and gain-of-function mutations in Lung Cancer by CRISPR-Cas9 – germline – tolerance in mice, In vivo CRISPR-induced knockout of Msh2
  • Signatures of MMR deficient
  • Mutation burden and response to Immunotherapy (IT)
  • Programmed neoantigen expression – robust infiltration of T cells (evidence of IR)
  • Immunosuppression – T cell rendered ineffective
  • Lymphoid infiltration: Acute Treg depletion results in T cell infiltration — this depletion causes autoimmune response
  • Lung Treg from KP tumor-bearing mice have a distinct transcriptional heterogeneity through single cell mRNA sequencing
  • KP, FOXP3+, CD4
  • Treg from no existent to existance, Treg cells increase 20 fold =>>>  Treg activation and effectiveness
  • Single cells cluster by tissue and cell type: Treg, CD4+, CD8+, Tetramer-CD4+
  • ILrl1/II-33r unregulated in Treg at late time point
  • Treg-specific deletion of IL-33r results in fewer effector Tregs in Tumor-bearing lungs
  • CD8+ T cell infiltration
  • Tetramer-positive T cells cluster according to time point: All Lung CD8+ T cells
  • IR is not uniform functional differences – Clones show distinct transcriptional profiles
  • Different phynotypes Exhaustive signature
  • CRISPR-mediated modulation of CD8 T cell regulatory genes
  • Genetic dissection of the tumor-immune microenvironment
  • Single cell analysis, CRISPR – CRISPRa,i, – Drug development

Wendell Lim – University of California, San Francisco

Synthetic Immunology: Hacking Immune Cells

  • Precision Cell therapies – engineered by synthetic biology
  • Anti CD19 – drug approved
  • CAR-T cells still face major problems
  1. success limited to B cells cancers = blood vs solid tumors
  2. adverse effects
  3. OFF-TUMOR effects
  • Cell engineering for Cancer Therapy: User remote control (drug) – user control safety
  • Cell Engineering for TX
  1. new sensors – decision making for
  2. tumor recognition – safety,
  3. Cancer is a recognition issue
  • How do we avoid cross-reaction with bystader tissue (OFF TISSUE effect)
  • Tumor recognition: More receptors & integration
  • User Control
  • synthetic NOTCH receptors (different flavors of synNotch) – New Universal platform for cell-to -cell recognition: Target molecule: Extracellular antigen –>> transciptional instruction to cell
  • nextgen T cell: Engineer T cell recognition circuit that integrates multiple inputs: Two receptors – two antigen priming circuit
  • UNARMED: If antigen A THEN receptor A activates CAR
  • “Bystander” cell single antigen vs “tumor” drug antigen
  • Selective clearance of combinatorial tumor – Boulian formulation, canonical response
  • Cell response: Priming –>> Killing: Spatial & Temporal choreographed cell
  • CAR expression while removed from primed cells deminished
  • Solid Tumor: suppress cell microenvironment: Selected response vs non-natural response
  • Immune stimulator IR IL2, IL12, flagellin in the payload — Ourcome: Immune enhancement “vaccination”
  • Immune suppression –  block
  • Envision ideal situation: Unarmed cells
  • FUTURE: identify disease signatures and vulnerabilities – Precision Medicine using Synthetic Biology

Darrell Irvine – MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI
Engineering Enhanced Cancer Vaccines to Drive Combination Immunotherapies

  • Vaccine to drive IT
  • Intervening in the cancer-immunity cycle – Peptide Vaccines
  • poor physiology  of solute transport to tissue
  • endogenous albumin affinity – Lymphe Node dying
  • Designing Albumin-hitchhiking vaccines
  • Amphiphile-vaccine enhance uptake in lymph nodes in small and large animal models
  • soluble vaccine vs Amphiphile-vaccine
  • DIRECTING Vaccines to the Lymph nodes
  • amph-peptide antigen: Prime, booster, tetramer
  • albimin-mediated LN-targeting of both antigen and adjuvant maximizes IR
  • Immuno-supressed microenvironment will not be overcome by vaccines
  • Replacing adoptive T cell transfer with potent vaccine
  • exploiting albumin biology for mucosal vaccine delivery by amph-vaccines
  • Amph-peptides and -adjuvants show enhanced uptake/retention in lung tissue
  •  Enhancing adoptive T cell therapy: loss of T cell functionality, expand in vivo
  • boost in vivo enhanced adoptive T cell therapy
  • CAR-T cells: Enable T cells to target any cell surface protein
  • “Adaptor”-targeting CAR-T cells to deal with tumor cell heterogeneity
  • Lymph node-targeting Amph as CAR T booster vaccine: prining, production of cytokines
  • Boosting CAR T with amph-caccines: anti FITC CAR-T by DSPE=PEG-FITC coated
  • Targeting FITC to lymph node antigen presenting cells
  • Modulatory Macrophages
  • Amph-FITC expands FITC-CAR T cells in vivo – Adjuvant is needed
  • Hijacking albumin’s natural trafficking pathway

11:30 – 1:00  Lunch Break

1:00 – 2:15Session III
Moderator: Darrell Irvine | MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI

Nicholas P. Restifo – National Cancer Institute
Extracellular Potassium Regulates Epigenetics and Efficacy of Anti-Tumor T Cells

Why T cell do not kill Cancer cells?

  • co-inhibition
  • hostile tumor microenvironment

CAR T – does not treat solid tumors

Somatic mutation

  1. resistence of T cell based IT due to loss of function mutations
  2. Can other genes be lost?

CRISPR Cas9 – used to identify agents – GeCKOv2 Human library

Two cell-type (2CT) CRISPR assay system for genome-wide mutagenesis

  • work flow for genome-scale SRISPR mutagenesis profiling of genes essential for T cell mediate cytosis
  • sgRNA enrichment at the individual gene level by multiple methods:
  1. subunits of the MHC Class I complex
  2. CRISPR mutagenesis cut germline
  • Measutring the generalizability of resistance mechanism and mice in vivo validation
  • Validation of top gene candidates using libraries: MART-1
  • Checkpoint blockade: cells LOF causes tumor growth and immune escape
  • Weird genesL Large Ribisomal Subunit Proteins are nor all essential for cell survival
  • Bias in enrichment of 60S vs 40S
  • Novel elements of MHC class I antigen processing and presentation
  • Association of top CRISPR hits with response rates to IT – antiCTLA-4
  • CRISPR help identify novel regulators of T cells
  • Analyzed sgRNA – second rarest sgRNA for gene BIRC2 – encoded the Baculoviral Inhibitor
  • Drugs that inhibit BIRC2
  • How T cells can kill tumor cells more efficiently
  • p38kiaseas target for adoptive immunotherapy
  • FACS-based – Mapk14
  • Potent targets p38 – Blockade PD-1 or p38 ??
  • p38 signaling: Inhibition augments expansion and memory-marked human PBMC and TIL cells, N. P. Restifo
  • Tumor killing capacity of human CD19-specific, gene engineered T cells

Jennifer Elisseeff – Johns Hopkins University
The Adaptive Immune Response to Biomaterials and Tissue Repair

  • design scafolds, tissue-specific microenvironment
  • clinical translation of biosynthetic implants for soft tissue reconstruction
  • Local environment affects biomaterials: Epidermis, dermis
  • CD4+ T cells
  • Immune system – first reponders to materials: Natural or Synthetic
  • Biological (ECM) scaffolds to repair muscle injury
  • Which immune cells enter the WOUND?
  • ECM alters Macrophages: CD86, CD206
  • Adaptive system impact on Macrophages: CD86
  • mTOR signaling pathway M2 depend on Th2 Cells in regeneration of cell healing of surgical wounds
  • Systemic Immunological changes
  • Is the response antigen specific? – IL-4 expression in ILN,
  • Tissue reconstruction Clinical Trial: FDA ask to look at what cells infiltrate the scaffold
  • Trauma/biomaterial response – Injury induction of Senescence, anti apoptosis
  • Injury to skin or muscle
  • Is pro-regenerative environment (Th2/M2) pro-tumorigenic?
  • SYNTHETIC Materials for scafolds
  • Biomaterials and Immunology
  1. Immune response to bioscafolds
  2. environment modulate the immune system
  • Regenerative Immunetherapy

Marcela Maus – Massachusetts General Hospital

Engineering Better T Cells

  • Comparing CD19 CARs for Leukemia – anti-CD19- directed CAR T cells with r/r B-cell ALL – age 3-25 – FDA approved Novartis tisagenlecleucel – for pediatric r/r/ ALL
  • Phase II in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Using T cells – increases prospects for cure
  • Vector retroviral – 30 day expression
  • measuring cytokines release syndrome: Common toxicity with CAR 19
  • neurological toxicity, B-cell aplagia
  • CART issues with heme malignancies
  1. decrease cytokine release
  2. avoid neurological toxicity – homing
  3. new targets address antigene escape variants – Resistance, CD19 is shaded, another target needed
  4. B Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) Target
  5. Bluebird Bio: Response duratio up to 54 weeks – Active dose cohort
  6. natural ligand CAR based on April
  7. activated in response to TACI+ target cells – APRIL-based CARs but not BCMA-CAR is able to kill TACI+ target cells
  • Hurdles for Solid Tumors
  1. Specific antigen targets
  2. tumor heterogeneity
  3. inhibitory microenvironment
  • CART in Glioblastoma
  1. rationale for EGFRvIII as therapeutic target
  2. Preclinical Studies & Phase 1: CAR t engraft, not as highly as CD19
  3. Upregulation of immunosuppression and Treg infiltrate in CART EGFRvIII as therapeutic target, Marcela Maus
  • What to do differently?

 

2:15 – 2:45 Break

2:45 – 4:00 Session IV
Moderator: Arup K. Chakraborty | MIT, IMES

Laura Walker – Adimab, LLC
Molecular Dissection of the Human Antibody Response to Respiratory Syncytial Virus

  • prophylactic antibody is available
  • Barriers for development of Vaccine
  • Prefusion and Postfusion RSV structures
  • Six major antigenic sites on RSV F
  • Blood samples Infants less 6 month of age and over 6 month: High abundance RSV F -specific memory B Cells are group  less 6 month

Arup K. Chakraborty – MIT, Institute for Medical Engineering & Science
How to Hit HIV Where it Hurts

  • antibody  – Model IN SILICO
  • Check affinity of each Ab for the Seaman panel of strain
  • Breadth of coverage
  • immmunize with cocktail of variant antigens
  • Mutations on Affinity Maturation: Molecular dynamics
  • bnAb eveolution: Hypothesis – mutations evolution make the antigen binding region more flexible,
  • Tested hypothesisi: carrying out affinity maturation – LOW GERMLINE AFFINITY TO CONSERVE RESIDUES IN 10,000 trials, acquire the mutation (generation 300)

William Schief – The Scripps Research Institute
HIV Vaccine Design Targeting the Human Naive B Cell Repertoire

  • HIV Envelope Trimer Glycan): the Target of neutralizing Antibodies (bnAbs)
  • Proof of principle for germline-targeting: VRC)!-class bnAbs
  • design of a nanoparticle
  • can germline -targeting innumogens prime low frequency precursors?
  • Day 14 day 42 vaccinate
  • Precursor frequency and affinity are limiting for germline center (GC) entry at day 8
  • Germline-targeting immunogens can elicit robust, high quality SHM under physiological conditions of precursor frequency and affinity at day 8, 16, 36
  • Germline-targeting immunogens can lead to production of memory B cells

Read Full Post »


Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 10/18/2017

Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.

Kite’s Yescarta™ (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) Becomes First CAR T Therapy Approved by the FDA for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy

— Manufacturing Success Rate of 99 Percent in ZUMA-1 Pivotal Trial with a Median 17 Day Turnaround Time —

CAR T therapy is a breakthrough in hematologic cancer treatment in which a patient’s own T cells are engineered to seek and destroy cancer cells. CAR T therapy is manufactured specifically for each individual patient.

“The FDA approval of Yescarta is a landmark for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. This approval would not have been possible without the courageous commitment of patients and clinicians, as well as the ongoing dedication of Kite’s employees,” said Arie Belldegrun, MD, FACS, Founder of Kite. “We must also recognize the FDA for their ability to embrace and support transformational new technologies that treat life-threatening illnesses. We believe this is only the beginning for CAR T therapies.”

“Today is an important day for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of options and have been waiting for new treatments that may help them in their fight against cancer,” said John Milligan, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “With the combined innovation, talent and drive of the Kite and Gilead teams, we will rapidly advance cell therapy research and aim to bring new options to patients with many other types of cancer.”

The list price of Yescarta in the United States is $373,000.

Yescarta has been granted Priority Medicines (PRIME) regulatory support for DLBCL in the European Union. A Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for axicabtagene ciloleucel is currently under review with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and potential approval is expected in the first half of 2018.

Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) Pivotal Trial Results

The approval of Yescarta is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 pivotal trial. In this study, 72 percent of patients treated with a single infusion of Yescarta (n=101) responded to therapy (overall response rate) including 51 percent of patients who had no detectable cancer remaining (complete remission; 95% CI: 41, 62). At a median follow-up of 7.9 months, patients who had achieved a complete remission had not reached the estimated median duration of response (95% CI: 8.1 months, not estimable [NE]).

In the study, 13 percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 31 percent experienced neurologic toxicities. The most common (≥ 10%) Grade 3 or higher reactions include febrile neutropenia, fever, CRS, encephalopathy, infections-pathogen unspecified, hypotension, hypoxia and lung infections. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 52% of patients and included CRS, neurologic toxicity, prolonged cytopenias (including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia), and serious infections. Fatal cases of CRS and neurologic toxicity occurred. FDA approved Yescarta with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

Yescarta Indication

Yescarta is a CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapy indicated for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma.

Yescarta is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for three out of every five cases. In the United States each year, there are approximately 7,500 patients with refractory DLBCL who are eligible for CAR T therapy. Historically, when treated with the current standard of care, patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma had a median overall survival of approximately six months, with only seven percent attaining a complete response. Currently, patients with large B-cell lymphoma in second or later lines of therapy have poor outcomes and greater unmet need, since nearly half of them either do not respond or relapse shortly after transplant.

“With CAR T therapy, we are reengineering a patient’s own immune system to detect and kill cancer cells, and the results have been impressive,” said Frederick L. Locke, MD, ZUMA-1 Co-Lead Investigator and Vice Chair of the Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. “Many of the patients that received CAR T therapy had already relapsed several times with traditional treatments such as chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Now, thanks to this new therapy many patients are in remission for months.”

“This therapy is a new option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of treatment options and face a dire prognosis,” said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS). “Early on, LLS recognized the potential of CAR T therapy and we are proud to be part of making this historic approval possible.”

“Engineered cell therapies like Yescarta represent the potential for a changing treatment paradigm for cancer patients,” said David Chang, MD, PhD, Worldwide Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer at Kite. “Together, Gilead and Kite will accelerate studies of CAR T therapy in multiple blood cancers and advance other cell therapy approaches for solid tumors, with the goal of helping patients with diverse cancers benefit from this new era of personalized cancer therapy.”

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171018006639/en/Kite%E2%80%99s-Yescarta%E2%84%A2-Axicabtagene-Ciloleucel-CAR-Therapy-Approved

This article has the following structure:

  • ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
  • ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma
  • ABOUT  the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes
  • ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
  • ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
  • Key Opinion Leader’s View: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

  1. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point is “one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.”
  2. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point should have been a TEVA commercialization effort. It is a regrettable reality that the development and the manufacturing will not benefit the State of Israel, home of the Weitzman Institute where the Patentable invention took place by Prof. Zelig Eshhar.
  3. It is to be acknowledged that for CAR-T – the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry (Juno has related process) – is bringing to the Oncology arena a NOVEL treatment for hematological malignancies cancer patients
  4. I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that the Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. It is exactly, therefore, all need to acknowledge that the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun is inseparable from the breakthrough invention of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to develop the drug from the Lab bench to the FDA accelerated process of Drug approval.
  5. The Biotech industry in Israel needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Arie Belldegrun and with his entrepreneur acumen, keenness and depth of perception, discernmentdiscrimination especially in practical aspects of Translation Medicine, Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Design and abilities to engage in innovating the FDA processes.
  6. The Biotech industry in US needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to carry the scientific gravitas and the creativity to become inventors of novel drugs.

 

ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)

Pioneers of Cancer Cell Therapy:  Turbocharging the Immune System to Battle Cancer Cells — Success in Hematological Cancers vs. Solid Tumors

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/08/19/pioneers-of-cancer-cell-therapy-turbocharging-the-immune-system-to-battle-cancer-cells-success-in-hematological-cancers-vs-solid-tumors/

 

ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma

FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/08/30/fda-has-approved-the-worlds-first-car-t-therapy-novartis-for-kymriah-tisagenlecleucel-and-gileads-12-billion-buy-of-kite-pharma-no-approved-drug-and-canakinumab-for-lung-cancer-may-be/

 

ABOUT  the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes

“Chemotherapy will become just a bad memory”

More energetic than ever, Arie Belldegrun talks to “Globes” about Kite Pharma’s remarkable journey and the future of cancer treatment.

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-chemotherapy-will-become-just-a-bad-memory-1001206978

 

ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes

Kite Pharma was a $12b missed opportunity for Israel – Interview with Professor Zelig Eshhar

Some Israeli media headlines depicted Kite as an Israeli exit. But it is a US company that does no business in Israel and has no employees here.

Professor Zelig Eshhar is the man who registered the patent on the cancer treatment drug developed by Kite Pharma, recently acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion.

“Globes”: Do you believe that any party in Israel could have financed the product and brought it where it is today?

Eshhar: “On the one hand, yes. The level of investment in the product before it reached Nasdaq was something that an Israeli concern could certainly have financed. On the other hand, Kite Pharma founder Professor Arie Belldegrun, with his energy and connections, brought it to a completely different place (Eshhar previously tried to interest various concerns in Israel in financing the drug, but all of them told him that it was too early, or that the product was not effective enough, E.T.).

Was the development already in its final form in the 1980s?

“Almost. I went to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where I met for the first time Professor Steven Rosenberg, who later became the first doctor to conduct clinical trials with the technology. Rosenberg heard about my technology, and offered me exceptional conditions. We set up a team there, and had the best of everything. I only wish I had it now.”

They say that Belldegrun didn’t want the product at first. Today, he’s devoting all his efforts to it.

“When Arie founded Cougar Biotechnology, which developed a drug for prostate cancer, and was eventually sold to Johnson & Johnson for $1 billion, I contacted him and offered him the technology, but he was busy with Cougar’s product, and maybe didn’t think that he had enough capital for such a production. Only after he sold Cougar did he get back to me with an offer to buy the rights to my patent. At that time (2009-2010), the technology was already arousing great interest, and there were negotiations with several large companies.” (from an April 2015 “Globes” interview with Eshhar, who was awarded the Israel Prize).

Israelis can be very provincial. In at least some of the media headlines, Kite Pharma was portrayed as a “huge Israeli exit,” and the impression was given that it was an Israeli company. The truth is very different. Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company; it is a 100% US company. It does no business in Israel; its nearly $12 billion exit has no significance whatsoever for the Israeli economy, and will contribute nothing to it: no jobs, and the tax contribution will be marginal, and certainly not on the scale of Mobileye, for example. Let me say it again: Kite Pharma does not have even one employee in Israel (and has no reason to employ anyone here), and certainly does not pay taxes in Israel. There are no Israelis on the company’s management team or board of directors. This is a US company for all intents and purposes. The word “Israel” appears exactly once in the company’s full documents – where registration of the company’s patents is concerned. The fact that every story about the company mentions the small holdings of several Israeli financial institutions in it is a bad joke. Everyone should remember that Israeli financial institutions are of course entitled to invest in any foreign share, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple Computers, and so forth. Kite Pharma is one of those foreign shares, and nothing more.

Of course, there is cause for pride in the fact that Eshhar, owner of the patent for Kite Pharma’s drug is “one of ours,” i.e. an Israeli researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Another source of pride is Kite Pharma founder and CEO Arie Belldegrun, a graduate of the Hebrew University Medical School who did his post-doctorate at the Weizmann Institute, where he met Eshhar, and Kite Pharma later bought his patent for the cancer drug. Belldegrun was also a director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) until recently, resigning at the peak of that company’s crisis. Beyond this Israeli connection, however, the Kite Pharma exit has no great significance for Israel. All it means is that one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.

It is necessary to realize that while Belldegrun is indeed a big biomedical brain with many achievements in the field, he is a brain that has left Israel, and we all have to ask ourselves why he left, why Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company, and why its (as yet non-existent) product was not developed in Israel and will not be manufactured there. The headline in Israel for the Kite Pharma exit should ask why Israel lost out on it, even though the patent came from Israeli laboratories, albeit with US cooperation.

Belldegrun is likely to keep his experiences on the Teva board of directors to himself. Of all the directors in the company, what he has to say is the most interesting, but he is unlikely to divulge what happened there with the inflated deal with Allergan, and exactly what he said at the board of directors meeting that approved the deal that led Teva into its current major crisis. The Kite Pharma exit and his other exits only highlight the lost opportunity. Kite Pharma, still without a product and without approval for a product, was sold for $11.9 billion in cash. Teva yesterday hit another low point, with a market cap of $16 billion. It is simply inconceivable: a company with an enormous potential, but no product, is worth three quarters of a huge veteran company with at least dozens of products, including products in the ethical drug sector. Kite Pharma is actually one of the indirect reasons for Teva’s decline – for the fact that Teva, which could have been a hothouse for developments like Copaxone, chose a huge inflated gamble on the generics market – a gamble that is now jeopardizing Teva’s future and very existence.

It is true that developing drugs is a very long process, requires huge amounts of capital, and involves many failures, but Teva decided to neglect it, and when a major company like Teva neglects Israeli developments, there are enough competitors in the pharma industry ready to turn Israeli research into gold. Kite Pharma is one example of this research.

The Weizmann Institute is a fruitful source of biomedical research. According to previous estimates published in “Globes,” the Weizmann Institute gets NIS 1 billion each year in royalties on medical and other developments, amounting to half of its budget. Directly and indirectly, the Weizmann Institute, together with other universities in Israel, is responsible for tens of billions of pharmaceutical sales. Only a few billions of this, however, results from drugs developed in Israel, like Copaxone, and far less than that is also made in Israel. The reports by Yeda R&D Company Ltd., the technology transfer arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, are top secret, and there is a good reason for that. Exposing them will only highlight the scale of the missed opportunities. Instead of these inventions providing a base for a major pharmaceutical industry here, the commercialization companies are benefiting only the inventors and the Weizmann Institute itself (that is certainly natural and legitimate, and they are entitled to it), even though the research infrastructure from which they sprung is Israeli know-how, as in the case of Eshhar.

Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. When it succeeds, however, the profit is enormous – for the industry, the employees, and the state (provided that some tax is paid). For example, Pfizer’s peak sales of Lipitor, a very popular drug for reducing cholesterol and fat in the bloodstream, reached $11 billion, and its profit on the drug was $9 billion, before competition from a generic version began. In addition to money, a great deal of experience and marketing power is required, and that is the reason why most developments wind up in the hands of major companies like Pfizer, Merck, and others at some stage. After all these qualifying statements, everyone who celebrated Kite Pharma’s exit should weep over it – it is another part of the sale of Israeli know-how overseas for a mess of pottage. Instead of consolidating a splendid pharma industry here, Israel is selling the brains with their know-how to foreigners. More than anything else, Teva’s decline and the Kite Pharma exit epitomize this sad and dangerous trend.

Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 30, 2017

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2017

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-kite-pharma-the-huge-exit-that-israel-missed-1001203173

 

ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel

Israeli investors profit from $11.9b Kite acquisition

Pontifax fund and Israeli institutional investors will profit from the US personalized cancer drug company’s huge sale.  Part of the technology was developed at the Weizmann Institute

Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc. has announced that it will acquire US company Kite Pharma Inc., developer of personalized cancer treatment drugs, at a company value of $11.9 billion. This is one of the biggest ever acquisitions of a company whose products have not yet been approved for marketing. The company value for the acquisition reflects a 29% premium on the market price.

Kite Pharma has developed a new method for genetically engineering immune system cells, so that they will make a focused attack on the malignant tumor. The company was founded in the US by Israeli-American Professor Arie Belldegrun, who already has two exits to his credit. He is also a former director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) (whose current value is not much more than the value at which Kite Pharma, a company with no products approved for marketing yet, is being acquired).

A significant part of the technology on which the product is based was developed by Professor Zelig Eshhar of the Weizmann Institute of Science.

The main Israeli beneficiary of the acquisition is the Pontifax fund, which invested $3.8 million in Kite Pharma at an early stage, but which distributed Kite Pharma shares worth $120 million to its investors. Among the investors in Pontifax that received shares in Kite Pharma are Menorah Mivtachim Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MORA) (which also bought shares on the market, and whose stake in the company is now worth over $100 million), The Phoenix Holdings Ltd. (TASE: PHOE1;PHOE5), Altshuler Shaham Ltd.Meitav Dash Investments Ltd. (TASE:MTDS), Harel Insurance Investments and Financial Services Ltd. (TASE: HARL), and Mori Arkin.

Kite Pharma is waiting for marketing approval of its first product, following a successful trial on 100 patients on a very abbreviated track for innovative cancer products. The product was initially designed for treatment of blood cancer, but it is now hoped that its use can later be expanded to treatment of other types of cancer. Gilead is making a big gamble, first of all that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will fulfill its commitment to approve the product, even though the development plan it devised, together with the company, was very short and limited. The second gamble involves the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry.

Speaking about the talks to sell Kite, Prof. Arie Belldegrun told “Globes.” “We handled like in the IDF 669 unit. Nobody knew anything. Nobody heard anything. We held meetings in places where nobody would see us. And before we announced it only five employees knew about it.”

Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 28, 2017

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2017

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-investors-profit-from-119b-kite-acquisition-1001202841

 

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

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

  • Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, on Amazon since 8/11/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013RVYR2K

  • Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2) – on Amazon since 5/18/2017

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VQ6YYK

Read Full Post »


Lectures by The 2017 Award Recipients of Warren Alpert Foundation Prize in Cancer Immunology, October 5, 2017, HMS, 77 Louis Paster, Boston

Top, from left: James Allison and Lieping Chen. Bottom, from left: Gordon Freeman, Tasuku Honjo (NOT ATTENDED), Arlene Sharpe.

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN was in attendance and covered this event LIVE

 

The 2017 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize has been awarded to five scientists for transformative discoveries in the field of cancer immunology.

Collectively, their work has elucidated foundational mechanisms in cancer’s ability to evade immune recognition and, in doing so, has profoundly altered the understanding of disease development and treatment. Their discoveries have led to the development of effective immune therapies for several types of cancer.

The 2017 award recipients are:

  • James Allison, professor of immunology and chair of the Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center – Immune checkpoint blockage in Cancer Therapystrictly Genomics based drug
  1. 2017 FDA approved a gemonics based drug
  2. and co-stimulatory signals
  3. CTLA-4 blockade, CD28, AntiCTLA-4 induceses regression of Transplantable Murine tumo
  4. enhance tumor-specific immune response
  5. Fully antibody human immune response in 10,000 patients – FDA approved 2011
  6. Metastatic melanoma – 3 years survival, programmed tumor death, PD-1, MHC-A1
  7. Ipi/Nivo vs. Ipi – combination – 60% survival vs Ipi alone
  8. Anti CTA4 va Anti-PD-1
  9. responsive T cell population – MC38 TILs
  10. MC38 Infiltrating T cell populations: Treg, CD4, Effector, CD8, NKT/gamma-delta
  11. Checkpoint blockage modulates infiltrating T cell population frequencies
  12. T reg correlated with Tumor growth
  13. Combination therapy lead to CURE survival at 80% rate vs CTAL-4 40% positive outcome

Not Attended — Tasuku Honjo, professor of immunology and genomic medicine, Kyoto University – Immune regulation of Cancer Therapy by PD-1 Blockade

 

  • Lieping Chen, United Technologies Corporation Professor in Cancer Research and Professor of immunobiology, of dermatology and of medicine, Yale University – Adoptive Resistance: Molecular Pathway t Cancer Therapy – focus on solid tumors
  1. Enhancement – Enhance normal immune system – Co-stimulation/Co-inhibition Treg, and Cytokines, adoptive cell therapy, Lymphoid organs stores
  2. Normalization – to correct defective immune system – normalizing tumor immunity, diverse tumor escape mechanisms
  3. Anti-PD therapy: regression of large solid tumors: normalizing tumor immunity targeting tumor microenvironment: Heterogeneity, functional modulation, cellular and molecular components – classification by LACK of inflamation, adaptive resistance, other inhibitory pathways, intrinsic induction
  4. avoid autoimmune toxicity,
  5. Resetting immune response (melanoma)
  6. Understad Resistance: Target missing resistance or Adaptive resistance Type II= acquired immunity
  • Gordon Freeman, professor of medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School – PD-L1/PD-1 Cancer Immunotherapy
  1. B7 antibody
  2. block pathway – checkpoint blockage, Expand the T cells after recognition of the disease. T cell receptor signal, activation, co -stimulatory: B71 molecule, B72 – survival signals and cytokine production,.Increased T cell proliferation,
  3. PDL-1 is a ligand of PD 1. How T cell die? genes – PD1 Gene was highly expressed,
  4. Interferon gamma upregulate PD-L1 expression
  5. Feedback loop Tumor – stimulating immune response, interferon turn off PD1
  6. PD-L1 and PD-L2 Expression: Interferom
  7. Trancefuctor MHC, B7-2
  8. PD-L! sisgnat inhibit T-cell activation: turn off Proliferation and cytokine production — Decreasing the immune response
  9. T cell DNA Content: No S-phase devided cell
  10. PD-L1 engagement of PD-1 results in activation : Pd-1 Pathway inhibits T Cell Actiivation – lyposite motility,
  11. Pd-L2 is a second ligand for PD-1 and inhibits T cell activation
  12. PDl-1 expression: BR CA, Ovarian, Colonol-rectal, tymus, endothelial
  13. Blockage of the Pathway – Immune response enhanced
  14. Dendritic cells express PD-L1, PD-L2 and combination of Two, Combination was best of all by increase of cytokine production, increasing the immune response.
  15. PD-L1 blockade enhanced the immune response , increase killing and increased production of cytokines,
  16. anti-tumor efficacy of anti-PD-1/Pd-L1
  17. Pancreatic and colono-rector — PD-L, PDL1, PDL2 — does not owrkd.
  18. In menaloma: PD-1 works better than CYLA-4
  19. Comparison of Targeted Therapy: BRAF TKI vs Chemo high % but short term
  20. Immunotherapy – applies several mechanism: pre-existing anti-therapy
  21. Immune desert: PD=L does not work for them
  22. COMBINATION THERAPY: BLOCK TUMOR INVASION THEN STIMULATE IMMUNE RESPONSE — IT WILL WORK
  23. PD blockage + nutrients and probiotic
  24. Tumor Genome Therapy
  25. Tumore Immuno-evasion Score
  26. Antigens for immune response – choose the ones
  27. 20PD-1 or PD-L1 drugs in development
  28. WHO WILL THE DRUG WORK FOR?

 

  • Arlene Sharpe, the George Fabyan Professor of Comparative Pathology, Harvard Medical School; senior scientist, department of pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital – Multi-faceted Functionsof the PD-1 Pathway
  1. function of the pathway: control T cell activation and function of maintain immune tolerance
  2. protect tissues from damage by immune response
  3. T cell dysfunction during cancer anf viral infection
  4. protection from autoimmunity, inflammation,
  5. Mechanism by which PD-1 pathway inhibits anti-tumor immunity
  6. regulation of memoryT cell responce of PD-1
  7. PD-1 signaling inhibit anti-tumor immunity
  8. Compare: Mice lacking CD8-Cre- (0/5) cleared vs PD-1-/-5/5 – PD-1 DELETION: PARTIAL AND TIMED: DELETION OF PD-1 ON HALF OG TILS STARTING AT DAY 7 POSTTUMOR IMPLANTATION OF BOTH PD-1 AND PD-1 TILS: – Tamoxifen days 7-11
  9. Transcription profile: analysis of CD8+ TILs reveal altered metabolism: Fatty Acid Metabolism vs Oxidative Phosphorylation
  10. DOes metabolic shift: WIld type mouth vs PD-1-/_ P14: analyze Tumor cell killingPD-1-/- enhanced FAO increases CD8+ T cell tocicity
  11. Summary: T cell memory development and PD-1: T effectors vs T cell memory: Primary vs Secondary infection: In the absent of PD-1, CD8+ T cels show increase expansion of T cells
  12. INFLUENZA INFECTION: PRIMARY more virus in lung in PD-1 is lacking
  13. Acute infection: PD-1 controls memory T cell differentiation vs PD-1 increase expansion during effector phase BUT impaired persistence during memory phase: impaired cytokine production post re-challenge
  14. PD-1 immunotherapy work for patients with tumor: Recall Response and Primary response
  15. TIL density Primary vs Long term survivor – 5 days post tumor implantation – rechallenged long term survival
  16. Hot tumor vs Cold tumor – Deletion of PD-1 impairs T memory cell development

 

Opening Remarks: George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, DEAN, HMS

  • Scientific collaboration check point – avoid the body attacking itself, sabotaging the immune system
  • 1987 – Vaccine for HepB
  • Eight of the awardees got the Nobel Prize

 

Moderated by Joan Brugge, PhD, HMS, Prof. of Cell Biology

  • Evolution of concepts of Immunotherapy: William Coley’s Toxin streptoccocus skin infection.
  • 20th century: Immuno-surveilence, Immune response – field was dead in 1978 replaced by Immunotherapy
  • Rosenberg at NIH, high dose of costimulatory molecule prevented tumor reappearanceantbody induce tumor immunity–>> immune theraphy by check point receptor blockade – incidence of tumor in immune compromised mice – transfer T cell
  • T cell defficient, not completely defficient, self recognition of tumor,
  • suppress immmune – immune evasion
  • Michael Atkins, MD, Detupy Director, Georgetown-Lombardi, Comprehensive Cancer Center Clinical applications of Checkpoint inhibitors: Progress and Promise
  1. Overwhelm the Immune system, hide, subvert, Shield, defend-deactivating tumor trgeting T cells that ATTACK the immune system
  2. Immune system to TREAT the cancer
  3. Monotherapy – anti PD1/PD-L1: Antagonist activity
  4. Evading immune response: prostate, colcn
  5. MMR deficiency
  6. Nivolumab in relaped/Refractory HODGKIN LYMPHOMAS – over expression of PD-L1 and PDL2in Lymphomas
  7. 18 month survival better with Duv in Lung cancer stage 3 – anti PD-1- adjuvant therapy with broad effectiveness
  8. Biomarkers for pD-L1 Blockage
  9. ORR higher in PD-L1
  10. Improve Biomarkers: Clonality of T cells in Tumors
  11. T-effector Myeloid Inflammation Low – vs Hogh:
  12. Biomarker Model: Neoantigen burden vs Gene expression vs CD8+
  13. Tissue DIagnostic Labs: Tumor microenveironmenr
  14. Microbiome
  15. Combination: Nivo vs Nivo+Ipi is superior: DETERMINE WHEN TO STOP TREATMENT
  16. 15/16 stopped treatment – Treatment FREE SURVIVAL
  17. Sequencing with Standard Therapies
  18. Brain metastasis – Immune Oncology Therapy – crosses the BBB
  19. Less Toxic regimen, better toxicity management,
  20. Use Immuno therapy TFS
  21. combination – survival must be justified
  22. Goal: to make Cancer a curable disease vs cancer becoming a CHronic disease

 

Closing Remarks: George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, DEAN, HMS

 

The honorees will share a $500,000 prize and will be recognized at a day-long symposium on Oct. 5 at Harvard Medical School.

The Warren Alpert Foundation, in association with Harvard Medical School, honors trailblazing scientists whose work has led to the understanding, prevention, treatment or cure of human disease. The award recognizes seminal discoveries that hold the promise to change our understanding of disease or our ability to treat it.

“The discoveries honored by the Warren Alpert Foundation over the years are remarkable in their scope and potential,” said George Q. Daley, dean of Harvard Medical School. “The work of this year’s recipients is nothing short of breathtaking in its profound impact on medicine. These discoveries have reshaped our understanding of the body’s response to cancer and propelled our ability to treat several forms of this recalcitrant disease.”

The Warren Alpert Foundation Prize is given internationally. To date, the foundation has awarded nearly $4 million to 59 scientists. Since the award’s inception, eight honorees have also received a Nobel Prize.

“We commend these five scientists. Allison, Chen, Freeman, Honjoand Sharpe are indisputable standouts in the field of cancer immunology,” said Bevin Kaplan, director of the Warren Alpert Foundation. “Collectively, they are helping to turn the tide in the global fight against cancer. We couldn’t honor more worthy recipients for the Warren Alpert Foundation Prize.”

The 2017 award: Unraveling the mysterious interplay between cancer and immunity

Understanding how tumor cells sabotage the body’s immune defenses stems from the collective work of many scientists over many years and across multiple institutions.

Each of the five honorees identified key pieces of the puzzle.

The notion that cancer and immunity are closely connected and that a person’s immune defenses can be turned against cancer is at least a century old. However, the definitive proof and demonstration of the steps in this process were outlined through findings made by the five 2017 Warren Alpert prize recipients.

Under normal conditions, so-called checkpoint inhibitor molecules rein in the immune system to ensure that it does not attack the body’s own cells, tissues and organs. Building on each other’s work, the five award recipients demonstrated how this normal self-defense mechanism can be hijacked by tumors as a way to evade immune surveillance and dodge an attack. Subverting this mechanism allows cancer cells to survive and thrive.

A foundational discovery made in the 1980s elucidated the role of a molecule on the surface of T cells, the body’s elite assassins trained to seek, spot and destroy invaders.

A protein called CTLA-4 emerged as a key regulator of T cell behavior—one that signals to T cells the need to retreat from an attack. Experiments in mice lacking CTLA-4 and use of CTLA-4 antibodies demonstrated that absence of CTLA-4 or blocking its activity could lead to T cell activation and tumor destruction.

Subsequent work identified a different protein on the surface of T cells—PD-1—as another key regulator of T cell response. Mice lacking this protein developed an autoimmune disease as a result of aberrant T cell activity and over-inflammation.

Later on, scientists identified a molecule, B7-H1, subsequently renamed PD-L1, which binds to PD-1, clicking like a key in a lock. This was followed by the discovery of a second partner for PD-1—the molecule PD-L2—which also appeared to tame T-cell activity by binding to PD-1.

The identification of these molecules led to a set of studies showing that their presence on human and mouse tumors rendered the tumors resistant to immune eradication.

A series of experiments further elucidated just how tumors exploit the interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 to survive. Specifically, some tumor cells appeared to express PD-L1, essentially “wrapping” themselves in it to avoid immune recognition and destruction.

Additional work demonstrated that using antibodies to block this interaction disarmed the tumors, rendering them vulnerable to immune destruction.

Collectively, the five scientists’ findings laid the foundation for antibody-based therapies that modulate the function of these molecules as a way to unleash the immune system against cancer cells.

Antibody therapy that targets CTLA-4 is currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of melanoma. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have already shown efficacy in a broad range of cancers and have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of melanoma; kidney; lung; head and neck cancer; bladder cancer; some forms of colorectal cancer; Hodgkin lymphoma and Merkel cell carcinoma.

In their own words

“I am humbled to be included among the illustrious scientists who have been honored by the Warren Alpert Foundation for their contributions to the treatment and cure of human disease in its 30+ year history.  It is also recognition of the many investigators who have labored for decades to realize the promise of the immune system in treating cancer.”
        -James Allison


“The award is a great honor and a wonderful recognition of our work.”
         Lieping Chen



I am thrilled to have made a difference in the lives of cancer patients and to be recognized by fellow scientists for my part in the discovery of the PD-1/PD-L1 and PD-L2 pathway and its role in tumor immune evasion.  I am deeply honored to be a recipient of the Alpert Award and to be recognized for my part in the work that has led to effective cancer immunotherapy. The success of immunotherapy has unleashed the energies of a multitude of scientists to further advance this novel strategy.”
                                        -Gordon Freeman


I am extremely honored to receive the Warren Alpert Foundation Prize. I am very happy that our discovery of PD-1 in 1992 and subsequent 10-year basic research on PD-1 led to its clinical application as a novel cancer immunotherapy. I hope this development will encourage many scientists working in the basic biomedical field.”
-Tasuku Honjo


“I am truly honored to be a recipient of the Alpert Award. It is especially meaningful to be recognized by my colleagues for discoveries that helped define the biology of the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways. The clinical translation of our fundamental understanding of these pathways illustrates the value of basic science research, and I hope this inspires other scientists.”
-Arlene Sharpe

Previous winners

Last year’s award went to five scientists who were instrumental in the discovery and development of the CRISPR bacterial defense mechanism as a tool for gene editing. They were RodolpheBarrangou of North Carolina State University, Philippe Horvath of DuPont in Dangé-Saint-Romain, France, Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin and Umeå University in Sweden, and Virginijus Siksnys of the Institute of Biotechnology at Vilnius University in Lithuania.

Other past recipients include:

  • Tu Youyou of the China Academy of Chinese Medical Science, who went on to receive the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with two others, and Ruth and Victor Nussenzweig, of NYU Langone Medical Center, for their pioneering discoveries in chemistry and parasitology of malaria and the translation of their work into the development of drug therapies and an anti-malarial vaccine.
  • Oleh Hornykiewicz of the Medical University of Vienna and the University of Toronto; Roger Nicoll of the University of California, San Francisco; and Solomon Snyder of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for research into neurotransmission and neurodegeneration.
  • David Botstein of Princeton University and Ronald Davis and David Hogness of Stanford University School of Medicine for contributions to the concepts and methods of creating a human genetic map.
  • Alain Carpentier of Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou in Paris and Robert Langer of MIT for innovations in bioengineering.
  • Harald zur Hausen and Lutz Gissmann of the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg for work on the human papillomavirus (HPV) and cancer of the cervix. Zur Hausenand others were honored with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008.

The Warren Alpert Foundation

Each year the Warren Alpert Foundation receives between 30 and 50 nominations from scientific leaders worldwide. Prize recipients are selected by the foundation’s scientific advisory board, which is composed of distinguished biomedical scientists and chaired by the dean of Harvard Medical School.

Warren Alpert (1920-2007), a native of Chelsea, Mass., established the prize in 1987 after reading about the development of a vaccine for hepatitis B. Alpert decided on the spot that he would like to reward such breakthroughs, so he picked up the phone and told the vaccine’s creator, Kenneth Murray of the University of Edinburgh, that he had won a prize. Alpert then set about creating the foundation.

To award subsequent prizes, Alpert asked Daniel Tosteson (1925-2009), then dean of Harvard Medical School, to convene a panel of experts to identify scientists from around the world whose research has had a direct impact on the treatment of disease.

SOURCE

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/warren-alpert-foundation-honors-pioneers-cancer-immunology

Read Full Post »


Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium on October 16 & 17, 2017, Kresge, MIT

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium on October 16 & 17, 2017.

 

Summary: Biological, chemical, and materials engineers are engaged at the forefront of immunology research. At their disposal is an analytical toolkit honed to solve problems in the petrochemical and materials industries, which share the presence of complex reaction networks, and convective and diffusive molecular transport. Powerful synthetic capabilities have also been crafted: binding proteins can be engineered with effectively arbitrary specificity and affinity, and multifunctional nanoparticles and gels have been designed to interact in highly specific fashions with cells and tissues. Fearless pursuit of knowledge and solutions across disciplinary boundaries characterizes this nascent discipline of immune engineering, synergizing with immunologists and clinicians to put immunotherapy into practice.

SPEAKERS:

Michael Birnbaum – MIT, Koch Institute

Arup Chakraborty – MIT, Insititute for Medical Engineering & Sciences

Jianzhu Chen – MIT, Koch Institute

Jennifer R. Cochran – Stanford University

Jennifer Elisseeff – Johns Hopkins University

K. Christopher Garcia – Stanford University

George Georgiou – University of Texas at Austin

Darrell Irvine – MIT, Koch Institute

Tyler Jacks – MIT, Koch Institute

Doug Lauffenburger – MIT, Biological Engineering and Koch Institute

Wendell Lim – University of California, San Francisco

Harvey Lodish – Whitehead Institute and Koch Institute

Marcela Maus – Massachusetts General Hospital

Garry P. Nolan – Stanford University

Sai Reddy – ETH Zurich

Nicholas Restifo – National Cancer Institute

William Schief – The Scripps Research Institute

Stefani Spranger – MIT, Koch Institute

Susan Napier Thomas – Georgia Institute of Technology

Laura Walker – Adimab, LLC

Jennifer Wargo – MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dane Wittrup – MIT, Koch Institute

Kai Wucherpfennig – Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Please contact ki-events@mit.edu with any questions.

SOURCE

From: Koch Institute Immune Engineering Symposium <ki-events@mit.edu>

Reply-To: <ki-events@mit.edu>

Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Reminder – Register Today

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »