Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com
microRNA (miRNA) miR-483-5p has a key role in preventing stress-related anxiety by acting on its target gene Pgap2 that curbs the development of this type of anxiety
Severe psychological trauma triggers genetic, biochemical and morphological changes in amygdala neurons, which underpin the development of stress-induced behavioural abnormalities, such as high levels of anxiety. miRNAs are small, non-coding RNA fragments that orchestrate complex neuronal responses by simultaneous transcriptional/translational repression of multiple target genes. Here we show that miR-483-5p in the amygdala of male mice counterbalances the structural, functional and behavioural consequences of stress to promote a reduction in anxiety-like behaviour. Upon stress, miR-483-5p is upregulated in the synaptic compartment of amygdala neurons and directly represses three stress-associated genes: Pgap2, Gpx3 and Macf1. Upregulation of miR-483-5p leads to selective contraction of distal parts of the dendritic arbour and conversion of immature filopodia into mature, mushroom-like dendritic spines. Consistent with its role in reducing the stress response, upregulation of miR-483-5p in the basolateral amygdala produces a reduction in anxiety-like behaviour. Stress-induced neuromorphological and behavioural effects of miR-483-5p can be recapitulated by shRNA mediated suppression of Pgap2 and prevented by simultaneous overexpression of miR-483-5p-resistant Pgap2. Our results demonstrate that miR-483-5p is sufficient to confer a reduction in anxiety-like behaviour and point to miR-483-5p-mediated repression of Pgap2 as a critical cellular event offsetting the functional and behavioural consequences of psychological stress.
The female reproductive lifespan is regulated by the menstrual cycle. Defined as the interval between the menarche and menopause, it is approximately 35 years in length on average. Based on current average human life expectancy figures, and excluding fertility issues, this means that the female body can bear children for almost half of its lifetime. Thus, within this time span many individuals may consider contraception at some point in their reproductive life. A wide variety of contraceptive methods are now available, which are broadly classified into hormonal and non-hormonal approaches. A normal menstrual cycle is controlled by a delicate interplay of hormones, including estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), among others. These molecules are produced by the various glands in the body that make up the endocrine system.
Hormonal contraceptives – including the contraceptive pill, some intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal implants – utilize exogenous (or synthetic) hormones to block or suppress ovulation, the phase of the menstrual cycle where an egg is released into the uterus. Beyond their use as methods to prevent pregnancy, hormonal contraceptives are also being increasingly used to suppress ovulation as a method for treating premenstrual syndromes. Hormonal contraceptives composed of exogenous estrogen and/or progesterone are commonly administered artificial means of birth control. Despite many benefits, adverse side effects associated with high doses such as thrombosis and myocardial infarction, cause hesitation to usage.
Scientists at the University of the Philippines and Roskilde University are exploring methods to optimize the dosage of exogenous hormones in such contraceptives. Their overall aim is the creation of patient-specific minimizing dosing schemes, to prevent adverse side effects that can be associated with hormonal contraceptive use and empower individuals in their contraceptive journey. Their research data showed evidence that the doses of exogenous hormones in certain contraceptive methods could be reduced, while still ensuring ovulation is suppressed. Reducing the total exogenous hormone dose by 92% in estrogen-only contraceptives, or the total dose by 43% in progesterone-only contraceptives, prevented ovulation according to the model. In contraceptives combining estrogen and progesterone, the doses could be reduced further.
Bacterial multidrug resistance problem solved by a broad-spectrum synthetic antibiotic
Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.
There is an increasing demand for new antibiotics that effectively treat patients with refractory bacteremia, do not evoke bacterial resistance, and can be readily modified to address current and anticipated patient needs. Recently scientists described a promising compound of COE (conjugated oligo electrolytes) family, COE2-2hexyl, that exhibited broad-spectrum antibacterial activity. COE2-2hexyl effectively-treated mice infected with bacteria derived from sepsis patients with refractory bacteremia, including a CRE K. pneumoniae strain resistant to nearly all clinical antibiotics tested. Notably, this lead compound did not evoke drug resistance in several pathogens tested. COE2-2hexyl has specific effects on multiple membrane-associated functions (e.g., septation, motility, ATP synthesis, respiration, membrane permeability to small molecules) that may act together to abrogate bacterial cell viability and the evolution of drug-resistance. Impeding these bacterial properties may occur through alteration of vital protein–protein or protein-lipid membrane interfaces – a mechanism of action distinct from many membrane disrupting antimicrobials or detergents that destabilize membranes to induce bacterial cell lysis. The diversity and ease of COE design and chemical synthesis have the potential to establish a new standard for drug design and personalized antibiotic treatment.
Recent studies have shown that small molecules can preferentially target bacterial membranes due to significant differences in lipid composition, presence of a cell wall, and the absence of cholesterol. The inner membranes of Gram-negative bacteria are generally more negatively charged at their surface because they contain more anionic lipids such as cardiolipin and phosphatidylglycerol within their outer leaflet compared to mammalian membranes. In contrast, membranes of mammalian cells are largely composed of more-neutral phospholipids, sphingomyelins, as well as cholesterol, which affords membrane rigidity and ability to withstand mechanical stresses; and may stabilize the membrane against structural damage to membrane-disrupting agents such as COEs. Consistent with these studies, COE2-2hexyl was well tolerated in mice, suggesting that COEs are not intrinsically toxic in vivo, which is often a primary concern with membrane-targeting antibiotics. The COE refinement workflow potentially accelerates lead compound optimization by more rapid screening of novel compounds for the iterative directed-design process. It also reduces the time and cost of subsequent biophysical characterization, medicinal chemistry and bioassays, ultimately facilitating the discovery of novel compounds with improved pharmacological properties.
Additionally, COEs provide an approach to gain new insights into microbial physiology, including membrane structure/function and mechanism of drug action/resistance, while also generating a suite of tools that enable the modulation of bacterial and mammalian membranes for scientific or manufacturing uses. Notably, further COE safety and efficacy studies are required to be conducted on a larger scale to ensure adequate understanding of the clinical benefits and risks to assure clinical efficacy and toxicity before COEs can be added to the therapeutic armamentarium. Despite these limitations, the ease of molecular design, synthesis and modular nature of COEs offer many advantages over conventional antimicrobials, making synthesis simple, scalable and affordable. It enables the construction of a spectrum of compounds with the potential for development as a new versatile therapy for the emergence and rapid global spread of pathogens that are resistant to all, or nearly all, existing antimicrobial medicines.
The following paper in Cells describes the discovery of protein interactors of endoglin, which is recruited to membranes at the TGF-β receptor complex upon TGF-β signaling. Interesting a carbohydrate binding protein, galectin-3, and an E3-ligase, TRIM21, were found to be unique interactors within this complex.
Gallardo-Vara E, Ruiz-Llorente L, Casado-Vela J, Ruiz-Rodríguez MJ, López-Andrés N, Pattnaik AK, Quintanilla M, Bernabeu C. Endoglin Protein Interactome Profiling Identifies TRIM21 and Galectin-3 as New Binding Partners. Cells. 2019 Sep 13;8(9):1082. doi: 10.3390/cells8091082. PMID: 31540324; PMCID: PMC6769930.
Abstract
Endoglin is a 180-kDa glycoprotein receptor primarily expressed by the vascular endothelium and involved in cardiovascular disease and cancer. Heterozygous mutations in the endoglin gene (ENG) cause hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia type 1, a vascular disease that presents with nasal and gastrointestinal bleeding, skin and mucosa telangiectases, and arteriovenous malformations in internal organs. A circulating form of endoglin (alias soluble endoglin, sEng), proteolytically released from the membrane-bound protein, has been observed in several inflammation-related pathological conditions and appears to contribute to endothelial dysfunction and cancer development through unknown mechanisms. Membrane-bound endoglin is an auxiliary component of the TGF-β receptor complex and the extracellular region of endoglin has been shown to interact with types I and II TGF-β receptors, as well as with BMP9 and BMP10 ligands, both members of the TGF-β family. To search for novel protein interactors, we screened a microarray containing over 9000 unique human proteins using recombinant sEng as bait. We find that sEng binds with high affinity, at least, to 22 new proteins. Among these, we validated the interaction of endoglin with galectin-3, a secreted member of the lectin family with capacity to bind membrane glycoproteins, and with tripartite motif-containing protein 21 (TRIM21), an E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase. Using human endothelial cells and Chinese hamster ovary cells, we showed that endoglin co-immunoprecipitates and co-localizes with galectin-3 or TRIM21. These results open new research avenues on endoglin function and regulation.
Endoglin is an auxiliary TGF-β co-receptor predominantly expressed in endothelial cells, which is involved in vascular development, repair, homeostasis, and disease [1,2,3,4]. Heterozygous mutations in the human ENDOGLIN gene (ENG) cause hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) type 1, a vascular disease associated with nasal and gastrointestinal bleeds, telangiectases on skin and mucosa and arteriovenous malformations in the lung, liver, and brain [4,5,6]. The key role of endoglin in the vasculature is also illustrated by the fact that endoglin-KO mice die in utero due to defects in the vascular system [7]. Endoglin expression is markedly upregulated in proliferating endothelial cells involved in active angiogenesis, including the solid tumor neovasculature [8,9]. For this reason, endoglin has become a promising target for the antiangiogenic treatment of cancer [10,11,12]. Endoglin is also expressed in cancer cells where it can behave as both a tumor suppressor in prostate, breast, esophageal, and skin carcinomas [13,14,15,16] and a promoter of malignancy in melanoma and Ewing’s sarcoma [17]. Ectodomain shedding of membrane-bound endoglin may lead to a circulating form of the protein, also known as soluble endoglin (sEng) [18,19,20]. Increased levels of sEng have been found in several vascular-related pathologies, including preeclampsia, a disease of high prevalence in pregnant women which, if left untreated, can lead to serious and even fatal complications for both mother and baby [2,18,19,21]. Interestingly, several lines of evidence support a pathogenic role of sEng in the vascular system, including endothelial dysfunction, antiangiogenic activity, increased vascular permeability, inflammation-associated leukocyte adhesion and transmigration, and hypertension [18,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Because of its key role in vascular pathology, a large number of studies have addressed the structure and function of endoglin at the molecular level, in order to better understand its mechanism of action.
Galectin-3 Interacts with Endoglin in Cells
Galectin-3 is a secreted member of the lectin family with the capacity to bind membrane glycoproteins like endoglin and is involved in the pathogenesis of many human diseases [52]. We confirmed the protein screen data for galectin-3, as evidenced by two-way co-immunoprecipitation of endoglin and galectin-3 upon co-transfection in CHO-K1 cells. As shown in Figure 1A, galectin-3 and endoglin were efficiently transfected, as demonstrated by Western blot analysis in total cell extracts. No background levels of endoglin were observed in control cells transfected with the empty vector (Ø). By contrast, galectin-3 could be detected in all samples but, as expected, showed an increased signal in cells transfected with the galectin-3 expression vector. Co-immunoprecipitation studies of these cell lysates showed that galectin-3 was present in endoglin immunoprecipitates (Figure 1B). Conversely, endoglin was also detected in galectin-3 immunoprecipitates (Figure 1C).
Figure 1. Protein–protein association between galectin-3 and endoglin. (A–C). Co-immunoprecipitation of galectin-3 and endoglin. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pcEXV-Ø (Ø), pcEXV–HA–EngFL (Eng) and pcDNA3.1–Gal-3 (Gal3) expression vectors. (A) Total cell lysates (TCL) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions, followed by Western blot (WB) analysis using specific antibodies to endoglin, galectin-3 and β-actin (loading control). Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-endoglin (B) or anti-galectin-3 (C) antibodies, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions and WB analysis with anti-endoglin or anti-galectin-3 antibodies, as indicated. Negative controls with an IgG2b (B) and IgG1 (C) were included. (D) Protein-protein interactions between galectin-3 and endoglin using Bio-layer interferometry (BLItz). The Ni–NTA biosensors tips were loaded with 7.3 µM recombinant human galectin-3/6xHis at the C-terminus (LGALS3), and protein binding was measured against 0.1% BSA in PBS (negative control) or 4.1 µM soluble endoglin (sEng). Kinetic sensorgrams were obtained using a single channel ForteBioBLItzTM instrument.
Figure 2.Galectin-3 and endoglin co-localize in human endothelial cells. Human umbilical vein-derived endothelial cell (HUVEC) monolayers were fixed with paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with Triton X-100, incubated with the mouse mAb P4A4 anti-endoglin, washed, and incubated with a rabbit polyclonal anti-galectin-3 antibody (PA5-34819). Galectin-3 and endoglin were detected by immunofluorescence upon incubation with Alexa 647 goat anti-rabbit IgG (red staining) and Alexa 488 goat anti-mouse IgG (green staining) secondary antibodies, respectively. (A) Single staining of galectin-3 (red) and endoglin (green) at the indicated magnifications. (B) Merge images plus DAPI (nuclear staining in blue) show co-localization of galectin-3 and endoglin (yellow color). Representative images of five different experiments are shown.
Endoglin associates with the cullin-type E3 ligase TRIM21
Figure 3.Protein–protein association between TRIM21 and endoglin. (A–E) Co-immunoprecipitation of TRIM21 and endoglin. A,B. HUVEC monolayers were lysed and total cell lysates (TCL) were subjected to SDS-PAGE under reducing (for TRIM21 detection) or nonreducing (for endoglin detection) conditions, followed by Western blot (WB) analysis using antibodies to endoglin, TRIM21 or β-actin (A). HUVECs lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-TRIM21 or negative control antibodies, followed by WB analysis with anti-endoglin (B). C,D. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pDisplay–HA–Mock (Ø), pDisplay–HA–EngFL (E) or pcDNA3.1–HA–hTRIM21 (T) expression vectors, as indicated. Total cell lysates (TCL) were subjected to SDS-PAGE under nonreducing conditions and WB analysis using specific antibodies to endoglin, TRIM21, and β-actin (C). Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-TRIM21 or anti-endoglin antibodies, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing (upper panel) or nonreducing (lower panel) conditions and WB analysis with anti-TRIM21 or anti-endoglin antibodies. Negative controls of appropriate IgG were included (D). E. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pcDNA3.1–HA–hTRIM21 and pDisplay–HA–Mock (Ø), pDisplay–HA–EngFL (FL; full-length), pDisplay–HA–EngEC (EC; cytoplasmic-less) or pDisplay–HA–EngTMEC (TMEC; cytoplasmic-less) expression vectors, as indicated. Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-TRIM21, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions and WB analysis with anti-endoglin antibodies, as indicated. The asterisk indicates the presence of a nonspecific band. Mr, molecular reference; Eng, endoglin; TRIM, TRIM21. (F) Protein–protein interactions between TRIM21 and endoglin using Bio-layer interferometry (BLItz). The Ni–NTA biosensors tips were loaded with 5.4 µM recombinant human TRIM21/6xHis at the N-terminus (R052), and protein binding was measured against 0.1% BSA in PBS (negative control) or 4.1 µM soluble endoglin (sEng). Kinetic sensorgrams were obtained using a single channel ForteBioBLItzTM instrument.
Table 1. Human protein-array analysis of endoglin interactors1.
1 Microarrays containing over 9000 unique human proteins were screened using recombinant sEng as a probe. Protein interactors showing the highest scores (Z-score ≥2.0) are listed. GeneBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) and UniProtKB (https://www.uniprot.org/help/uniprotkb) accession numbers are indicated with a yellow or green background, respectively. The cellular compartment of each protein was obtained from the UniProtKB webpage. Proteins selected for further studies (TRIM21 and galectin-3) are indicated in bold type with blue background.
Note: the following are from NCBI Genbank and Genecards on TRIM21
Official Symbol TRIM21provided by HGNC Official Full Name tripartite motif containing 21provided by HGNC Primary source HGNC:HGNC:11312 See related Ensembl:ENSG00000132109MIM:109092;AllianceGenome:HGNC:11312 Gene type protein coding RefSeq status REVIEWED Organism Homo sapiens Lineage Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Haplorrhini; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo Also known as SSA; RO52; SSA1; RNF81; Ro/SSA Summary This gene encodes a member of the tripartite motif (TRIM) family. The TRIM motif includes three zinc-binding domains, a RING, a B-box type 1 and a B-box type 2, and a coiled-coil region. The encoded protein is part of the RoSSA ribonucleoprotein, which includes a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. The RoSSA particle localizes to both the cytoplasm and the nucleus. RoSSA interacts with autoantigens in patients with Sjogren syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus. Alternatively spliced transcript variants for this gene have been described but the full-length nature of only one has been determined. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008] Expression Ubiquitous expression in spleen (RPKM 15.5), appendix (RPKM 13.2) and 24 other tissues See more Orthologs mouseall NEW Try the new Gene table Try the new Transcript table
This gene encodes a member of the tripartite motif (TRIM) family. The TRIM motif includes three zinc-binding domains, a RING, a B-box type 1 and a B-box type 2, and a coiled-coil region. The encoded protein is part of the RoSSA ribonucleoprotein, which includes a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. The RoSSA particle localizes to both the cytoplasm and the nucleus. RoSSA interacts with autoantigens in patients with Sjogren syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus. Alternatively spliced transcript variants for this gene have been described but the full-length nature of only one has been determined. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]
E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase whose activity is dependent on E2 enzymes, UBE2D1, UBE2D2, UBE2E1 and UBE2E2. Forms a ubiquitin ligase complex in cooperation with the E2 UBE2D2 that is used not only for the ubiquitination of USP4 and IKBKB but also for its self-ubiquitination. Component of cullin-RING-based SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein) E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase complexes such as SCF(SKP2)-like complexes. A TRIM21-containing SCF(SKP2)-like complex is shown to mediate ubiquitination of CDKN1B (‘Thr-187’ phosphorylated-form), thereby promoting its degradation by the proteasome. Monoubiquitinates IKBKB that will negatively regulates Tax-induced NF-kappa-B signaling. Negatively regulates IFN-beta production post-pathogen recognition by polyubiquitin-mediated degradation of IRF3. Mediates the ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation of IgG1 heavy chain, which is linked to the VCP-mediated ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway. Promotes IRF8 ubiquitination, which enhanced the ability of IRF8 to stimulate cytokine genes transcription in macrophages. Plays a role in the regulation of the cell cycle progression. Enhances the decapping activity of DCP2. Exists as a ribonucleoprotein particle present in all mammalian cells studied and composed of a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. At least two isoforms are present in nucleated and red blood cells, and tissue specific differences in RO/SSA proteins have been identified. The common feature of these proteins is their ability to bind HY RNAs.2. Involved in the regulation of innate immunity and the inflammatory response in response to IFNG/IFN-gamma. Organizes autophagic machinery by serving as a platform for the assembly of ULK1, Beclin 1/BECN1 and ATG8 family members and recognizes specific autophagy targets, thus coordinating target recognition with assembly of the autophagic apparatus and initiation of autophagy. Acts as an autophagy receptor for the degradation of IRF3, hence attenuating type I interferon (IFN)-dependent immune responses (PubMed:26347139, 16297862, 16316627, 16472766, 16880511, 18022694, 18361920, 18641315, 18845142, 19675099). Represses the innate antiviral response by facilitating the formation of the NMI-IFI35 complex through ‘Lys-63’-linked ubiquitination of NMI (PubMed:26342464). ( RO52_HUMAN,P19474 )
Molecular function for TRIM21 Gene according to UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot
Function:
E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase whose activity is dependent on E2 enzymes, UBE2D1, UBE2D2, UBE2E1 and UBE2E2. Forms a ubiquitin ligase complex in cooperation with the E2 UBE2D2 that is used not only for the ubiquitination of USP4 and IKBKB but also for its self-ubiquitination. Component of cullin-RING-based SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein) E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase complexes such as SCF(SKP2)-like complexes. A TRIM21-containing SCF(SKP2)-like complex is shown to mediate ubiquitination of CDKN1B (‘Thr-187’ phosphorylated-form), thereby promoting its degradation by the proteasome. Monoubiquitinates IKBKB that will negatively regulates Tax-induced NF-kappa-B signaling. Negatively regulates IFN-beta production post-pathogen recognition by polyubiquitin-mediated degradation of IRF3. Mediates the ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation of IgG1 heavy chain, which is linked to the VCP-mediated ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway. Promotes IRF8 ubiquitination, which enhanced the ability of IRF8 to stimulate cytokine genes transcription in macrophages. Plays a role in the regulation of the cell cycle progression.
Endoglin Protein Interactome Profiling Identifies TRIM21 and Galectin-3 as New Binding Partners
Gallardo-Vara E, Ruiz-Llorente L, Casado-Vela J, Ruiz-Rodríguez MJ, López-Andrés N, Pattnaik AK, Quintanilla M, Bernabeu C. Endoglin Protein Interactome Profiling Identifies TRIM21 and Galectin-3 as New Binding Partners. Cells. 2019 Sep 13;8(9):1082. doi: 10.3390/cells8091082. PMID: 31540324; PMCID: PMC6769930.
Abstract
Endoglin is a 180-kDa glycoprotein receptor primarily expressed by the vascular endothelium and involved in cardiovascular disease and cancer. Heterozygous mutations in the endoglin gene (ENG) cause hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia type 1, a vascular disease that presents with nasal and gastrointestinal bleeding, skin and mucosa telangiectases, and arteriovenous malformations in internal organs. A circulating form of endoglin (alias soluble endoglin, sEng), proteolytically released from the membrane-bound protein, has been observed in several inflammation-related pathological conditions and appears to contribute to endothelial dysfunction and cancer development through unknown mechanisms. Membrane-bound endoglin is an auxiliary component of the TGF-β receptor complex and the extracellular region of endoglin has been shown to interact with types I and II TGF-β receptors, as well as with BMP9 and BMP10 ligands, both members of the TGF-β family. To search for novel protein interactors, we screened a microarray containing over 9000 unique human proteins using recombinant sEng as bait. We find that sEng binds with high affinity, at least, to 22 new proteins. Among these, we validated the interaction of endoglin with galectin-3, a secreted member of the lectin family with capacity to bind membrane glycoproteins, and with tripartite motif-containing protein 21 (TRIM21), an E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase. Using human endothelial cells and Chinese hamster ovary cells, we showed that endoglin co-immunoprecipitates and co-localizes with galectin-3 or TRIM21. These results open new research avenues on endoglin function and regulation.
Endoglin is an auxiliary TGF-β co-receptor predominantly expressed in endothelial cells, which is involved in vascular development, repair, homeostasis, and disease [1,2,3,4]. Heterozygous mutations in the human ENDOGLIN gene (ENG) cause hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) type 1, a vascular disease associated with nasal and gastrointestinal bleeds, telangiectases on skin and mucosa and arteriovenous malformations in the lung, liver, and brain [4,5,6]. The key role of endoglin in the vasculature is also illustrated by the fact that endoglin-KO mice die in utero due to defects in the vascular system [7]. Endoglin expression is markedly upregulated in proliferating endothelial cells involved in active angiogenesis, including the solid tumor neovasculature [8,9]. For this reason, endoglin has become a promising target for the antiangiogenic treatment of cancer [10,11,12]. Endoglin is also expressed in cancer cells where it can behave as both a tumor suppressor in prostate, breast, esophageal, and skin carcinomas [13,14,15,16] and a promoter of malignancy in melanoma and Ewing’s sarcoma [17]. Ectodomain shedding of membrane-bound endoglin may lead to a circulating form of the protein, also known as soluble endoglin (sEng) [18,19,20]. Increased levels of sEng have been found in several vascular-related pathologies, including preeclampsia, a disease of high prevalence in pregnant women which, if left untreated, can lead to serious and even fatal complications for both mother and baby [2,18,19,21]. Interestingly, several lines of evidence support a pathogenic role of sEng in the vascular system, including endothelial dysfunction, antiangiogenic activity, increased vascular permeability, inflammation-associated leukocyte adhesion and transmigration, and hypertension [18,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Because of its key role in vascular pathology, a large number of studies have addressed the structure and function of endoglin at the molecular level, in order to better understand its mechanism of action.
Galectin-3 Interacts with Endoglin in Cells
Galectin-3 is a secreted member of the lectin family with the capacity to bind membrane glycoproteins like endoglin and is involved in the pathogenesis of many human diseases [52]. We confirmed the protein screen data for galectin-3, as evidenced by two-way co-immunoprecipitation of endoglin and galectin-3 upon co-transfection in CHO-K1 cells. As shown in Figure 1A, galectin-3 and endoglin were efficiently transfected, as demonstrated by Western blot analysis in total cell extracts. No background levels of endoglin were observed in control cells transfected with the empty vector (Ø). By contrast, galectin-3 could be detected in all samples but, as expected, showed an increased signal in cells transfected with the galectin-3 expression vector. Co-immunoprecipitation studies of these cell lysates showed that galectin-3 was present in endoglin immunoprecipitates (Figure 1B). Conversely, endoglin was also detected in galectin-3 immunoprecipitates (Figure 1C).
Figure 1. Protein–protein association between galectin-3 and endoglin. (A–C). Co-immunoprecipitation of galectin-3 and endoglin. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pcEXV-Ø (Ø), pcEXV–HA–EngFL (Eng) and pcDNA3.1–Gal-3 (Gal3) expression vectors. (A) Total cell lysates (TCL) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions, followed by Western blot (WB) analysis using specific antibodies to endoglin, galectin-3 and β-actin (loading control). Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-endoglin (B) or anti-galectin-3 (C) antibodies, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions and WB analysis with anti-endoglin or anti-galectin-3 antibodies, as indicated. Negative controls with an IgG2b (B) and IgG1 (C) were included. (D) Protein-protein interactions between galectin-3 and endoglin using Bio-layer interferometry (BLItz). The Ni–NTA biosensors tips were loaded with 7.3 µM recombinant human galectin-3/6xHis at the C-terminus (LGALS3), and protein binding was measured against 0.1% BSA in PBS (negative control) or 4.1 µM soluble endoglin (sEng). Kinetic sensorgrams were obtained using a single channel ForteBioBLItzTM instrument.
Figure 2.Galectin-3 and endoglin co-localize in human endothelial cells. Human umbilical vein-derived endothelial cell (HUVEC) monolayers were fixed with paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with Triton X-100, incubated with the mouse mAb P4A4 anti-endoglin, washed, and incubated with a rabbit polyclonal anti-galectin-3 antibody (PA5-34819). Galectin-3 and endoglin were detected by immunofluorescence upon incubation with Alexa 647 goat anti-rabbit IgG (red staining) and Alexa 488 goat anti-mouse IgG (green staining) secondary antibodies, respectively. (A) Single staining of galectin-3 (red) and endoglin (green) at the indicated magnifications. (B) Merge images plus DAPI (nuclear staining in blue) show co-localization of galectin-3 and endoglin (yellow color). Representative images of five different experiments are shown.
Endoglin associates with the cullin-type E3 ligase TRIM21
Figure 3.Protein–protein association between TRIM21 and endoglin. (A–E) Co-immunoprecipitation of TRIM21 and endoglin. A,B. HUVEC monolayers were lysed and total cell lysates (TCL) were subjected to SDS-PAGE under reducing (for TRIM21 detection) or nonreducing (for endoglin detection) conditions, followed by Western blot (WB) analysis using antibodies to endoglin, TRIM21 or β-actin (A). HUVECs lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-TRIM21 or negative control antibodies, followed by WB analysis with anti-endoglin (B). C,D. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pDisplay–HA–Mock (Ø), pDisplay–HA–EngFL (E) or pcDNA3.1–HA–hTRIM21 (T) expression vectors, as indicated. Total cell lysates (TCL) were subjected to SDS-PAGE under nonreducing conditions and WB analysis using specific antibodies to endoglin, TRIM21, and β-actin (C). Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-TRIM21 or anti-endoglin antibodies, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing (upper panel) or nonreducing (lower panel) conditions and WB analysis with anti-TRIM21 or anti-endoglin antibodies. Negative controls of appropriate IgG were included (D). E. CHO-K1 cells were transiently transfected with pcDNA3.1–HA–hTRIM21 and pDisplay–HA–Mock (Ø), pDisplay–HA–EngFL (FL; full-length), pDisplay–HA–EngEC (EC; cytoplasmic-less) or pDisplay–HA–EngTMEC (TMEC; cytoplasmic-less) expression vectors, as indicated. Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-TRIM21, followed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions and WB analysis with anti-endoglin antibodies, as indicated. The asterisk indicates the presence of a nonspecific band. Mr, molecular reference; Eng, endoglin; TRIM, TRIM21. (F) Protein–protein interactions between TRIM21 and endoglin using Bio-layer interferometry (BLItz). The Ni–NTA biosensors tips were loaded with 5.4 µM recombinant human TRIM21/6xHis at the N-terminus (R052), and protein binding was measured against 0.1% BSA in PBS (negative control) or 4.1 µM soluble endoglin (sEng). Kinetic sensorgrams were obtained using a single channel ForteBioBLItzTM instrument.
Table 1. Human protein-array analysis of endoglin interactors1.
1 Microarrays containing over 9000 unique human proteins were screened using recombinant sEng as a probe. Protein interactors showing the highest scores (Z-score ≥2.0) are listed. GeneBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/) and UniProtKB (https://www.uniprot.org/help/uniprotkb) accession numbers are indicated with a yellow or green background, respectively. The cellular compartment of each protein was obtained from the UniProtKB webpage. Proteins selected for further studies (TRIM21 and galectin-3) are indicated in bold type with blue background.
Note: the following are from NCBI Genbank and Genecards on TRIM21
This gene encodes a member of the tripartite motif (TRIM) family. The TRIM motif includes three zinc-binding domains, a RING, a B-box type 1 and a B-box type 2, and a coiled-coil region. The encoded protein is part of the RoSSA ribonucleoprotein, which includes a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. The RoSSA particle localizes to both the cytoplasm and the nucleus. RoSSA interacts with autoantigens in patients with Sjogren syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus. Alternatively spliced transcript variants for this gene have been described but the full-length nature of only one has been determined. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]
Expression
Ubiquitous expression in spleen (RPKM 15.5), appendix (RPKM 13.2) and 24 other tissues See more
This gene encodes a member of the tripartite motif (TRIM) family. The TRIM motif includes three zinc-binding domains, a RING, a B-box type 1 and a B-box type 2, and a coiled-coil region. The encoded protein is part of the RoSSA ribonucleoprotein, which includes a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. The RoSSA particle localizes to both the cytoplasm and the nucleus. RoSSA interacts with autoantigens in patients with Sjogren syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus. Alternatively spliced transcript variants for this gene have been described but the full-length nature of only one has been determined. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]
E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase whose activity is dependent on E2 enzymes, UBE2D1, UBE2D2, UBE2E1 and UBE2E2. Forms a ubiquitin ligase complex in cooperation with the E2 UBE2D2 that is used not only for the ubiquitination of USP4 and IKBKB but also for its self-ubiquitination. Component of cullin-RING-based SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein) E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase complexes such as SCF(SKP2)-like complexes. A TRIM21-containing SCF(SKP2)-like complex is shown to mediate ubiquitination of CDKN1B (‘Thr-187’ phosphorylated-form), thereby promoting its degradation by the proteasome. Monoubiquitinates IKBKB that will negatively regulates Tax-induced NF-kappa-B signaling. Negatively regulates IFN-beta production post-pathogen recognition by polyubiquitin-mediated degradation of IRF3. Mediates the ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation of IgG1 heavy chain, which is linked to the VCP-mediated ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway. Promotes IRF8 ubiquitination, which enhanced the ability of IRF8 to stimulate cytokine genes transcription in macrophages. Plays a role in the regulation of the cell cycle progression. Enhances the decapping activity of DCP2. Exists as a ribonucleoprotein particle present in all mammalian cells studied and composed of a single polypeptide and one of four small RNA molecules. At least two isoforms are present in nucleated and red blood cells, and tissue specific differences in RO/SSA proteins have been identified. The common feature of these proteins is their ability to bind HY RNAs.2. Involved in the regulation of innate immunity and the inflammatory response in response to IFNG/IFN-gamma. Organizes autophagic machinery by serving as a platform for the assembly of ULK1, Beclin 1/BECN1 and ATG8 family members and recognizes specific autophagy targets, thus coordinating target recognition with assembly of the autophagic apparatus and initiation of autophagy. Acts as an autophagy receptor for the degradation of IRF3, hence attenuating type I interferon (IFN)-dependent immune responses (PubMed:26347139, 16297862, 16316627, 16472766, 16880511, 18022694, 18361920, 18641315, 18845142, 19675099). Represses the innate antiviral response by facilitating the formation of the NMI-IFI35 complex through ‘Lys-63’-linked ubiquitination of NMI (PubMed:26342464). ( RO52_HUMAN,P19474 )
Molecular function for TRIM21 Gene according to UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot
Function:
E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase whose activity is dependent on E2 enzymes, UBE2D1, UBE2D2, UBE2E1 and UBE2E2. Forms a ubiquitin ligase complex in cooperation with the E2 UBE2D2 that is used not only for the ubiquitination of USP4 and IKBKB but also for its self-ubiquitination. Component of cullin-RING-based SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box protein) E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase complexes such as SCF(SKP2)-like complexes. A TRIM21-containing SCF(SKP2)-like complex is shown to mediate ubiquitination of CDKN1B (‘Thr-187’ phosphorylated-form), thereby promoting its degradation by the proteasome. Monoubiquitinates IKBKB that will negatively regulates Tax-induced NF-kappa-B signaling. Negatively regulates IFN-beta production post-pathogen recognition by polyubiquitin-mediated degradation of IRF3. Mediates the ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation of IgG1 heavy chain, which is linked to the VCP-mediated ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway. Promotes IRF8 ubiquitination, which enhanced the ability of IRF8 to stimulate cytokine genes transcription in macrophages. Plays a role in the regulation of the cell cycle progression.
Other Articles in this Open Access Scientific Journal on Galectins and Proteosome Include
Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) are a promising new class of drugs that selectively degrade cellular proteins of interest. PROTACs that target oncogene products are avidly being explored for cancer therapies, and several are currently in clinical trials. Drug resistance is a substantial challenge in clinical oncology, and resistance to PROTACs has been reported in several cancer cell models. Here, using proteomic analysis, we found intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms to PROTACs in cancer cell lines mediated by greater abundance or production of the drug efflux pump MDR1. PROTAC-resistant cells were resensitized to PROTACs by genetic ablation of ABCB1 (which encodes MDR1) or by coadministration of MDR1 inhibitors. In MDR1-overexpressing colorectal cancer cells, degraders targeting either the kinases MEK1/2 or the oncogenic mutant GTPase KRASG12C synergized with the dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB)/MDR1 inhibitor lapatinib. Moreover, compared with single-agent therapies, combining MEK1/2 degraders with lapatinib improved growth inhibition of MDR1-overexpressing KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer xenografts in mice. Together, our findings suggest that concurrent blockade of MDR1 will likely be required with PROTACs to achieve durable protein degradation and therapeutic response in cancer.
INTRODUCTION
Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) have emerged as a revolutionary new class of drugs that use cancer cells’ own protein destruction machinery to selectively degrade essential tumor drivers (1). PROTACs are small molecules with two functional ends, wherein one end binds to the protein of interest, whereas the other binds to an E3 ubiquitin ligase (2, 3), bringing the ubiquitin ligase to the target protein, leading to its ubiquitination and subsequent degradation by the proteasome. PROTACs have enabled the development of drugs against previously “undruggable” targets and require neither catalytic activity nor high-affinity target binding to achieve target degradation (4). In addition, low doses of PROTACs can be highly effective at inducing degradation, which can reduce off-target toxicity associated with high dosing of traditional inhibitors (3). PROTACs have been developed for a variety of cancer targets, including oncogenic kinases (5), epigenetic proteins (6), and, recently, KRASG12C proteins (7). PROTACs targeting the androgen receptor or estrogen receptor are avidly being evaluated in clinical trials for prostate cancer (NCT03888612) or breast cancer (NCT04072952), respectively.
However, PROTACs may not escape the overwhelming challenge of drug resistance that befalls so many cancer therapies (8). Resistance to PROTACs in cultured cells has been shown to involve genomic alterations in their E3 ligase targets, such as decreased expression of Cereblon (CRBN), Von Hippel Lindau (VHL), or Cullin2 (CUL2) (9–11). Up-regulation of the drug efflux pump encoded by ABCB1—MDR1 (multidrug resistance 1), a member of the superfamily of adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP)–binding cassette (ABC) transporters—has been shown to convey drug resistance to many anticancer drugs, including chemotherapy agents, kinase inhibitors, and other targeted agents (12). Recently, PROTACs were shown to be substrates for MDR1 (10, 13), suggesting that drug efflux represents a potential limitation for degrader therapies. Here, using degraders (PROTACs) against bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) bromodomain (BBD) proteins and cyclin-dependent kinase 9 (CDK9) as a proof of concept, we applied proteomics to define acquired resistance mechanisms to PROTAC therapies in cancer cells after chronic exposure. Our study reveals a role for the drug efflux pump MDR1 in both acquired and intrinsic resistance to protein degraders in cancer cells and supports combination therapies involving PROTACs and MDR1 inhibitors to achieve durable protein degradation and therapeutic responses.
Fig. 1. Proteomic characterization of degrader-resistant cancer cell lines. (A) Workflow for identifying protein targets up-regulated in degrader-resistant cancer cells. Single-run proteome analysis was performed, and changes in protein levels among parent and resistant cells were determined by LFQ. m/z, mass/charge ratio. (B and C) Cell viability assessed by CellTiter-Glo in parental and dBET6- or Thal SNS 032–resistant A1847 cells treated with increasing doses of dBET6 (B) or Thal SNS 032 (C) for 5 days. Data were analyzed as % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. Growth inhibitory 50% (GI50) values were determined using Prism software. (D to G) Immunoblotting for degrader targets and downstream signaling in parental A1847 cells and their derivative dBET6-R or Thal-R cells treated with increasing doses of dBET6 or Thal SNS 032 for 4 hours. The dBET6-R and Thal-R cells were continuously cultured in 500 nM PROTAC. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 values, quantitating either (E) the dose of dBET6 that reduces BRD2, BRD3, or BRD4 or (G) the dose of Thal SNS 032 that reduces CDK9 protein levels 50% of the DMSO control treatment, were determined with Prism software. Pol II, polymerase II. (H to K) Volcano plot of proteins with increased or reduced abundance in dBET6-R (H) or Thal-R (I) A1847 cells relative to parental cells. Differences in protein log2 LFQ intensities among degrader-resistant and parental cells were determined by paired t test permutation-based adjusted P values at FDR of <0.05 using Perseus software. The top 10 up-regulated proteins in each are shown in (J) and (K), respectively. FC, fold change. (L and M) ABCB1 log2 LFQ values in dBET6-R cells from (H) and Thal-R cells from (I) compared with those in parental A1847 cells. Data are presented as means ± SD from three independent assays. By paired t test permutation-based adjusted P values at FDR of <0.05 using Perseus software, ***P ≤ 0.001. (N) Cell viability assessed by CellTiter-Glo in parental and MZ1-resistant SUM159 cells treated with increasing doses of MZ1 for 5 days. Data were analyzed as % of DMSO control, presented as means of three independent assays. GI50 values were determined using Prism software. (O and P) Immunoblotting for degrader targets and downstream signaling in parental or MZ1-R SUM159 cells treated with increasing doses of MZ1 for 24 hours. The MZ1-R cells were continuously cultured in 500 nM MZ1. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 values were determined in Prism software. (Q and R) Top 10 up-regulated proteins (Q) and ABCB1 log2 LFQ values (R) in MZ1-R cells relative to parental SUM159 cells
Fig. 2. Chronic exposure to degraders induces MDR1 expression and drug efflux activity. (A) ABCB1 mRNA levels in parental and degrader-resistant cell lines as determined by qRT-PCR. Data are means ± SD of three independent experiments. ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (B) Immunoblot analysis of MDR1 protein levels in parental and degrader-resistant cell lines. Blots are representative of three independent experiments. (C to E) Immunofluorescence (“IF”) microscopy of MDR1 protein levels in A1847 dBET6-R (C), SUM159 MZ1-R (D), and Thal-R A1847 cells (E) relative to parental cells. Nuclear staining by DAPI. Images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bars, 100 μm. (F) Drug efflux activity in A1847 dBET6-R, SUM159 MZ1-R, and Thal-R A1847 cells relative to parental cells (Par.) using rhodamine 123 efflux assays. Bars are means ± SD of three independent experiments. ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (G) Intracellular dBET6 levels in parental or dBET-R A1847 cells transfected with a CRBN sensor and treated with increasing concentrations of dBET6. Intracellular dBET6 levels measured using the CRBN NanoBRET target engagement assay. Data were analyzed as % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, and ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (H and I) FISH analysis of representative drug-sensitive parental and drug-resistant A1847 (H) and SUM159 (I) cells using ABCB1 and control XCE 7 centromere probes. Images of interphase nuclei were captured with a Metasystems Metafer microscope workstation, and the raw images were extracted and processed to depict ABCB1 signals in magenta, centromere 7 signals in cyan, and DAPI-stained nuclei in blue. (J and K) CpG methylation status of the ABCB1 downstream promoter (coordinates: chr7.87,600,166-87,601,336) by bisulfite amplicon sequencing in parent and degrader-resistant A1847 (J) and SUM159 (K) cells. Images depict the averaged percentage of methylation for each region of the promoter, where methylation status is depicted by color as follows: red, methylated; blue, unmethylated. Schematic of the ABCB1 gene with the location of individual CpG sites is shown. Graphs are representative of three independent experiments. (L and M) Immunoblot analysis of MDR1 protein levels after short-term exposure [for hours (h) or days (d) as indicated] to BET protein degraders dBET6 or MZ1 (100 nM) in A1847 (L) and SUM159 (M) cells, respectively. Blots are representative of three independent experiments. (N to P) Immunoblot analysis of MDR1 protein levels in A1847 and SUM159 cells after long-term exposure (7 to 30 days) to BET protein degraders dBET6 (N), Thal SNS 032 (O), or MZ1 (P), each at 500 nM. Blots are representative of three independent experiments. (Q and R) Immunoblot analysis of MDR1 protein levels in degrader-resistant A1847 (Q) and SUM159 (R) cells after PROTAC removal for 2 or 7 days. Blots are representative of three independent experiments.
Fig. 3. Blockade of MDR1 activity resensitizes degrader-resistant cells to PROTACs. (A and B) Cell viability by CellTiter-Glo assay in parental and degrader-resistant A1847 (A) and SUM159 (B) cells transfected with control siRNA or siRNAs targeting ABCB1 and cultured for 120 hours. Data were analyzed as % of control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (C and D) Immunoblot analysis of degrader targets after ABCB1 knockdown in parental and degrader-resistant A1847 (C) and SUM159 (D) cells. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses using ImageJ are means ± SD of three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. (E) Drug efflux activity, using the rhodamine 123 efflux assay, in degrader-resistant cells after MDR1 inhibition by tariquidar (0.1 μM). Data are means ± SD of three independent experiments. ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (F to H) Cell viability by CellTiter-Glo assay in parental and dBET6-R (F) or Thal-R (G) A1847 cells or MZ1-R SUM159 cells (H) treated with increasing concentrations of tariquidar. Data are % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. GI50 value determined with Prism software. (I to K) Immunoblot analysis of degrader targets after MDR1 inhibition (tariquidar, 0.1 μM for 24 hours) in parental and degrader-resistant A1847 cells (I and J) and SUM159 cells (K). Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. (L and M) A 14-day colony formation assessed by crystal violet staining of (L) A1847 cells or (M) SUM159 cells treated with degrader (0.1 μM; dBET6 or MZ1, respectively) and MDR1 inhibitor tariquidar (0.1 μM). Images are representative of three biological replicates. (N) Immunoblotting for MDR1 in SUM159 cells stably expressing FLAG-MDR1 after selection with hygromycin. (O) Long-term 14-day colony formation assay of SUM159 cells expressing FLAG-MDR1 that were treated with DMSO, MZ1 (0.1 μM), or MZ1 and tariquidar (0.1 μM) for 14 days, assessed by crystal violet staining. Representative images of three biological replicates are shown. (P and Q) RT-PCR (P) and immunoblot (Q) analysis of ABCB1 mRNA and MDR1 protein levels, respectively, in parental or MZ1-R HCT116, OVCAR3, and MOLT4 cells.
Fig. 4. Overexpression of MDR1 conveys intrinsic resistance to degrader therapies in cancer cells. (A) Frequency of ABCB1 mRNA overexpression in a panel of cancer cell lines, obtained from cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics using Z-score values of >1.2 for ABCB1 mRNA levels (30). (B) Immunoblot for MDR1 protein levels in a panel of 10 cancer cell lines. Blots are representative of three independent experiments. (C) Cell viability by CellTiter-Glo assay in cancer cell lines expressing high or low MDR1 protein levels and treated with Thal SNS 032 for 5 days. Data were analyzed as % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. GI50 values were determined with Prism software. (D to F) Immunoblot analysis of CDK9 in MDR1-low (D) or MDR1-high (E) cell lines after Thal SNS 032 treatment for 4 hours. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses using ImageJ are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value determined with Prism. (G and H) Immunoblotting of control and MDR1-knockdown DLD-1 cells treated for 4 hours with increasing concentrations of Thal SNS 032 [indicated in (H)]. Blots are representative, and densitometric analysis data are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value determined with Prism. (I) Drug efflux activity using rhodamine 123 efflux assays in DLD-1 cells treated with DMSO or 0.1 μM tariquidar. Data are means ± SD of three independent experiments. ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (J) Intracellular Thal SNS 032 levels, using the CRBN NanoBRET target engagement assay, in MDR1-overexpressing DLD-1 cells treated with DMSO or 0.1 μM tariquidar and increasing doses of Thal SNS 032. Data are % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. **P ≤ 0.01 and ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test. (K to N) Immunoblotting in DLD-1 cells treated with increasing doses of Thal SNS 032 (K and L) or dBET6 (M and N) alone or with tariquidar (0.1 μM) for 4 hours. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value of Thal SNS 032 for CDK9 reduction (L) or of dBET6 for BRD4 reduction (N) determined with Prism. (O to T) Bliss synergy scores based on cell viability by CellTiter-Glo assay, colony formation, and immunoblotting in DLD-1 cells treated with the indicated doses of Thal SNS 032 (O to Q) or dBET6 (R to T) alone or with tariquidar. Cells were treated for 14 days for colony formation assays and 24 hours for immunoblotting.
Fig. 5. Repurposing dual kinase/MDR1 inhibitors to overcome degrader resistance in cancer cells. (A and B) Drug efflux activity by rhodamine 123 efflux assays in degrader-resistant [dBET-R (A) or Thal-R (B)] A1847 cells after treatment with tariquidar, RAD001, or lapatinib (each 2 μM). Data are means ± SD of three independent experiments. *P ≤ 0.05 by Student’s t test. (C and D) CellTiter-Glo assay for the cell viability of parental, dBET6-R, or Thal-R A1847 cells treated with increasing concentrations of RAD001 (C) or lapatinib (D). Data were analyzed as % of DMSO control, presented as means ± SD of three independent assays. GI50 values were determined with Prism software. (E to I) Immunoblot analysis of degrader targets in parental (E), dBET6-R (F and G), and Thal-R (H and I) A1847 cells treated with increasing concentrations of RAD001 or lapatinib for 4 hours. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value of dBET6 for BRD4 reduction (G) or of Thal SNS 032 for CDK9 reduction (I) determined with Prism. (J) Immunoblotting for cleaved PARP in dBET6-R or Thal-R A1847 cells treated with RAD001, lapatinib, or tariquidar (each 2 μM) for 24 hours. Blots are representative of three independent blots. (K to N) Immunoblotting for BRD4 in DLD-1 cells treated with increasing doses of dBET6 alone or in combination with either RAD001 or lapatinib [each 2 μM (K and L)] or KU-0063794 or afatinib [each 2 μM (M and N)] for 4 hours. Blots are representative of three independent experiments and, in (L), are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value for BRD4 reduction (L) determined in Prism. (O) Colony formation by DLD-1 cells treated with DMSO, dBET6 (0.1 μM), lapatinib (2 μM), afatinib (2 μM), RAD001 (2 μM), KU-0063794 (2 μM), or the combination of inhibitor and dBET6 for 14 days. Images representative of three independent assays. (P and Q) Immunoblotting for CDK9 in DLD-1 cells treated with increasing doses of Thal SNS 032 and/or RAD001 (2 μM) or lapatinib (2 μM) for 4 hours. Blots are representative, and densitometric analyses are means ± SD from three blots, each normalized to the loading control, GAPDH. DC50 value for CDK9 reduction determined with Prism (Q). (R) Colony formation in DLD-1 cells treated with DMSO, Thal SNS 032 (0.5 μM), lapatinib (2 μM), and/or RAD001 (2 μM) as indicated for 14 days.
Fig. 6. Combining MEK1/2 degraders with lapatinib synergistically kills MDR1-overexpressing KRAS-mutant CRC cells and tumors. (A and B) ABCB1 expression in KRAS-mutant CRC cell lines from cBioPortal (30) (A) and MDR1 abundance in select KRAS-mutant CRC cell lines (B). (C) Cell viability assessed by CellTiter-Glo in CRC cells treated with increasing doses of MS432 for 5 days, analyzed as % of DMSO control. GI50 value determined with Prism software. (D) Colony formation by CRC cells 14 days after treatment with 1 μM MS432. (E) MEK1/2 protein levels assessed by immunoblot in CRC lines SKCO1 (low MDR1) or LS513 (high MDR1) treated with increasing doses of MS432 for 4 hours. (F) Rhodamine 123 efflux in LS513 cells treated with DMSO, 2 μM tariquidar, or 2 μM lapatinib. (G and H) Immunoblotting analysis in LS513 cells treated with increasing doses of MS432 alone or in combination with tariquidar (0.1 μM) or lapatinib (5 μM) for 24 hours. DC50 value for MEK1 levels determined with Prism. (I) Immunoblotting in LS513 cells treated with DMSO, PD0325901 (0.01 μM), lapatinib (5 μM), or the combination for 48 hours. (J and K) Immunoblotting in LS513 cells treated either with DMSO, MS432 (1 μM), tariquidar (0.1 μM) (J), or lapatinib (5 μM) (K), alone or in combination. (L) Bliss synergy scores determined from cell viability assays (CellTiter-Glo) in LS513 cells treated with increasing concentrations of MS432, lapatinib, or the combination. (M and N) Colony formation by LS513 cells (M) and others (N) treated with DMSO, lapatinib (2 μM), MS432 (1 μM), or the combination for 14 days. (O and P) Immunoblotting in LS513 cells treated with increasing doses of MS934 alone (O) or combined with lapatinib (5 μM) (P) for 24 hours. (Q and R) Tumor volume of LS513 xenografts (Q) and the body weights of the tumor-bearing nude mice (R) treated with vehicle, MS934 (50 mg/kg), lapatinib (100 mg/kg), or the combination. n = 5 mice per treatment group. In (A) to (R), blots and images are representative of three independent experiments, and quantified data are means ± SD [SEM in (Q) and (R)] of three independent experiments; ***P ≤ 0.001 by Student’s t test.
Fig. 7. Lapatinib treatment improves KRASG12C degrader therapies in MDR1-overexpressing CRC cell lines. (A and B) Colony formation by SW1463 (A) or SW837 (B) cells treated with DMSO, LC-2 (1 μM), or MRTX849 (1 μM) for 14 days. Images representative of three independent assays. (C to E) Immunoblotting in SW1463 cells (C and D) and SW837 cells (E) treated with DMSO, LC-2 (1 μM), tariquidar (0.1 μM) (C), or lapatinib (5 μM) (D and E) alone or in combination for 48 hours. Blots are representative of three independent experiments. (F and G) Bliss synergy scores based on CellTiter-Glo assay for the cell viability of SW1463 (F) or SW837 (G) cells treated with increasing concentrations of LC-2, lapatinib, or the combination. Data are means of three experiments ± SD. (H and I) Colony formation of SW1463 (H) or SW837 (I) cells treated as indicated (−, DMSO; LC-2, 1 μM; lapatinib, 2 μM; tariquidar, 0.1 μM) for 14 days. Images representative of three independent assays. (J) Rationale for combining lapatinib with MEK1/2 or KRASG12C degraders in MDR1-overexpressing CRC cell lines. Simultaneous blockade of MDR1 and ErbB receptor signaling overcomes degrader resistance and ErbB receptor kinome reprogramming, resulting in sustained inhibition of KRAS effector signaling.
Sperm damage and fertility problem due to COVID-19
Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.
Many couples initially deferred attempts at pregnancy or delayed fertility care due to concerns about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One significant fear during the COVID-19 pandemic was the possibility of sexual transmission. Many couples have since resumed fertility care while accepting the various uncertainties associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2), including the evolving knowledge related to male reproductive health. Significant research has been conducted exploring viral shedding, tropism, sexual transmission, the impact of male reproductive hormones, and possible implications to semen quality. However, to date, limited definitive evidence exists regarding many of these aspects, creating a challenging landscape for both patients and physicians to obtain and provide the best clinical care.
According to a new study, which looked at sperm quality in patients who suffered symptomatic coronavirus (COVID-19) infections, showed that it could impact fertility for weeks after recovery from the virus. The data showed 60% COVID-19 infected men had reduction in sperm motility and 37% had drop in sperm count, but, 2 months after recovery from COVID-19 the value came down to 28% and 6% respectively. The researchers also of the view that COVID-19 could not be sexually transmitted through semen after a person had recovered from illness. Patients with mild and severe cases of COVID-19 showed similar rate of drop in sperm quality. But further work is required to establish whether or not COVID-19 could have a longer-term impact on fertility. The estimated recovery time is three months, but further follow-up studies are still required to confirm this and to determine if permanent damage occurred in a minority of men.
Some viruses like influenza are already known to damage sperm mainly by increasing body temperature. But in the case of COVID-19, the researchers found no link between the presence or severity of fever and sperm quality. Tests showed that higher concentrations of specific COVID-19 antibodies in patients’ blood serum were strongly correlated with reduced sperm function. So, it was believed the sperm quality reduction cause could be linked to the body’s immune response to the virus. While the study showed that there was no COVID-19 RNA present in the semen of patients who had got over the virus, the fact that antibodies were attacking sperm suggests the virus may cross the blood-testis barrier during the peak of an infection.
It was found in a previous report that SARS-CoV-2 can be present in the semen of patients with COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 may still be detected in the semen of recovering patients. Due to imperfect blood-testes/deferens/epididymis barriers, SARS-CoV-2 might be seeded to the male reproductive tract, especially in the presence of systemic local inflammation. Even if the virus cannot replicate in the male reproductive system, it may persist, possibly resulting from the privileged immunity of testes.
If it could be proved that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted sexually in future studies, sexual transmission might be a critical part of the prevention of transmission, especially considering the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the semen of recovering patients. Abstinence or condom use might be considered as preventive means for these patients. In addition, it is worth noting that there is a need for studies monitoring fetal development. Therefore, to avoid contact with the patient’s saliva and blood may not be enough, since the survival of SARS-CoV-2 in a recovering patient’s semen maintains the likelihood to infect others. But further studies are required with respect to the detailed information about virus shedding, survival time, and concentration in semen.
Infertility has been primarily treated as a female predicament but around one-half of infertility cases can be tracked to male factors. Clinically, male infertility is typically determined using measures of semen quality recommended by World Health Organization (WHO). A major limitation, however, is that standard semen analyses are relatively poor predictors of reproductive capacity and success. Despite major advances in understanding the molecular and cellular functions in sperm over the last several decades, semen analyses remain the primary method to assess male fecundity and fertility.
Chronological age is a significant determinant of human fecundity and fertility. The disease burden of infertility is likely to continue to rise as parental age at the time of conception has been steadily increasing. While the emphasis has been on the effects of advanced maternal age on adverse reproductive and offspring health, new evidence suggests that, irrespective of maternal age, higher male age contributes to longer time-to-conception, poor pregnancy outcomes and adverse health of the offspring in later life. The effect of chronological age on the genomic landscape of DNA methylation is profound and likely occurs through the accumulation of maintenance errors of DNA methylation over the lifespan, which have been originally described as epigenetic drift.
In recent years, the strong relation between age and DNA methylation profiles has enabled the development of statistical models to estimate biological age in most somatic tissue via different epigenetic ‘clock’ metrics, such as DNA methylation age and epigenetic age acceleration, which describe the degree to which predicted biological age deviates from chronological age. In turn, these epigenetic clock metrics have emerged as novel biomarkers of a host of phenotypes such as allergy and asthma in children, early menopause, increased incidence of cancer types and cardiovascular-related diseases, frailty and cognitive decline in adults. They also display good predictive ability for cancer, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
Epigenetic clock metrics are powerful tools to better understand the aging process in somatic tissue as well as their associations with adverse disease outcomes and mortality. Only a few studies have constructed epigenetic clocks specific to male germ cells and only one study reported that smokers trended toward an increased epigenetic age compared to non-smokers. These results indicate that sperm epigenetic clocks hold promise as a novel biomarker for reproductive health and/or environmental exposures. However, the relation between sperm epigenetic clocks and reproductive outcomes has not been examined.
There is a critical need for new measures of male fecundity for assessing overall reproductive success among couples in the general population. Data shows that sperm epigenetic clocks may fulfill this need as a novel biomarker that predicts pregnancy success among couples not seeking fertility treatment. Such a summary measure of sperm biological age is of clinical importance as it allows couples in the general population to realize their probability of achieving pregnancy during natural intercourse, thereby informing and expediting potential infertility treatment decisions. With the ability to customize high throughput DNA methylation arrays and capture sequencing approaches, the integration of the epigenetic clocks as part of standard clinical care can enhance our understanding of idiopathic infertility and the paternal contribution to reproductive success and offspring health.
Read key takeaways from the 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum in this report from the Bank of America Institute. #WMIF2022
Quote Tweet
Bank of America News
@BofA_News
· May 6
What are the 12 emerging #GeneAndCellTherapy technologies with the greatest potential to transform #healthcare? Read our report for key takeaways from #WMIF2022. @MassGenBrigham
Read key takeaways from the 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum in this report from the Bank of America Institute. #WMIF2022
Quote Tweet
Bank of America News
@BofA_News
· May 6
What are the 12 emerging #GeneAndCellTherapy technologies with the greatest potential to transform #healthcare? Read our report for key takeaways from #WMIF2022. @MassGenBrigham
The Disruptive Dozen 12 #GCT Breakthroughs that are revolutionizing Healthcare
Liz Everett Krisberg, Head of the Bank of America Institute
The Disruptive Dozen 12 GCT breakthroughs that are revolutionizing healthcare 05 May 2022 Key Takeaways • Gene and cell therapy (GCT) is widely recognized as a transformational opportunity in medicine, with the potential to stop or slow the effects of disease by targeting it at the genetic level. • The “Disruptive Dozen” identifies 12 emerging GCT technologies with the greatest potential to transform healthcare over the next several years • These breakthroughs range from restoration of sight and increasing the supply of donor organs, to treating brain cancer, hearing loss and autoimmune diseases that currently lack few or any treatment alternatives. Gene and cell therapy (GCT) technologies are transforming medicine and the approach to severe diseases like cancer, hereditary conditions including Huntington Disease and Sickle Cell, as well as rare disorders that currently have no treatment alternatives. GCT has the potential to stop or slow the effects of disease by targeting it at the genetic level, either replacing, inactivating or modifying the genetic material or by transferring live or intact cells into a patient to treat or cure disease. Even in cases where the GCT approach does not fully cure a condition, GCT has the potential to be life changing. This is because GCT treatments are often “one and done,” only requiring a single administration, which may enable a patient to manage their disease without onerous ongoing treatment cycles. While some of the first GCT applications were focused on rare and orphan diseases, recent advancements show tremendous potential opportunity for use cases with more broad applications. Beyond the messenger ribonucleic acid or mRNA vaccines that protect against infectious disease including COVID-19, GCT technologies exhibit promise to address prevalent chronic diseases such as diabetes and hearing loss, as well as central nervous system (CNS) disorders and Alzheimer’s. This week, Bank of America joined Mass General Brigham to present the World Medical Innovation Forum in Boston, where over 1,000 clinical experts, industry leaders and investors explored how to advance GCT technologies that may lead to breakthrough medical advancements and solutions. We highlight the twelve emerging GCT technologies – the “Disruptive Dozen” – with the greatest potential to impact and transform healthcare in the next several years. These breakthroughs range from restoration of sight and increasing the supply of donor organs, to treating brain cancer, hearing loss and autoimmune diseases. Restoring sight by mending broken genes Roughly 200 genes are directly linked to vision disorders. In the last several years, groundbreaking new gene therapies have emerged that can compensate for faulty genes in the eye by adding new, healthy copies — a molecular fix that promises to restore sight to those who have lost it. The approach, known as CRISPR-Cas-9 gene editing, could open the door to treating genetic forms of vision loss that are not suited to conventional gene therapy, and a host of other medical conditions. A clinical trial is now underway to evaluate a CRISPR-Cas 9 gene-editing therapy for a severe form of childhood blindness for which there currently are no treatments. Although this treatment is still experimental, it is already historic — it is the first medicine based on CRISPR-Cas-9 to be delivered in vivo, or inside a patient’s body. Similar gene-editing therapies are also under development that correct genes within blood cells. A gene editing solution to increase the supply of donor organs In the U.S. alone, more than 100,000 people need a life-saving organ transplant. But the supply of donor organs is quite limited, and every day, patients die waiting for a donor organ. One way to address this crisis is xenotransplantation — harvesting organs from animals and placing them into human patients. Advances in gene editing technology make it possible to remove, insert, or replace genes with relative ease and precision. This molecular engineering can sidestep the human immune system, which is highly adept at recognizing foreign tissues and triggering rejection. Over the last 20 years, scientists have been working to devise successful gene editing strategies that will render pig organs compatible with humans. The field has taken another major step forward in the past year: transplanting gene-edited pig organs, including the heart and kidney, into humans. While extensive clinical testing is needed before xenotransplantation becomes a reality, that future now seems within reach. I NSTI TUTE Accessible version 2 05 May 2022 I NSTI TUTE Cell therapies to conquer common forms of blindness The eye has been a proving ground for pioneering gene therapies and is also fueling new cell-based therapies than can restore sight, offering a functional cure by replacing critical cells that have been lost or injured. One approach involves stem cells from the retina that can give rise to light-sensitive cells, called photoreceptors, which are required for healthy vision. Scientists are harnessing retinal stem cells to develop treatments for incurable eye diseases, including retinitis pigmentosa. Because the immune system doesn’t patrol the eye as aggressively as other parts of the body, retinal stem cells from unrelated, healthy donors can be transplanted into patients with vision disorders. Other progress includes cell therapies that harness patients’ own cells, for example, from blood or skin, that can be converted into almost any cell type in the body, including retinal cells. Another novel treatment being tested utilizes stem cells from a patient’s healthy eye to repair the affected cornea of the other eye. Harnessing the power of RNA to treat brain cancer RNA is widely known for its helper functions, carrying messages from one part of a cell to another to make proteins. But scientists now recognize that RNA plays a more central role in biology and are tapping its hidden potential to create potent new therapies for a range of diseases, including a devastating form of brain cancer called glioblastoma. This cancer is extremely challenging to treat and highly adaptable. New approaches that either target RNA or mimic its activity could hold promise, including an intriguing class of RNA molecules called microRNAs. One team identified a trio of microRNAs that plays important roles in healthy neurons but is lost when brain cancer develops. These microRNAs can be stitched together into a single unit and delivered into the brain using a virus. Initial studies in mice reveal that this therapeutic can render tumors more vulnerable to existing treatments, including chemotherapy. Another team is also exploring a microRNA called miR-10b. Blocking its activity causes tumor cells to die. Now, scientists are working to develop a targeted therapeutic against miR-10b that can be tested in clinical trials. Realizing the promise of gene therapy for brain disorders Gene therapy holds enormous promise for serious and currently untreatable diseases, including those of the brain and central nervous system. But some big obstacles remain. For example, a commonly-used vehicle for gene therapy — a virus called AAV — cannot penetrate a major biological roadblock, the blood-brain barrier. Now, researchers are engineering new versions of AAV that can cross the blood-brain barrier. Using various molecular strategies, a handful of teams have modified the protein shell that surrounds the virus so it can gain entry and become broadly distributed within the brain. These modified viral vectors are now under development and could begin clinical testing within a few years. Scientists are also tinkering with the inner machinery of AAV to sidestep potential toxicities. With a safe, effective method for accessing the brain, researchers will be able to devise gene therapies for a range of neurological conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases, cancers, and devastating rare diseases that lack any treatment. A flexible, programmable approach to fighting viruses The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the tremendous need for rapidly deployable therapies to counteract emerging viruses. Scientists are now developing a novel form of anti-viral therapy that can be programmed to target a range of different viruses — from well-known human pathogens, such as hepatitis C, to those less familiar, such as the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. This new approach harnesses a popular family of gene editing tools, known as CRISPR-Cas. While CRISPR-based systems have gained attention for their capacity to modify human genes, their original purpose in nature was to defend bacteria from viral infections. As a throwback to these early roots, scientists are now adapting CRISPR tools to tackle a variety of viruses that infect humans. Researchers are studying the potential of these programmable anti-viral agents in the context of several different viruses, including ones that pose significant threats to global health, such as SARS-CoV-2, hepatitis C, and HIV. On the move: Cell therapies to restore gut motility The human digestive tract — or “gut” — has its own nervous system. This second brain, known as the enteric nervous system, is comprised of neurons and support cells that carry out critical tasks, like moving food through the gut. When enteric neurons are missing or injured, gut motility can be impaired. Now, scientists are developing an innovative cell replacement therapy to treat diseases of gut motility. Donor cells can be isolated from a patient’s own gut or from a more readily available source, such as subcutaneous fat. These cells are then cultivated in the laboratory and coaxed to form the progenitors that give rise to enteric neurons. Researchers are also devising “off-the-shelf” approaches, which could create a supply of donor cells that are shielded from the immune system and can therefore be transplanted universally across different patients. Early research shows that transplanted enteric neurons can also take up residence in the brain. That means these forays in cell therapy for the gut could also help pave a path toward cell therapies for the brain and spinal cord. CAR-T cell therapies take aim at autoimmune diseases CAR-T cells have emerged as powerful treatments for some forms of cancer, especially blood cancers. By harnessing the same underlying concept — rewiring patients’ own T cells to endow them with therapeutic properties — scientists are working to develop novel CAR-T therapies for a variety of autoimmune diseases. Several research teams are engineering CAR-T cells so they can seek out and destroy harmful immune cells, such as those that produce auto-antibodies — immune proteins that help coordinate the attack on the body’s own tissues. For example, one team is using CAR-T cells to destroy certain immune cells, called B cells, as a potential treatment for lupus, a serious autoimmune disease that mainly affects women. Scientists are also 05 May 2022 3 I NSTI TUTE developing CAR-T therapies that take aim at other rogue members of the immune system. These efforts could yield novel treatments for multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. Regrowing cells in the inner ear to treat hearing loss In the U.S. alone, some 37 million people suffer from a hearing deficit. Currently, there are no drugs that can halt, prevent, or even reverse hearing loss. Scientists are working on a novel regenerative approach that could restore the cells in the inner ear required for normal hearing, offering hope to millions of patients who grapple with hearing loss. Healthy hearing requires specialized cells in the inner ear called hair cells, which have fine, hair-like projections. If the cells are damaged or lost, which often happens with age or after repeated exposure to loud sounds, the body cannot repair them. But researchers have discovered a potential workaround that can stimulate existing cells in the ear to proliferate and give rise to new hair cells. Scientists are now working to convert this molecular strategy, which is being studied in animal models, into a therapeutic that is safe and effective for hearing loss patients. New technologies for delivering gene therapies A formidable challenge in the field of gene therapy is delivery — getting gene-based therapeutics into the body and into the right target cells. Researchers are exploring the potential of new delivery methods that could expand the reach of gene therapy, including microneedles. When applied to the skin, a microneedle patch can penetrate the outermost layer with minimal pain and discomfort. This novel delivery method can readily access the legion of immune cells that reside in the skin — important targets for vaccines as well as for the treatment of various diseases, including cancer and autoimmune conditions. Another emerging technology involves an implantable device made of biodegradable materials. When placed inside the body, this device can provide localized, sustained release of therapeutics with few side effects. The approach is now being tested for the first time in cancer patients using standard chemotherapy drugs administered directly at tumor sites. In the future, this method could be customized for the delivery of gene therapy payloads, an advance that could revolutionize cancer treatment, particularly for difficult-to-treat forms like pancreatic cancer. Engineering cancer-killing cells that target solid tumors CAR-T cells are a revolutionary form of cell therapy that has yielded some remarkable cures of difficult-to-treat blood cancers. But the outcomes in other cancers have been lackluster. Now, scientists are enhancing this technology to enable new ways of treating solid tumors. One approach involves making CAR-T cells more like computers, relying on simple logic to decide which cells are cancer — and should be destroyed — and which cells are healthy and should be spared. By building several logic gates and combining them together, researchers are hoping to pave the way toward targeting new tumor types. Scientists are also devising other groundbreaking forms of cancer-killing cell therapy, including one that uses cancer cells themselves. This approach exploits a remarkable feature: once disseminated within the body, cancer cells can migrate back to the original tumor. Researchers are now harnessing this rehoming capability and, with the help of gene editing, turning tumor cells into potent cancer killers. An early version of this technology uses patients’ own cells. Now, the scientists are developing an off-the-shelf version that can be universally applied to patients. Reawakening the X-chromosome: a therapeutic strategy for devastating neurodevelopmental diseases The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes in humans, and it carries hundreds of disease-causing genes. These diseases often affect males and females differently. In females, one X chromosome is naturally, and randomly, chosen and rendered inactive. Although X-inactivation was once thought to be permanent, scientists are uncovering ways to reverse it. Scientists are now exploiting this unusual biology to reawaken the dormant X chromosome — a strategy that could yield muchneeded treatments for a group of rare, yet devastating neurodevelopmental disorders, which predominantly affect females. This new approach could hold promise for females with Rett syndrome, a severe X-linked disorder. A similar strategy could also hold promise for other serious X-linked disorders, including fragile X syndrome and CDKL5 syndrome.
Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:
UPDATED on 5/7/2022
Tweets at #WMIF2022 by @pharma_BI & @AVIVA1950 and All Retweets of these Tweets – 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum, GENE & CELL THERAPY • MAY 2–4, 2022 • BOSTON
2022 World Medical Innovation Forum, GENE & CELL THERAPY • MAY 2–4, 2022 • BOSTON • IN-PERSON
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
World Medical Innovation Forum as we bring together global leaders to assess the latest opportunities and challenges, from the investment landscape to key technology developments to manufacturing and regulatory barriers. Gain first-hand insights on medicine’s ultimate game changer.
World Medical Innovation Forum will be held June 12 – 14 in Boston, MA. We hope you’ll join us for #WMIF2023!
From: “Rieck, Lucy (BOS-WSW)” <LRieck@webershandwick.com> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:25 AM To: Aviva Lev-Ari <avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu> Subject: You’re Invited: Mass General Brigham’s World Medical Innovation Forum
Hi Aviva,
I’m reaching out to extend free registration for you or a colleague to the 8th annual World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF), taking place May 2-4 at the Westin Copley Place in Boston. This year’s event, co-sponsored with Bank of America, will explore gene and cell therapies (GCT), including the latest opportunities and challenges – from the investment landscape to key technology developments to manufacturing and regulatory barriers.
The event will feature 200 speakers – including CEOs of leading companies in the GCT and biotech fields, investors, entrepreneurs, Harvard clinicians and scientists, government officials and other key influencers – who discover, invest in, and cultivate GCT breakthroughs. Notable speakers include:
Peter Marks: Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA
Brian Moynihan: CEO, Bank of America
Anne Klibansky: President & CEO, Mass General Brigham
Senior executives from biopharma and academic institutions of all sizes (including Novartis, BMS, Takeda, Verve, UPenn)
You can view the full list of speakers here and the program agenda here.
WMIF is hosted by the Mass General Brigham health system, which comprises 14 hospitals, including two world-renowned medical centers: Mass General and Brigham & Women’s. Since 2015, the Forum has brought together global leaders to assess medical breakthroughs, the investment landscape and technology developments that have the potential to transform the industry.
In addition to a packed agenda, the 2022 “Disruptive Dozen” – 12 breakthrough technologies most likely to have significant impact on gene and cell therapy in the next 18 months – will also be announced.
Please let me know if you would be interested in attending.
Understanding long-term Gene and Cell Therapy investment complexities requires a keen awareness of where the science and the markets are headed. That’s why “The Doctor is In” in these updates on the latest GCT technologies. Presented by Mass General Brigham clinicians and innovators from the front lines of care, the sessions are co-hosted by expert analysts from Bank of America and include interactive discussion and Q&A.
In this session, Dr. Eichler will discuss the impact of gene defects across the lifespan and how timing and delivery of new genetic therapies is transforming the field of neurogenetics.
In this session, hear from experts in their field as they discuss the need and importance of regenerative medicine for the advancement in the treatment of diseases such as diabetes, kidney disease and blood disorders.
In this session, Dr. Artzi will share how an integrative approach of combining materials science, chemistry, imaging, and biology enables targeted delivery of gene therapy.
In this session, Drs. Robert Green and Adam Shaywitz will discuss how the early detection and prevention of rare diseases is imminent and represents an enormous public health opportunity.
In this session, Dr. Poznansky will share how research and development of vaccines and immunotherapy are safely accelerated from research lab to the patient leveraging novel mechanisms.
This panel features industry leaders who will discuss what the future may hold for gene and cell therapy. Which applications are likely to have the greatest impact? What are the key hurdles to be overcome? What specific platforms and technologies may enable optimal solutions? In what disease areas? Learn more about these and other questions as the panelists discuss the future potential of GCT.
Manufacturing quality and cost are critical for enabling rapid growth in GCT. Panelists will explore a variety of critical questions in this space. For example, are there historic parallels that can be drawn between GCT manufacturing and other groundbreaking technologies? How do key manufacturing concerns in GCT differ from those for more conventional pharmaceutical? What are the long-term opportunities for non-viral vectors? Will manufacturing capacity be a limiting factor in GCT growth over the next 5 to 10 years?
At the end of 2021, roughly 410 novel drugs had been approved in the past decade. On average, there were 40 approvals per year with over 150 of them being between 2018 and 2020. What has changed in the approval process and what is the vision of the future state? What will happen over the next 1–3 years? What does the new iteration of the Prescription Drug User Fees Act (PDUFA) need to do in this area and which fields show the greatest potential for innovation in CGT?
This panel will delve into clinical trials for GCT. How do these trials differ from those for conventional therapeutics? What are the key lessons learned from completed GCT trials? How is the regulatory landscape shifting and what will that mean for the future of GCT?
Dr. Bourla will share what Pfizer has learned from its leadership on mRNA and the development of the Covid vaccine that can be extrapolated to other R&D.
As we enter the third year of the coronavirus pandemic, the world is shifting to a new strategy: living with and managing COVID as a part of our everyday lives. What will the coming year look like? How will mitigation measures differ in this new phase? What about treatment strategies? Should we be bracing for another surge?
This panel will feature a discussion of global biotech clusters with a deep dive into the New England/Boston area. How does the capital availability, scale, and density of New England drive local growth in GCT? Also, the influx of large biopharmaceutical companies into the region has fueled global outcomes. What is the future impact of these investments and when will they peak? How will the biopharmaceutical landscape in New England appear in 2030?
The role of patients and their experiences are critical as the promise of GCT unfolds. This panel will discuss the patient experience and explore the challenges different patient populations face, both in rare diseases and more common conditions. Panelists will also discuss financial considerations, clinical trial access, and the role of advocacy groups in GCT.
As many countries begin to turn the corner on COVID-19, they face a resurgence of chronic illnesses, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, that were not adequately addressed during the pandemic, and for which new treatments are urgently needed. Population aging – and the resulting increase in chronic diseases associated with aging – has compounded the challenge. There’s never been a greater need for biopharmaceutical innovation – or, fortunately, a greater ability to innovate. Amgen is investing in new discovery research capabilities that portend a revolution in drug design and development.
Understanding long-term Gene and Cell Therapy investment complexities requires a keen awareness of where the science and the markets are headed. That’s why “The Doctor is In” in these updates on the latest GCT technologies. Presented by Mass General Brigham clinicians and innovators from the front lines of care, the sessions are co-hosted by expert analysts from Bank of America and include interactive discussion and Q&A.
In this session, Dr. Vavvas will discuss examples of clinical trials in rare diseases and share insights into how clinical trials should be approached for rare and ultra-rare diseases and how study design is not a one-size fits all.
In this session, hear experts weigh in on the possibilities of cell therapy development and transplantation for the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. What does the futures hold and how do we get there?
In this session, Dr. Nikiforow will provide insights into the world of gene therapy manufacturing and the complexities of scaling, costs and insurance reimbursement.
In this session, Dr. Marks will discuss the ins and outs of regulatory challenges for biological products and therapies in gene and cell therapy and the responsibility to assure safety and effectiveness.
Dark genome, accounting for ~98.5% of the human genome and containing the non-coding part, offers unprecedented opportunity to look for novel elements that could play a role in human health. This non-coding region consists of repeat elements, enhancers, regulatory sequences and non-coding RNAs. This session will explore this exciting new frontier in biology and how to translate this so called “junk” and previously ignored genome into potential novel therapeutics.
Panelists will discuss the life sciences capital markets environment with particular emphasis on private and public fundraising for GCT companies. What trends do panelists observe that will impact the availability and cost of capital for GCT? Are there novel fundraising structures that will serve GCT in the future?
As one of the foremost researchers of CAR-T cancer treatments, Dr. June will share what he believes is the next wave of cell-and-gene based oncology research and how his work set the stage for breakthrough developments in cancer.
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy, Director, Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Director, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
This panel will examine the role of academia in driving the promise of GCT. How does academic innovation contribute to the success of GCT? What are the risks and opportunities? Which models have proven most successful and what is the impact on clinical translation? How can these partnerships be accelerated?
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy, Director, Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Director, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
This panel will bring together gene and cell therapy leaders from across the world to discuss the latest opportunities and challenges in the field, from the investment landscape to key technology developments to manufacturing and regulatory barriers. These global experts will offer first-hand insights on the systemic complexity of this advancing field and its therapeutic promise.
Chronic inflammation in the brain is now recognized as a contributor to many neurodegenerative diseases, ranging from Parkinson’s disease to multiple sclerosis to Alzheimer’s disease. Are solutions to these historically intractable neurological diseases imminent or several years away? Are market-making platforms identifiable for neurological diseases? Are there novel genetic targets that can be explored? What are the prospects for cell therapies?
Cell therapies, ranging from CAR-T cells to stem-cell-based approaches, are emerging as a transformative therapeutic modality. Panelists will examine this emerging landscape and discuss a range of key topics. What drives differentiation in this space given the high number of competing technologies? How will the uptake of autologous cell therapies and allogeneic versions evolve? When will the regenerative medicine market mature?
This panel will explore how GCT technology could lead to disruptions in other areas of medicine, including surgery and medical devices, over the next several years. Could cell replacement therapy in diabetes advance enough to reduce the need for diabetes pumps or insulin? Will stem-cell-based methods for regenerating cartilage advance rapidly enough to disrupt the number of patients seeking hip and knee replacements? How is GCT driving innovations in surgical techniques?
What is the new generation of approaches to gene therapy manufacturing and delivery? What are the lessons learned from Covid and how can it be applied to custom disease response and the ability to custom design biologic organisms?
This panel will feature an in-depth discussion of the safety of gene and cell therapies. What are the unique safety concerns in this field, both acute and potential long-term risks? Which of these concerns are supported by clinical data versus the presumption of theoretical risk? What are the key issues for AAV-based gene therapies? Will redosing become feasible? What are the predominant safety concerns for in vivo versus ex vivo GCT modalities, including base editing?
The label “RNA” encompasses a wide array of biologically active agents spanning therapeutic modalities, vaccines, non-coding controls, and other forms. In this panel we will discuss a number of these forms, discuss examples of recent developments and illustrate why RNA developments represent a promising source of novel therapies and therapeutic approaches.
The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that Mass General Brigham faculty feel will break through over the next one to five years to significantly improve health care.
Tweets and Re-Tweets of Tweets by @pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 at 2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum, Mass General Brigham, Gene and Cell Therapy, VIRTUAL May 19–21, 2021
REAL TIME EVENT COVERAGE as PRESS by invitation from 2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forumat #WMIF2021 @MGBInnovation:
for sharing this screen capture of the impressive lineup of #GCT “Disruptive Dozen” panelists at #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950
· May 21
@MGBInnovation #WMIF Best Global event on Gene Cell Therapy covered in real time @AVIVA1950 @pharma_BI Disruptive Dozen technologies four are based on Gene Editing, AAV and non viral vector for drug delivery are included
PART 1: ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED by @AVIVA1950 on May 21, 2021
Bob Carter, MD, PhD Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH William and Elizabeth Sweet, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Neurogeneration REVERSAL or slowing down?
Penelope Hallett, PhD NRL, McLean Assistant Professor Psychiatry, HMS efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine genetating cells greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Roger Kitterman VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT Multi OMICS and academia originated innovations are the most attractive areas
Peter Kolchinsky, PhD Founder and Managing Partner, RA Capital Management Future proof for new comers disruptors Ex Vivo gene therapy to improve funding products what tool kit belongs to
Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Cell therapy for Parkinson to replace dopamine producing cells lost ability to produce dopamine skin cell to become autologous cells reprogramed
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH Off-th-shelf one time treatment becoming cure Intact tissue in a dish is fragile to maintain metabolism to become like semiconductors
Ole Isacson, MD, PhD Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean Professor, Neurology and Neuroscience, MGH, HMS Opportunities in the next generation of the tactical level Welcome the oprimism and energy level of all
Erin Kimbrel, PhD Executive Director, Regenerative Medicine, Astellas In the ocular space immunogenecity regulatory communication use gene editing for immunogenecity Cas1 and Cas2 autologous cells
Nabiha Saklayen, PhD CEO and Co-Founder, Cellino scale production of autologous cells foundry using semiconductor process in building cassettes by optic physicists
Joe Burns, PhD VP, Head of Biology, Decibel Therapeutics Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation control by genomics
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH first drug required to establish the process for that innovations design of animal studies not done before
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization
David Berry, MD, PhD CEO, Valo Health GP, Flagship Pioneering Bring disruptive frontier platform reliable delivery CGT double knockout disease cure all change efficiency scope human centric vs mice centered right scale acceleration
Kush Parmar, MD, PhD Managing Partner, 5AM Ventures build it yourself, benefit for patients FIrst Look at MGB shows MEE innovation on inner ear worthy investment
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Frustration with supply chain during the Pandemic, GMC anticipation in advance CGT rapidly prototype rethink and invest proactive investor .edu and Pharma
The # of US patients with Parkinson’s Disease is expected to double over next 30 years. Penelope Hallett PhD, Co-Director of the Neuroregeneration Research Inst
Marcela Maus, MD PhD, are working to expand the reach of this transformative technology. #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· 3h
Disruptive Dozen: 12 Technologies that Will Reinvent GCT #9. Building the Next Wave of CAR-T-cell Therapies #WMIF2021 #GCT #GeneAndCellTherapy #CellTherapy #CarT #DisruptiveDozen
and global colleagues at #WMIF2021. On Thursday, May 20, my colleagues and I will discuss the advantages of RNA-targeted medicines and how they might shape the future of medicine for patients.
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· May 10
Are you part of the @MassGenBrigham network and interested in #GeneAndCellTherapy? Join us at the World Medical Innovation Forum on 5/19-5/21. Register today! https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/register/ #WMIF2021
Incredible opportunity to get up to speed with the most innovative technologies in medicine ! Gene and cell therapy are revolutionizing healthcare ! #WMIF2021#MedTwitter
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· May 11
#WMIF2021 is an opportunity for innovators from around the globe to meet, explore, challenge, and reflect on the issues influencing the adoption of novel technologies in #healthcare. Register now to join the conversation: https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/register/
Currently, the only cure for some common blood disorders is a bone marrow transplant, which can be risky. Now, gene therapies are also in the works, including a CRISPR-based #genetherapy being tested in clinical trials with encouraging early results. #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· 3h
Disruptive Dozen: 12 Technologies that Will Reinvent GCT #2. A Genetic Fix for Two Common Blood Disorders #WMIF2021 #GCT #GeneAndCellTherapy #BloodDisorders #DisruptiveDozen
Researchers have pinpointed key genes involved in cholesterol and lipid metabolism that represent promising targets for new cholesterol-lowering treatments. #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· 3h
Disruptive Dozen: 12 Technologies that Will Reinvent GCT #1. A New Generation of Cholesterol-Loweing Therapies #WMIF2021 #GCT #GeneAndCellTherapy #DisruptiveDozen
I really enjoyed this remarkable panel #WMIF2021. Thank you Meredith Fisher for moderating and thank you David, Bob and Kush for openly sharing your big picture view
Variability, delays, manufacturing as an afterthought make #GCT challenging from an investment POV — need to rethink the ecosystem and drive efficiency, invest in tech innovation says Bob Nelson ARCH Venture Partners
We need to change the scale and scope of how #GCT is advancing from discovery to development — systematization critical. Can’t have thousands of one-off therapies say early-stage investors. Major mis-match between where things are now and what could be.
Today I moderated a panel on Gene and Cell Therapy Delivery, Perfecting the Technology. We highlighted non-viral delivery technologies as key enablers of gene therapy and editing. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/d-Xqzqh#WMIF2021
Congratulations to the 2021 Innovation Discovery Grants winners: @lynchielydia, Peter Sage, @GrishchukL, Benjamin Kleinstiver, Petr Baranov, announced at the #WMIF2021. It’s exciting to see the range of breakthrough research in #geneticdisease at @MassGenBrigham…
for sharing this screen capture of the impressive lineup of #GCT “Disruptive Dozen” panelists at #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950
· May 21
@MGBInnovation #WMIF Best Global event on Gene Cell Therapy covered in real time @AVIVA1950 @pharma_BI Disruptive Dozen technologies four are based on Gene Editing, AAV and non viral vector for drug delivery are included
PART 1: ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED by @AVIVA1950 on May 20, 2021
Bob Brown, PhD CSO, EVP of R&D, Dicerna small molecule vs capacity of nanoparticles to deliver therapeutics quantity for more molecule is much larger CNS delivery most difficult
Jeannie Lee, MD, PhD Molecular Biologist, MGH Prof Genetics, HMS 200 disease X chromosome unlock for neurological genetic diseases: Rett Syndrome, autism spectrum disorders female model vs male mice model restore own protein
Suneet Varma Global President of Rare Disease, Pfizer review of protocols and CGT for Hemophilia Pfizer: You can’t buy Time With MIT Pfizer is developing a model for Hemophilia CGT treatment
Gallia Levy, MD, PhD CMO, Spark Therapeutics Hemophilia CGT is the highest potential for Global access logistics in underdev countries working with NGOs practicality of the Tx Roche reached 120 Counties great to be part of the Roche
Theresa Heggie CEO, Freeline Therapeutics Safety concerns, high burden of treatment CGT has record of safety and risk/benefit adoption of Tx functional cure CGT is potent Tx relative small quantity of protein needs be delivered
Suneet Varma Global President of Rare Disease, Pfizer Gene therapy at Pfizer small, large molecule and CGT – spectrum of choice allowing Hemophilia patients to marry 1/3 internal 1/3 partnership 1/3 acquisitions review of protocols
Ron Renaud CEO, Translate Bio What strain of Flu vaccine will come back in the future when people do not use masks. AAV vectors small transcript size fit reach cytoplasm more development coming
Melissa Moore Chief Scientific Officer, Moderna Many years of mRNA pivoting for new diseases, DARPA, nucleic Acids global deployment of a manufacturing unit on site where the need arise Elan Musk funds new directions at Moderna
Lindsey Baden, MD Director, Clinical Research, Division of Infectious Diseases, BWH Associate Professor, HMS In vivo delivery process regulatory for new opportunities for same platform new indication using multi valence vaccines
Melissa Moore Chief Scientific Officer, Moderna Many years of mRNA pivoting for new diseases, DARPA, nucleic Acids global deployment of a manufacturing unit on site where the need arise Elan Musk funds new directions at Moderna
Ron Renaud CEO, Translate Bio 1.6 Billion doses produced rare disease monogenic correct mRNA like CF multiple mutation infection disease and oncology applications
Melissa Moore CSO, Moderna mRNA vaccine 98% efficacy for Pfizer and Moderna more then 10 years 2015 mRNA was ready (ZIKA, RSV), as the proteine is identify manufacturing temp less of downside in the future ability to store at Ref
Richard Wang, PhD CEO, Fosun Kite Biotechnology Co. Ltd Possibilities to be creative and capitalize the new technologies for new drug Support of the ecosystem by funding new companies Autologous in patients differences cost challenge
Tian Xu, PhD Vice President, Westlake University ICH Chinese FDA -r regulation similar to the US Difference is the population recruitment, in China patients are active participants Dev of transposome non-viral methods, price
Alvin Luk, PhD CEO, Neuropath Therapeutics Monogenic rare disease with clear genomic target Increase of 30% in patient enrollment Regulatory reform approval is 60 days no delay
We’re excited to attend this week’s #WMIF2021 to talk all things cell and genetic therapies. Join our Chief of VCGT Bastiano Sanna tomorrow at 9:50am EDT for a discussion on the promise of cell therapies for type 1 diabetes. Register now! https://bit.ly/3otngYd
John Fish, Board Chair, Brigham Health, Chairman & CEO, Suffolk on the Novartis Main Stage to introduce the “Collaboration is Key: GCT R&D of the Future” fireside chat with Jay Bradner, MD, President, NIBR
Thomas VanCott, PhD, Chief Technology & Strategy Officer, Catalent Cell & Gene Therapy, says that time, improvements and scaling up in manufacturing will lead to allogeneic cell therapies. He recognizes that upfront costs are high, but will decrease in the long term #WMIF2021
Today Lisa Michaels, Editas CMO, will participate in the panel “Gene Editing – Achieving Therapeutic Mainstream” at the World Medical Innovation Forum #WMIF2021 in Boston. For those attending, be sure to tune in!
, views GCT as the ultimate precision medicine. AI, machine learning, and data science comprise one of the big disruptive forces that will address misdiagnosis, smooth out workflow, reduce cost and enhance recovery. #WMIF2021
CSO Laura Sepp-Lorenzino, PhD, in our “GCT Delivery | Perfecting the Technology” panel this afternoon! #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Intellia Therapeutics
@intelliatweets
· 6h
Today, Intellia CSO, @LauraSeppLore will be participating in the World Medical Innovation Forum’s panel on Gene and Cell Therapy Delivery, Perfecting the Technology. #WMIF2021 @MGBInnovation. Click here to learn more: https://worldmedicalinnovation.org
is back with us this afternoon sharing a First Look at “Versatile Polymer-Based Nanocarriers for Targeted Therapy and Immunomodulation.” #WMIF2021#GCT#geneandcelltherapy
VP of Clinical Development, Manasi Jaiman, during the “Diabetes | Grand Challenge” panel today. #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
ViaCyte
@ViaCyte
· 8h
Join us at #WMIF2021 today! Our own Manasi Jaiman, VP, Clinical Development, will participate in the Diabetes: Grand Challenge panel to discuss regenerative medicine approaches for T1D utilizing stem-cell derived islet cell replacement therapy.
, discusses how GCT is in the embryonic phase. Bayer is ready to treat its first Parkinson’s patient, and is exploring therapeutic technologies to treat diseases with single gene defects #WMIF2021
Today Lisa Michaels, Editas CMO, will participate in the panel “Gene Editing – Achieving Therapeutic Mainstream” at the World Medical Innovation Forum #WMIF2021 in Boston. For those attending, be sure to tune in! @MassGenBrigham https://bit.ly/3hx1XTV #geneediting #biotechnology
to discuss the current state of CAR-T and its future prospects. These conversations are important for the development of potential #CART therapies. #WMIF2021
‘s #WMIF2021 — Thanks to the MGB team for facilitating a great discussion!
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· 7h
Overview of our #mRNA Vaccines panel today, highlighting improved manufacturing capabilities & potential for #personalizedmedicine. Thank you to Lindsey Baden @bwh_id & panelists Kate Bingham, SV Health Investors, Melissa Moore @moderna_tx and Ron Renaud @TranslateBio #WMIF2021
investigators are ready to give you an early preview of their #GCT research in the First Look sessions at #WMIF2021. Exciting opportunities to dramatically change how disease is treated!
Our “Rare and Ultra Rare Diseases | GCT Breaks Through” panelists on the role of family organizations & patient advocacy groups in moving us forward on the regulatory side – “It’s absolutely essential” #WMIF2021
Congratulations! Lydia Lynch PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives an Innovation Discovery Grant for “Generating Superior ‘Killers’ for Adoptive Cell Therapy in Cancer” at #WMIF2021.
Looking forward to the Diabetes Grand Challenge and how #GCT could help millions of people. Read about what facing this disease and how cell therapies could lessen the burden from Manasi Jaiman, MD, VP, Clinical Development
Today is Day 2 of the World Medical Innovation Forum. Which panel you are most excited to see today? Reply and let us know! #WMIF2021 https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/agenda/
Cell and gene therapies hold promising potential for rare disease, blood cancers, and viral diseases. Register for #WMIF21 to hear about our work to pioneer cutting-edge science across our pipeline to advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives: https://on.pfizer.com/3f3CGzj
Congratulations! Peter Sage PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives an Innovation Discovery Grant for “Novel Strategies to Enhance Tfr Treatment of Autoimmunity” at #WMIF2021
Congratulations! Yulia Grishchuk PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, receives an Innovation Discovery Grant for “AAV-Based Gene Replacement Therapy Improves Targeting and Clinical Outcomes in a Childhood CNS Disorder” at #WMIF2021
Congratulations! Jinjun Shi, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, receives an Innovation Discovery Grant for “Long-Lasting mRNA Therapy for Genetic Disorders” at #WMIF2021
Final thoughts from “Benign Blood Disorders” panelists on academic/industry collaboration — the pace of #innovation is incredibly exciting, and I think it will be even faster together. #WMIF2021
Congratulations! Benjamin Kleinstiver PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, receives an Innovation Discovery Grant for “Towards a Permanent Genetic Cure for Spinal Muscular Atrophy” at #WMIF2021
FDA’s Peter Marks, at #WMIF2021, notes # of INDs for gene therapies was flat in 2020 vs. 2019. But the fact IND submissions didn’t decline, he said, is a sign of how strong the gene therapy field is, given pandemic’s disruption.
Melissa Moore/Moderna- one advantage of mRNA is ability to do multivalent vaccines she said. She said they are already testing multivalent covid vaccines in clinical trials & testing flu vaccines. #wmif2021
Kate Bingham/SV Health & former head of UK Vaccine Taskforce: they haven’t seen escape variants in UK yet she said. mRNA is quickest platform to address escape variants probably. Needle delivery w/ supply cold chain has been the challenge. Deploying 3 vaccines in UK #WMIF2021
, notes that the science behind gene cell therapies is converging with technological development. How therapies are brought to market is still the question, as there is no roadmap when reimagining medicine #WMIF2021
Melissa Moore/Moderna: clear advantage of mRNA vaccine is how quickly we can manufacture the vaccines. Downsides- need 2store at low temperatures & limited shelflife 4storage in refrigerator. I know that both companies [Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech] r working 2change this #wmif2021
We’re committed to addressing the unmet needs of people living with rare genetic diseases. Our SVP, External Innovation and Strategic Alliances, Leah Bloom, discusses the promise #genetherapy holds for communities impacted by rare diseases during #WMIF2021.
Speed of vaccination is critical to prevent escape variants says Kate Bingham, SV Health Investors, UK, at #WMIF2021, exploring what’s next for the technology w panel led by Lindsey Baden MD,
for sharing this screen capture of the impressive lineup of #GCT “Disruptive Dozen” panelists at #WMIF2021
Quote Tweet
Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950
· May 21
@MGBInnovation #WMIF Best Global event on Gene Cell Therapy covered in real time @AVIVA1950 @pharma_BI Disruptive Dozen technologies four are based on Gene Editing, AAV and non viral vector for drug delivery are included
PART 1: ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED by @AVIVA1950 on May 19, 2021
Thomas VanCott, PhD Global Head of Product Dev, Gene & Cell Therapy, Catalent 2/3 autologous 1/3 allogeneic CAR-T high doses scale up is not done today logistics issues centralized vs decentralized allogeneic are health donors
Ropa Pike, Director, Enterprise Science & Partnerships, Thermo FIsher Scientific Centralized biopharma industry is moving to decentralized models site specific license
Rahul Singhvi, ScD CEO and Co-Founder, National Resilience, Inc. Investment company in platforms to be shared by start ups in CGT. Production cost of allogeneic: cost of quality 30% reagents 30% cell 30% Test is very expensive
Oladapo Yeku, MD, PhD Clinical Assistant in Medicine, MGH Outstanding moderator and most gifted panel on solid tumor success window of opportunities studies
Knut Niss, PhD CTO, Mustang Bio tumor hot start in 12 month clinical trial solid tumors Combination therapy will be an experimental treatment long journey checkpoint inhibitors to be used in combination maintenance
Barbra Sasu, PhD CSO, Allogene T cell response at prostate cancer tumor specific cytokine tumor specific signals move from solid to metastatic cell type for easier infiltration
Jennifer Brogdon Executive Director, Head of Cell Therapy Research, Exploratory Immuno-Oncology, NIBR 2017 CAR-T first approval M&A and research collaborations TCR tumor specific antigens avoid tissue toxicity
Jay Short, PhD Chairman, CEO, Cofounder, BioAlta, Inc. Tumor type is not enough for R&D therapeutics other organs are involved in periphery difficult to penetrate solid tumors biologics activated in the tumor only, positive changes
Stefan Hendriks Global Head, Cell & Gene, Novartis Confirmation the effectiveness of CAR-T therapies, 1 year response to 5 years 26 months Patient not responding a lot to learn Patient after 8 months of chemo can be helped by CAR-T
Jeffrey Infante, MD , Oncology, Janssen R&D Direct effect with intra-tumor single injection with right payload Platform approach Prime with 1 and Boost with 2 – not yet experimented with Do not have the data at trial
Nino Chiocca, MD, PhD Neurosurgeon-in-Chief BWH, HMS Oncolytic therapy DID NOT WORK Pancreatic Cancer and Glioblastoma Intra-tumoral heterogeniety hinders success Oncolytic VIRUSES – “coldness” GADD-34 20,000 GBM 40,000 pancreatic
Loic Vincent, PhD Head of Oncology Drug Discovery Unit, Takeda Classification of Patients by prospective response type id UNKNOWN yet, population of patients require stratification
Loic Vincent, PhD Head of Oncology Drug Discovery Unit, Takeda R&D in collaboration with Academic Vaccine platform to explore different payload IV administration may not bring sufficient concentration to the tumor is administer IV
Nino Chiocca, MD, PhD Neurosurgeon-in-Chief and Chairman, Neurosurgery, BWH Harvey W. Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Challenges of manufacturing at Amgen what are they?
David Reese, MD Executive Vice President, R&D , Amgen Inter lesion injection of agent vs systemic therapeutics cold tumors immune resistant render them immune susptible Oncolytic virus is a Mono therapy addressing the unknown
David Reese, MD Executive Vice President, Research and Development, Amgen Inter lesion injection of agent vs systemic therapeutics cold tumors immune resistant render them immune suseptible Oncolytic virus is a Mono therapy
Robert Coffin, PhD Chief R&D Officer, Replimune 2002 in UK promise in oncolytic therapy GNCSF Phase III melanoma 2015 M&A with Amgen oncolytic therapy remains non effecting on immune response data is key for commercialization
Ann Silk, MD Physician, Dana Farber-Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, HMS Which person gets oncolytics virus if patient has immune supression due to other indications Safety of oncolytic virus greater than Systemic treatment
Marianne De Backer/Bayer on post M&A & company culture: They acquired AskBio & thought about how to preserve their freedom so they could continue to operate. Bayer decided to keep them independent & so they can operate at arm’s length. #wmif2021
Merit Cudkowicz, MD Chief of Neurology, MGH ALS – Man 1in 300, Women 1 in 400, next decade increase 7% 10% ALS is heredity 160 pharma in ALS space diagnosis is late 1/3 of people are not diagnosed active community for clinical trials @pharma_BI@AVIVA1950
Adam Koppel, MD, PhD Managing Director, Bain Capital Life Sciences What acquirers are looking for?? What is the next generation vs what is real where is the industry going?
Debby Baron, Worldwide Business Development, Pfizer Scalability and manufacturing regulatory conversations, clinical programs safety in parallel to planning getting drug to patients
Marianne De Backer, PhD Head of Strategy, BD & Licensing, Bayer Absolute Leadership: Gene editing, gene therapy, via acquisition and alliances Operating model of the acquired company discussed acquired continue independence
Sean Nolan Board Chairman, Encoded Therapeutics & Affinia Executive Chairman Jaguar Gene Therapy Istari Oncology As acquiree multiple M&A acquirer looks at integration and cultures companies Traditional integration vs acquisition
Debby Baron, Worldwide Business Development, Pfizer CGT is an important area Pfizer is active looking for innovators, advancing forward programs of innovation with the experience Pfizer has internally
Marianne De Backer, PhD Head of Strategy, Business Development & Licensing, and Member of the Executive Committee, Bayer Absolute Leadership in Gene editing, gene therapy, via acquisition and strategic alliance
Manny Simons, PhD CEO, Akouos Biology across species nerve ending in the cochlea engineer out of the caspid, lowest dose possible, get desired effect by vector use, 2022 new milestones
Mathew Pletcher, PhD SVP, Head of Gene Therapy Research and Technical Operations, Astellas Continue to explore large animal guinea pig not the mice, not primates (ethical issues) for understanding immunogenicity and immune response
Mathew Pletcher, PhD SVP, Head of Gene Therapy Research and Technical Operations, Astellas Work with diseases poorly understood, collaborations needs example of existing: DMD is a great example explain dystrophin share placedo data
Rick Modi CEO, Affinia Therapeutics Speed R&D Speed better gene construct get to clinic with better design vs ASAP Data sharing clinical experience patients selection, vector selection, mitigation, patient type specific
Dave Lennon, PhD President, Novartis Gene Therapies big pharma therapeutics not one drug across Tx areas: cell, gene iodine therapy collective learning infrastructure development Acquisitions growth # applications for scaling
Rick Modi CEO, Affinia Therapeutics Copy, paste EDIT from product A to B novel vectors variant of vector coder optimization choice of indication is critical exploration on larger populations Speed to R&D to better gene construct get
Louise Rodino-Klapac, PhD EVP, Chief Scientific Officer, Sarepta Therapeutics AV based platform 15 years in development 1 disease indication vs more than one indication stereotype, analytics as hurdle 1st was 10 years 2nd was 3 years
Katherine High, MD President, Therapeutics, AskBio Three drugs approved in Europe in the CGT Regulatory Infrastructure CGT drug approval – as new class of therapeutics Participants investigators, regulators, patients i.e., MDM
Peter Marks, MD, PhD Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA Immune modulators Immunotherapy Genome editing can make use of viral vectors future technologies nanoparticles and liposome encapsulation 50% more staff
Peter Marks, MD, PhD Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA Recover Work load for the pandemic Gene Therapies IND application remained flat Rare diseases urgency remains Guidance T-Cell therapy vs Regulation
Peter Marks, MD, PhD Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA June 2020 belief that vaccine challenge manufacture scaling up FDA did not predicted the efficacy of mRNA vaccine vs other approaches expected to work
Jim Holland CEO, http://Backcountry.com Parkinson patient Constraints by regulatory on participation in clinical trial wish to take Information dissemination is critical
Patricia Musolino, MD, PhD Co-Director Pediatric Stroke and Cerebrovascular Program What is the Power of One – the impact that a patient can have on their own destiny connecting with other participants in same trial can be beneficial
Barbara Lavery Chief Program Officer, ACGT Foundation Patient has the knowledge of the symptoms and recording all input needed for diagnosis by multiple clinicians Early application for CGT
Jack Hogan Patient, MEE Constraints by regulatory on participation in #clinicaltrials advance stage is approved participation Patients to determine the level of #risk they wish to take
Barbara Lavery Chief Program Officer, ACGT Foundation Advocacy agency beginning of work Global Genes educational content and out reach to access the information
Dave Lennon, PhD President, Novartis Gene Therapies Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards manufacturing payments over time payers
Dave Lennon, PhD President, Novartis Gene Therapies Promise of CGT realized, what part? #FDA role and interaction in CGT #Manufacturing aspects which is critical
Julian Harris, MD Partner, Deerfield Hope that CGT emerging, how therapies work, #neuro, #muscular, #ocular, #genetic diseases of #liver and of #heart revolution for the industry 900 #IND application 25 approvals #Economic driver
Luk Vandenberghe, PhD Grousbeck Family Chair, Gene Therapy, MEE Associate Professor, Ophthalmology, HMS #Pharmacology#Gene-Drug, Interface academic centers and industry many CGT drugs emerged in Academic center
Ravi Thadhani, MD CAO, Mass General Brigham Professor, Medicine and Faculty Dean, HMS Role of #academia special to spear head the #Polygenic#therapy – multiple #genes involved, #plug-play #delivery
The field of #genetherapy is growing. New therapies will come to market for rare and chronic diseases, and new therapies will drive scientific innovation and economic growth. #WMIF2021 (2/6)
In our First Look sessions clinicians/researchers from Harvard-affiliated hospitals highlight the potential of their research & new technologies. Next we’ll hear from Khalid Shah PhD, Vice Chair of Research
Tomorrow is Day 1 of #WMIF2021! Hear from the world-renowned CEOs, investors, clinicians and scientists bringing game-changing discoveries and insights to #GCT. Register to attend today: https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/register/
‘s World Medical Innovation Forum this week, discussing the future of #genetherapy. Here are our five predictions for where the industry is headed. #WMIF2021 (1/6)
explains at #WMIF2021 why the first FDA-approved gene therapy for inherited disease was for an inherited retinal degeneration, and what lessons have been learned from the success of that treatment.
Together with @BayerPharma, we are pleased to be part of #WMIF2021, organized by @MassGenBrigham. This year’s event focuses on the transformative potential of #cellandgene therapy (#GCT).
“We are more committed to our mission than ever before – laser-focused on realizing the transformative potential of #genetherapy for patients.” – Dave Lennon, President, during #WMIF2021
Patricia Musolino, MD PhD, Co-Director Pediatric Stroke and Cerebrovascular Program at MGH, discusses her work developing #genetherapy treatments for cerebral genetic vasculopathies #GCT #geneandcelltherapy #WMIF2021
chair Dr. Joan Miller moderates a panel on AAV gene therapy featuring director of Inherited Retinal Disorders Service and Ocular Genomics Institute, Dr. Eric Pierce.
Quote Tweet
Mass General Brigham Innovation
@MGBInnovation
· 23h
Our “AAV Success Studies | Retinal Dystrophy | Spinal Muscular Atrophy” panelists have taken the stage. #WMIF2021 @MassEyeAndEar @REGENXBIO @spark_tx @NovartisGene
We are proud sponsors of the Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum (#WMIF2021). This year’s program will focus on the impact of gene and cell therapy as a way to potentially advance quality patient care, reduce cost and improve outcomes. Learn more:
Jonathan Kraft introducing #wmif2021 session with Pfizer CSO & president of R&D Mikael Dolsten and MGH oncologist & chair of MGH Cancer Center Daniel Haber.
president Dave Lennon & Deerfield partner Julian Harris having a “fireside chat.” Dave/Novartis: sees gene therapy as driver for economy generating need for highly skilled workers Incl manufacturing
Kite Pharma CEO (Gilead subsidiary) Christi Shaw said there are 120 biopharma companies working on CAR-T cell therapy & they are continuing to look for new partnerships. She also mentioned logistical challenges currently getting to Israel & helping patients there. #WMIF2021
FDA’s Dir of Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research Peter Marks interviewed by Vicki Sato- chairwoman of Vir Biotechnology, ex Vertex president & ex Biogen VP Research. Around June ’20, started 2c progress in covid vaccines w/ enough candidates moving forward #WMIF2021 1/n
“Once you work on cell and gene therapy, its really hard to go back and work on anything else” says moderator Marcela Maus, MD PhD in our “CAR-T | Lessons Learned | What’s Next” panel #WMIF2021#GCT#geneandcelltherapy
Ex Merck president R&D Roger Perlmutter is now Eikon Therapeutics CEO & is on #WMIF2021 oncolytic virus in cancer panel w/Amgen EVP R&D David Reese, ex BioVex CTO (T-VEC inventor
, join our leaders for panels and presentations discussing what’s next for #genetherapy and the key trends shaping the industry as it evolves. #WMIF2021https://bit.ly/3eYYls4
Dolsten/Pfizer discussed covid vaccines and real world evidence study in Israel. Was sole provider of vaccines in Israel. 95%-98% efficacy replicated in real world. Well above 90% efficacy in asymptomatic disease. #wmif2021
ICYMI: An illustration depicting the “AAV Delivery” panel discussion about advances in the area of #AAVGeneTherapy delivery. Thank you to the panelists from
Casey Maguire PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology, at the podium to present his work developing improved #genetherapy vectors. #WMIF2021 “First Look: Enhanced Gene Delivery and Immunoevasion of AAV Vectors without Capsid Modification”
Casey Maguire PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology, at the podium to present his work developing improved #genetherapy vectors. #WMIF2021 “First Look: Enhanced Gene Delivery and Immunoevasion of AAV Vectors without Capsid Modification”
Mikael Dolsten, MD PhD, CSO & President, Worldwide Research, Development and Medical @pfizer takes the stage for a Fireside Chat, moderated by @MGHCancerCenter Daniel Haber, MD, PhD. “Pfizer’s Future in Cell and Gene Therapy” #WMIF2021
Dave Lennon/Novartis: manufacturing has been a roadblock for many cell & gene therapy companies. Expects to see more investments earlier. Engineering advances will unlock scale & address bigger & bigger patient populations. Oppty to ID patients early #WMIF2021
Marianne De Backer/Bayer on post M&A & company culture: They acquired AskBio & thought about how to preserve their freedom so they could continue to operate. Bayer decided to keep them independent & so they can operate at arm’s length. #wmif2021
Ken Custer/Eli Lilly-said they’re relatively new in cell & gene therapy. They invested in 1 of Sean Nolan’s (ex AveXis CEO) new companies,Jaguar Gene Therapy. Lilly’s legacy in neuroscience is noted & bought Prevail last yr. Clinical trial w/ Parkinson’s w/GBA1 mutation #wmif2021
, was the first in the U.S. to be approved for FDA gene therapy surgery. In 2018 he underwent therapy to treat retinitis pigmentosa by having a synthetic gene inserted into his retina. With improved eyesight he can now play sports #WMIF2021
The acquisition market in #GCT: looking for breakthroughs for patients, technologies for intractable diseases, manufacturing expertise, pioneering companies with deep experience — all for “the modality of the future”. M&A panel at #WMIF2021
Christi Shaw/Kite Pharma: Only 4 out of 10 patients eligible for CAR-T are being referred for CAR-T cell therapy by oncologists. The other 6 out of 10, referred to palliative care only. Consistency of manufacturing is also very important. #wmif2021 1/n
Marianne De Backer/Bayer on post M&A & company culture: They acquired AskBio & thought about how to preserve their freedom so they could continue to operate. Bayer decided to keep them independent & so they can operate at arm’s length. #wmif2021
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
FrasonFrancis
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22